Slashdot Mirror
New York Senate Passes Bill That Bans Short-Term Apartment Listings On Airbnb (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The New York Senate passed a bill on Friday that makes it illegal to advertise entire unoccupied apartments for short-term rentals on Airbnb. The bill is headed to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's desk for him to either veto or sign into law. The Verge reports: "The bill prohibits online apartment listings that last under 30 days and run up against the city's multiple dwelling law, which is designed to stop apartment buyers from renting out the entire space and basically turning their units into Airbnb hotels. First-time offenders would be fined $1,000, but a third infraction would be much costlier at $7,500. 'Let's be clear: this is a bad proposal that will make it harder for thousands of New Yorkers to pay the bills,' an Airbnb spokesperson told Tech Crunch. 'Dozens of governments around the world have demonstrated that there is a sensible way to regulate home sharing and we hope New York will follow their lead and protect the middle class.'" One of the bill's sponsors, State Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, disagrees and claims that it targets "people or companies with multiple listings. There are so many units held by commercial operators, not individual tenants. They are bad actors who horde multiple units, driving up the cost of housing around them and across the city." She went on to say, "You should know who your neighbor is and what happens when people rent out their apartments on Airbnb is you get strangers," said told the New York Post. "Every night there could be a different person sleeping in the next apartment and it shatters that sense of community in the building. It also can be dangerous."
Be fearful! There might be strangers sleeping somewhere in a property near you.
I bet the hotels are lobbying for this. Airbnb is one thing that is pushing the cost of visiting New York down.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Come on. You don't REALLY want to know your neighbors do you? Might as well move into a trailer in the woods, because you will never find cool neighbors.
If the law only targets apartments, and leaves owners of detached houses free to do what they want, isn't this creating a two-tier system favouring the already rich?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Freedom. What a quaint notion.
:T:R:A:N:S:
Rudy Giuliani
and so on
They are all shills of the establishment. Run them through running "THE" city in the USA and then try to pass them as president. They are so caustic that there is no way that any other American would vote for them, but they sure got enough "votes" from the cats and dogs in the boroughs.
I've just arrived at an AirBnb apartment for a 2 week stay. When booking the place I was warned not to mention that I was in an AirBnb place as the locals aren't too happy with it. So I have been thinking about such apartments this week, and it seems to be that the hotels are missing out on an opportunity for renting out complete apartments. I generally rent a complete apartment and end up paying less that a hotel in the same area and being 2 or 3 notches of luxury above the hotel and don't have to worry about strangers wandering in every day to clean the place and poke around my belongings. Yeah I know about long stay hotels, but they are sad little things in comparison and don;t give me the same feel as staying in a furnished apartment for an extended stay,
On the other hand I have read all the sorry stories about AirBnb rentals where people have run everything from prostitution rings to wild parties from them. So I can see the benefit of local regulation.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
c'mon, man, this is New York City
In some towns, the issue is payment of local hotel taxes or the neighborhood impact of short-term renters coming and going. These considerations don't apply in a high-tax city with jammed traffic and all high-rise apartments where union rules already make building new apartments expensive. Just another example of protectionism for the already rich.
We're talking about a place where if you drive to the airport and drop off your wife at the curb, the taxicab police arrest you for cutting into their business:
https://www.dnainfo.com/new-yo...
Renting an unoccupied appartment is not sharing.
Your improper usage of "horde" instead of "hoard" brings a picture of a host of leather clad cheap apartments wielding worn weapons, descending upon innocent middle class neighborhoods.
Like the Uber service, this is a way to circumvent legacy fees to the municipality.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
oh why is this on Slashdot?
The excuse is BS. I live in an apartment where my neighbor frequently invites in strange people at all hours of the day and night. I've had a number of truly bizarre neighbors, lived next to places with frequent domestic disputes, and generally awful neighbors. This presumes that landlords actually do some vetting of their tenants, but that's frequently not the case. Often, they're just concerned about getting the rent checks each month.
Do we really need a law to protect this?
Vancouver (and the lower mainland in general), has a similar problem that i assume new york does. Air BNB depletes possible rental stock. I am not sure low the new york vacancy rate is, but mostly due to foreign capital in-fluxing into the real estate market here, our vacancy rate is 0.3% (probably less now, things are only getting worse).
That said, I stay in airbnb pretty much every vacation i go on with my family as what you can get for the price blows hotels away (if there even are hotels in a destination). It's either that or camping, is really all one can really afford when you pay more than half of your salary into paying rent.
It seems that people are somewhat confused and think its like a "big hotel lobby" or something driving this ban on aribnb. It very well may be that people are trying to protect their cities from ever higher rents. Especially in popular cities where it is impossible for an average family to own a property. The cities become just a resort in this case, instead of what they should be: A place where people can live within an hour or two commute of their workplace affordably.
