Airbnb Political Campaign [video]
airbnbnyc.com
airbnbnyc.com
It's also getting more common that people are purchasing real estate for the sole purpose of renting it out through Airbnb. When I stayed in NYC via Airbnb, I never even met the owner of the unit (keys were dropped off at a coffee shop across the street) and it was very obvious that nobody ever lived in the unit.
I also have a problem with the tone of the video - "_I_ should be able to do this because it is a good thing for _me_." What about everyone else that lives in the building? They never signed up to live in a hotel. As a condo owner myself, I don't want random people that haven't been screened getting access to my otherwise secure building. I don't want to have to pay for any damage that they cause and I don't want to deal with any of the association rules that they break (noise regulations, pet regulations, parking, etc). While Airbnb might be great for the people renting out their home, it's a sum negative for everyone else legally living in the building.
This was my thought too. This quote by architect Christopher Alexander from his book A Pattern Language" feels very relevant:
"…face-to-face rental, with the owners occupying the main structure is the one kind of rental relationship that is reasonably healthy. The landlord is actually there, so he is directly concerned with the well-being of the life around him and with the environment, unlike the absentee landlords who own property only for the money which it makes."
In the UK, we have huge numbers of buy-to-let landlords. They are the worst type of abstentee landlord. I see AirBnB operating in the same space.
People like having familiar neighbours, not neighbours who come and go contantly, and who have no commitment, concern or care for their neighbourhood; or for their immediate neighbours. Do these things matter to absentee landlords? For most of them (especially in the UK), absolutely not.
Housing has a social factor that cannot be ignored. In fact, it isn't ignored in countless countries who place restrictions on renting property for the very reasons above.
It is frustrating to see Airbnb attempt to manipulate their way to winning. While we tend to hate people who abuse regulation to stay in power, Airbnb seems to be attempting to do the same from the other side. That they are already attempting this level of manipulation before having the level of power of the hotel lobby should give us some concern about a future in which Airbnb runs the vacation rentals game.
For those who missed it, I've outlined my experience with AirBnB (as a non-host in a building with hosts) last week - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7923849 (top comment)
For anyone defending AirBnB here's a nice list of things to read before you do so:
http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/item/airbnb-san-francisc...
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/1230/Berlin-squee...
http://tomslee.net/2014/05/the-shape-of-airbnbs-business.htm...
http://tomslee.net/2014/06/the-shape-of-airbnbs-business-ii....
The gist of virtually all of the complaints against AirBNB is that it imposes costs on the neighbors.
And of course, it does.
There is a multitude of ways of dealing with that. If you cut the neighbors in on the action, they may take a liking to your side-business. A smart host will do just that.
At the end of the day, the only ones who can't be placated are the ones losing business because of this. The hotels. Well, that's just business.
Wrong! This is very common. Half the listings in Manhattan are for parts of apartments.
Another problem is that even if you report that tenant, if they figure out who reported them, they may take revenge before they're evicted, since eviction proceedings take so long.
I'm not outright calling them scumbags right now, but I sure as heck will be doing a lot more research on the claims they're making about the effects they're having on my community.
If she's in lower Manhattan, I'd bet almost anything her apartment is rent-stabilized (and I think she's been here long enough to even have a rent-controlled apartment, potentially, though she might have missed the cutoff by a few years).
The bulk of the legal debate around Airbnb has nothing to do with rent-regulated apartments; it's the fact that in NYC, short-term subleases are illegal, period. (Most subleases are also violations of the original lease, though that's secondary).
The bulk of the economic debate is around the practical implications. If you're a renter (not owner) in NYC and renting out your apartment on Airbnb, one of two things is happening, economically:
1) You pay sub-market rent due to rent regulations (control or stabilization), and are making money off of this disparity between your rent and market rent. You are pocketing money that, if you were in a non-regulated apartment, would go to your landlord. (And since subletting regulated apartments is illegal, he will evict you and find a tenant to pay full price[0])
2) You are making additional money on a market rent, which essentially means that the rent you are paying is too low (from the perspective of the owner), and it will go up next year.
If I can make $200/week on my apartment (hypothetically) and my landlord knows that, he will simply raise my rent by $800/month when my lease is up for renewal. In either case, money eventually flows towards the property owner, whether this convergence happens immediately or with a slight delay. This has nothing to do with the regulation; it's just the basic economics of rent at play.
[0] The law in NYC is obviously incredibly complicated, but that's the eventual result.
EDIT: Fixed typo: should have been $800/month ($200/week for four weeks).
That said it's cheaper for me to stay in a Sheraton in Times Square than use Airbnb (which I usually use when traveling).