Airbnb Stay Illegal In New York City, Rules Judge
fastcompany.com
fastcompany.com
1. Who wants transients moving about your building? I'm sure most of them are nice, but they are certainly not as invested in exhibiting neighborly behavior as full time residents.
2. If AirBnB became a serious economic force in NYC, it would only make my outrageously expensive city more expensive as apartment rents converged upwards towards hotel rates.
3. If I knew a neighbor was doing very short term sublets via AirBnB, or a similar service, I would definitely report them to the building management company or Police.
4. People need to think carefully about the "sharing economy." Not all applications of this paradigm are a net positive, and despite the hacker ethos not all laws are meant to broken. Many laws that have the effect of protecting entrenched players (hotels in this case), also serve valuable consumer protection functions.
In the case of AirBnB, you want to restrict a system that reduces inefficiencies in the allocation of living space on the base of nebulous fears, giving authority to prosecute victimless crimes to the government?
I disagree.
Another way to look at it: Do you take better care of the car that you own, or the car that you rent?
I think the nature of housing in NYC makes it difficult for AirBnB places to function the same as they do in, say, Asheville NC. Renting a house is one thing, renting an apartment with a shared entrance and more permanent tenants attached to nearly every other wall is different in so many ways.
I am pretty careful.
I'd say the overwhelming majority of AirBnB hosts don't rent out their rooms to just anybody. They vet candidates to make sure they are respectful people with whom they themselves would get along and whom they think are going to be as respectful if not more respectful of their own property. At the end of the day, your long-term neighbors, people you apparently are fond of and trust have chosen to hand over the keys to their apartment to people they have decided to trust based on some criteria of their own choosing. It's perfectly natural to extend my trust with person A to person B, if I know person A trusts person B.
One of my friends is the number one AirBnB/Couchsurfing host AFAIK. Something like 700+ people have stayed with him between both sites over the past few years and I think he has had maybe 1-2 bad experiences, and those experiences did not involve the person being disrespectful of the building, property or neighbors, but just being people of a generally unpleasant attitude.
People treat hotel rooms shitty, but they generally treat an AirBnB rental with respect because they know that that is somebody's home and that someone trusted them with their home. The actual, implied or imagined presence of others does have a positive impact on behavior. Social influence, specifically compliance, most definitely is a factor at play, both in terms of the hosts expectations of the guest and the fact that each and every AirBnB guest has a reputation to upkeep in order to maintain good standing on the site.
The question he asks is: We're feeding on this excess supply until it's all gone--then what? For instance, regarding your point (2), to live in NYC will it become necessary for everyone to become a part-time landlord to make rent as rents escalate?
AirBNB increases the supply of housing. It does nothing to demand. Prices should drop. I imagine it would either have no perceptible effect on rents, or in an extreme scenario would cause hotels to close and convert to apartments which would lower rents.
Finally, this is a common misconception, rents for hotels are identical to rents for residential housing. Otherwise why wouldn't ever landlord switch to running a hotel? It costs more per night to stay at one because (a) you're paying for excessive housekeeping and (b) you're paying for the high vacancy in downtimes caused by ultra-high turnover in tenants. Basically, a high proportion of the hotel fee is paying for actual services, not the building's rent.
If you look at a $169/night AirBNB rate, that translates into about $5000/month if it's fully rented. Even at a 90% you are making more money than a 12-month lease. This will encourage landlords to not lease vacant apartments, thus decreasing supply and raising prices. I know of building owners that have been experimenting with AirBNB as it's more profitable for them.
On top of that, there is an administrative overhead to normal renting of a flat. And, to be top-ranked, you have to be extra-nice to maintain an excellent rating on the site, too. Not so sure that beats the comforts renting with well-defined contracts...
I think AirBnB is for you or your family & friends if you want to use that apartment yourself at times, too, or if you are sharing a room in your flat to pay the mortgage, and similar such cases. It probably does not beat renting, otherwise I assume this service would have gone even more "viral" long ago...
That's your error, see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
Temporary and long-term housing should be fungible. I've learned from other commenters that maybe they're not due to the NYC regulatory structure. If so then that's creating horrible distortions, and maybe that's also the reason why AirBNB is so popular.
The cheapest, sleeziest roadside motel I have ever seen anywhere in the country was $30 / night. For a month that would be $900 with no discount, but I have a hard time imagining that an apartment comparable to that motel was even $300.
1. It is impossible to stop transients from entering your building. Delivery guys, doors left open, friends coming over, etc. You cannot possibly control this and AirBNB at least vets the people coming to stay.
2. I don't understand this, it's already pervasive in NYC and rent has not moved. Why do you think all apartment units in the city will become hotel rooms?