-
If the lawmakers are really just concerned about companies doing lots of short-term rentals of otherwise unoccupied spaces, then why not target the bill at them specifically (by including a residency requirement) instead of just outlawing all short-term rentals?
The only thing that should be banned is the use of the word "sharing" when it comes to all of this sort of stuff. I'm paying you for a ride, or for a place to sleep. You're not "sharing" it with me! More hipster word-erosion.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This has nothing to do with 'keeping a sense of community' and everything to do with keeping profits in the pockets of big corporations. Politicians once again showing us who's their master (certainly not joe the plumber)
Either regulating commercial use of the space for housing arrangement is meaningful and it should apply to hotels as well as to airbnb. Or that regulation is pointless and it should not apply to either.
But saying "I am not a hotel, I am a which connect with customer using an app" is just BS.
I have the same fundamental issues with uber and airbnb. I like the idea, it allows to reclaim untapped resources. But laws should apply similarly to both "regular" and "uberized" commercial activities.
I doubt that Cuomo will ever veto it. He and his family got a "Hilton Pass" last year.
And offer proportional rebates if out early.
I gave you a +1, but I have to undo it because commenting is more important.
Everything you say is true, and beyond that, the rental market in the first place does this same thing to the general housing market as well.
Investors buy rental properties to generate a passive income (i.e. get money in exchange for nothing), by exploiting an advantaged capital position (i.e. just by having more money to begin with).
That ability to benefit financially from housing you don't need for, you know, actually housing yourself, attracts people with money to spare into buying up more investment housing, increasing the demand and thus market price for housing.
That makes it more difficult for people who need housing to actually live in to buy, forcing them into the only other option left, renting, putting them on the receiving end of their landlords' passive income (i.e. they're the ones paying that money in exchange for nothing).
The real estate investors can then reinvest their rental income into buying more housing to rent out, and the renters, throwing all their money down a rent-hole, are inhibited from ever saving enough to buy their way out of that situation.
In this way, those who already have more profit off those who already have less in an ever accelerating vicious cycle; the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and while for those around the middle (i.e. those who've got around about just what they need for their own use, and neither can profit from their excess nor have to pay for their deficit) it seems like it would be simple to change from one end to the other with some good old fashioned hard work, in reality there is an invisible pressure away from that center, and for those starting far below it, it's an extraordinary effort to even approach that middle point in their entire lifetimes; and getting to far above it comparatively easy, for someone starting out around the middle already. Because being poor costs you money, and being rich makes you money, and rent is the engine that drives that process.
This whole process is much more visible in places where supply is unable to easily scale up with demand, and where demand is already high; people living in Bumfuck Nowhere where no one wants to live, surrounded by unending undeveloped flat lands to the horizon, might not see this problem as more than noise in their market data, but in places where the market is already crunched this process comes to life and makes it infinitely worse than it already would have been.
In the absence of a rental market, anyone who had more housing than they needed for their own use would have only one option to benefit from it: sell it. But nobody's going to be buying it as an investment property anymore if there's no rental market to profit from, so the only people buying would be those who need it for their own use. Which means if you want to sell it, you have to sell it at a price (and on terms) that people who need it can actually afford; that's how a free market works. Your only alternative is to not sell it and get nothing and have wasted everything you spend buying it. So in the absence of a rental market, the purchase price for housing would have to come down; conversely, the presence of a rental market artificially inflates the purchase price of housing.
And this critique doesn't just apply to housing rental, but to any kind of rental, including the rent on money otherwise known as interest; though, again, the supply and demand curves in a given market will make it more or less visible a problem -- nobody's going to complain about the evils of the DVD rental market (if such a thing still existed). But it's the places that really matter, like housing and other big-ticket items, where the problem really manifests, and those are... well, the places where it really matters.
Rent (including interest) is the problem with capitalism; which, n.b., is not a synonym for a free market. Free markets do not intrinsically lead to runaway concentrati
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
It is the duty of the government to protect its citizens against each other.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I have a buddy who lists condos for rent and he has a secondary cell phone, fake name, meets at restaurants.. he has this whole fake persona just to avoid getting fined. Yeah way to run a business.
The real solution is to allow more housing units to be built. Homeowners would never vote for that though.
most of which have been very successful and have long waiting lists.
Wouldn't 'long waiting lists' mean that they're actually unsuccessful, in that they're not meeting demand? Not to mention that "the projects" have a long history of extreme violent crime rates and other criminal activities?
When you look at the actual numbers, public housing is quite efficient and provides good housing for less cost than developers do in the free market.
You mean, quite efficient at continuing the chain of poverty, because an employer sees an address in the project and looks elsewhere? Sad, but true.
Look, I'm not going to say that public housing is all bad, or that it can't be the most fiscally sound decision. What I am going to say is that I believe that the real way to ensure sufficient housing is to allow developers to make money. If they can make money building housing, they'll build housing. I'm not saying that you have to enable them to make a killing, but well, if you're not getting enough housing built despite sky-high prices, maybe there's a reason that can be adjusted?