I wouldn't mind new people in the apartment next to mine. There are already plenty of laws to keep them from making too much noise. In fact, most tourists are probably better behaved than residents.
> 2. If AirBnB became a serious economic force in NYC, it would only make my outrageously expensive city more expensive as apartment rents converged upwards towards hotel rates.
Or hotels (with lower demand) will convert into residential housing, lowering rents and the price of living. I don't think its easy to say which way it would go.
It should lead "AirBnB scares me..." not "AirBnB is definitely [anything -- good, bad, indifferent]". Until there are data and real experiences, you don't really know.
Just do ridiculous rent control on more apartments. Doesn't everyone squat in rent-controlled apartments anyway? Remove the rent control and you'll see the real price.
She ended up biting the bullet and hiring an apartment hunter. All of a sudden a ton of apartments had rooms available, including some of the apartments who told her they were full or didn't let her in the lobby.
That told me there is a ton of politics involved in the leasing market in NYC. It doesn't surprise me at all they don't like things like Airbnb.
Which is what AirBnB is essentially?
Is there room for compromise? Maybe. On general principle, I wouldn't mind my neighbor renting his house for a few weeks while he's on vacation. But, if the renter isn't a good guest (noisy). Or, instead of one renter for the duration, it's a new guest each night, I probably have a problem. Until AirBnB can convince me nothing like that will happen, I'd just as soon keep the rules as they are.
That listing's claiming to be the only free-standing mansion - which sounds a bit arbitrary to me.
The second on the other hand... governments all regulate what you can do on your property. Who wants a night club upstairs?
Just because it's to expensive to "own" a decent house in this part of the world I have to dance when someone shouts?
I understand those concerns but I think people who think AirBnB should be illegal because of that are forgetting something. People benefit from being tolerant to each other.
Everybody is sometimes doing something that is not pleasant to others. If you are trying to be ok with that unless they are doing something really damaging, they might cut you some slack when you need it - and you _are_ going to need it and when you do, you might _really_ need it. Social pressure is usually enough and people mostly avoid doing things unpleasant to others unless it's somehow justified or considered necessary.
Otherwise you are going to live in an over-regulated society where everything that can be unpleasant to somebody is illegal, you need a permit for simplest things like throwing your kid a birthday party and everybody is worse off.
One person commented that allowing a certain number of nights per year may be reasonable, and I'd tend to agree. It's a start, at least.
I'm not against my neighbor renting his place out for a month while he travels in Europe, and help pay for his vacation. That's the sort of neighborly thing I'm willing to be on board for.
But this, primarily, isn't the contentious issue. The contentious issue is when someone buys an apartment and rents it out full-time as a business venture. Me helping out his business venture by overlooking basic concerns isn't neighborly, it's being a pushover while he laughs his way to the bank.
> "Otherwise you are going to live in an over-regulated society where everything that can be unpleasant to somebody is illegal"
I agree. And the best way to prevent this over-regulation is to reign in bad actors without having to invoke the law. This is to say, AirBnb needs to go back to its roots as "I'm away from my apartment, who wants it" and not "I have 5 properties around the city".
Unless they're in your apartment building on a one night rental. Then, you'll never see them again and they have zero incentive to stay on your good side.
Lets say that tolerance is some kind of a deal with society - lets all try to be tolerant and we will all benefit - we all have to do our part and if we do we build something together and we are more likely that others will tolerate our annoying habits (or sexual orientation or religion or whatever).
Also you could say that this specific ' AirBnB tolerance deal' could be more like please tolerate my guests because I need their money right now and I will tolerate your [something annoying that you certainly do].
People are nice to people they're going to see again and generally indifferent/inconsiderate towards people they won't see. That goes double for new york.
Accepting that people have a need to sublet avoiding the cost of a empty room is combined with the community's need not to have weirdo's. Despite being in the center of London, it is like a small village.
What hasn't been included so far is the need for a airbnb host to include his community needs which is presumably where the law is coming from.
I am also curious about the immediate steps AirBnB is taking to address this, not the long term lobbying effort mentioned at the end of the article. For example, will AirBnB disallow NYC listings under 29 days until this is resolved? Or will they let people roll the dice with disclaimers that such rentals may violate local law and result court assessed fines.
As naive as this may sound, especially for a company that is likely already valued over $1 billion, this is a golden opportunity for AirBnB to gain unparallelled media and bolster main stream support.
As naive as this may sound, especially for a company that
is likely already valued over $1 billion, this is a
golden opportunity for AirBnB to gain unparallelled media
and bolster main stream support.
Coincidentally, your use of libertarian talking point caught me off guard, not that I think it is wrong, but I would have thought "conservative" talking points would be more on point. That is conservatives would generally take the approach that individuals have the freedom to contract especially for their own assets and the ever increasing size and reach of government is intruding on our economic ability and freedom to contract.
Back to your point the situation is what it is for AirBnB in NYC, some will certainly see adversity but others will see opportunity.
The shoe just doesn't fit here.
Oh well. At least San Francisco is still OK.
The real issue in NYC is squatting. Remember, it takes almost 8 months to go through housing court to get someone evicted in this city. A subtenant could overstay their stay and there's not much you could do about it other than go through this process. A workaround may be to not have any written sublease agreement, get paid in cash only, and call the subtenant a guest.
[0] http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/attygenguide.html#1...
The thing that made us use airbnb was two folds: Having a kitchen was important to us (quick breakfast eating whatever we want) and also the feeling of "living in the Big Apple".
Second part would have been impossible with hotels. Sad really.
As for some rants about AirBnber's "not being as invested in exhibiting neighborly behavior".
The same could be said about other cultures moving in your neighborhood.
You mean like people renting an apartment only to find out the rest of the place is being used as a hotel?
I was going to visit for a few months at my roommate's insistence. According to this, it's legal as long as I rent for at least a month, but I'm becoming less and less inclined to visit at all.
I get AirBnB as a service, I really do, but it isn't win-win all around for everyone involved, specifically in big cities where real estate is a precious commodity. Neighbors lose by having strangers in their buildings, renters lose out on available space, airbnb customers lose out on protection of the law (though they have the protection of the company, but the two are not equivalent).
Not only have I seen it in my building, but I've seen it in other friend's buildings, in condos that they've bought (I rent). It's a shitty situation for them having strangers consistently churning through the property. Nothing bad has happened yet, but would you want that whole awkward scenario happening on your front step?
No, but the fact that it's illegal to rent out a building I own for a few weeks while I'm on vacation is another paper cut among the many I have already received when researching NY and NYC government. This wouldn't affect me directly (as I've said, living there was ruled out), but I don't approve. It does, therefore, influence my inclination to visit. If this were the only issue, it wouldn't be a deal breaker. I'd just declare it as unfortunate and visit for longer than 29 days to avoid legal issues.
>Neighbors lose by having strangers in their buildings
I agree with this, but this sounds like a problem to be handled by the owner of the establishment, not a problem to be handled by government.
>renters lose out on available space
Only if those renters are offering places for short term visits anyway. I have no idea whether that's a common scenario, but leasers are hardly missing out because I'm renting out an extra room.
>would you want that whole awkward scenario happening on your front step?
I probably wouldn't, but I still don't consider it to be the government's job to ensure that it isn't happening.
Even hard core libertarian recognize one function of government it to enforce contracts. Without the government stepping in, what do you suggest? Have Boris from Brighton Beach enforce the contract?
Some of my favourite things are illegal and I will lobby to get the laws in those areas changed where I don't think that the potential negative impact on society is too great.
Outcomes are important, not just principles.
Another question you should be asking yourself is: who stands to profit financially from this decision? That will almost invariably lead you to the reason why the decision was made.
It's not just you though. If the owner of the room has decided that it's more profitable to just use the room as a hotel room rather than leasing (which is very possible in many situations) then the room is effectively off the market.
But they win on price and search time (which is equivalent to money)?
In my experience this usually takes a day or two.
I can find and book a reasonably priced (i.e., none too luxurious) hotel room in NYC in about 15 minutes, in comparison.
AirBnb's system is relatively hassle-free, but time savings against Kayak/Expedia/Hipmunk? Not a chance.
Believe me, I have objections to some of the government policies here, and I'm looking forward to getting some new blood in the mayor's office, but refusing to visit a city because of unstated political objections (though AirBnB bans are somehow part of it) strikes me as capricious at best.
http://www.nydailynews.com/privacy-overrated-article-1.13286...
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/coder-charged-for-g...
Mostly these sorts of things. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of even temporary residence in NY or NYC. It's a shame too, because I really liked the idea of a few places in NY state.
Spoken like a true new yorker -- you have proven your residency.
On the other hand, the property(=building) owner (both in rental and bostadsrätt/semi-owned apartments) can require a valid reason for renting out (e.g. travel) and limit the maximum time.
[1] http://www.konsumentverket.se/Nyheter/Nyhetsarkiv/Nyhetsarki... (in Swedish)
These kinds of conservative (status-quo preserving) laws are usually exactly that, even if there is some social or humanitarian justification made for their existence.
Not to imply in any way that human trafficking is not a significant problem that deserves our attention, but not as a justification for any laws around AirB&B.
My point is that cracking down on human trafficking does not benefit established interests, while cracking down on AirBnB does, even though there is clearly great harm to those who are enslaved as sex workers and no harm to those who decide to save money on a hotel by staying in an AirBnB room.