I don't read AC A human right
The idea of AirBnB is a good one but AirBnB in particular is an unethical company that specifically allows hosts to falsely advertise and get away with it with impunity.
I've stay at 20+ places and one in 5 has lied about their listings. From claiming it's 1 bedroom but actually being a studio. Claiming WiFi but actually stealing it from a neighbor. Claiming to provide parking but not. The latest is claiming to be 1 place but actually be several blocks away. In every case AirBnB did nothing. In the last case AirBnB even claimed it was policy that locations are false. So you try to rent something in a nice/safe/quiet area and it's actually an bad/dangerous/loud area and this is actually official AirBnB policy
AirBnB really need to be taken down until they stop being blatantly unethical.
I live in a small city (12K pop) in the Southeast. We're quite proximal to a major university with a Div 1A football team. Last year, a major hotel chain built a 300-room hotel in the city, and part of the condition of doing that was that the city enacted a zoning ordinance requiring zoning approval for rental activity of any kind.
So, homeowners in my city who want to do AirBnB (or equivalent) have to petition for a zoning variance and argue at a public hearing (which is of course attended by an army of lawyers from the hotel chain), and of course the petitions are usually denied, usually on the grounds that the rental activity in a private home is a threat to the right of peacable enjoyment of their property by neighbors. My petition was denied on those grounds in spite of the fact that my nearest neighbor is over 1/4 mile away.
A few petitions have been granted, though. The Mayor has about a dozen homes listed on AirBnB during football season, as do several other city council members, wealthy lakefront property owners, and our Congressman.
Sounds perfectly fair, equitable, and transparent to me.
we need to regulate freaking everything. I mean I can understand regulations for bridges since everyone drives on them, but this is your home, your property and your freaking business. Man 1984 used to be a book that warned everyone about big government and invasive laws, now it is a blissful dream of better days. I have to go poop now. I better google the regulations to see if I am allowed to do this, the positions I am allowed to attain and the sounds I am allowed to make. I hope flushing is approved by the government. I wouldn't want to break a law or anything.,
For the first time in my life (ok not the first as this happens all the time) I feel like I am living in a prison country. We create it with regulations as the walls.
Am I the only one that feels this way?
I think it is time for a revolution. (not a violent one, just one where we have an anti-congress who's sole job is to deregulate and delete laws. I mean really, "rm -f" needs to be in the legal and regulatory code just like "ix" and pretty much any operating system.
It does, read the bill moron.
These are not houses but apartments. Remove apartments from the market drives rental prices up and reduces the number of apartments for housing. Now fuck off ass hole.
You can fuck off ass-hole. No one is taking your home moron. The bill seeks to stop speculators from taking APARTMENTS off the market and use them like hotels! Thereby reduce the number of apartments available for housing and driving up the rental costs. Airbnb are fucking ass-holes that want to run a chain of bed and breakfasts without running a chain of bed and breakfasts.
In Vancouver BC, there is already a low vacancy rate for apartment rentals. AirBnB rentals have skyrocketed here and have been a significant factor driving availability for people who live and work here significantly lower. People are either buying condos to rent on AirBnB or people are renting and illegally subletting to AirBnB 'customers' as they can profit over what they pay in rent. I know of several who do this, some in the same building. And yes, living in a place where many are transient is not desirable. Even if some here don't believe it would attract more crime, the truth is, places where people are transient do have higher property and other crime. As well people who are not personally invested in a place will not as a whole treat it well. In condos and long term rental buildings, this can lead to a kind of negligent vandalism that decreases quality of life for the actual residents. AirBnB while a good idea for occasional use, is terrible when people build businesses with it in places that are meant to serve the community's housing needs.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
http://www.econlib.org/library...
Economists are virtually unanimous in concluding that rent controls are destructive. In a 1990 poll of 464 economists published in the May 1992 issue of the American Economic Review, 93 percent of U.S. respondents agreed, either completely or with provisos, that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.”1
Similarly, another study reported that more than 95 percent of the Canadian economists polled agreed with the statement.2 The agreement cuts across the usual political spectrum, ranging all the way from Nobel Prize winners milton friedman and friedrich hayek on the “right” to their fellow Nobel laureate gunnar myrdal, an important architect of the Swedish Labor Party’s welfare state, on the “left.” Myrdal stated, “Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.”3 His fellow Swedish economist (and socialist) Assar Lindbeck asserted, “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing.”4
That cities like New York have clearly not been destroyed by rent control is due to the fact that rent control has been relaxed over the years.5 Rent stabilization, for example, which took the place of rent control for newer buildings, is less restrictive than the old rent control. Also, the decades-long boom in the New York City housing market is not in rent-controlled or rent-stabilized units, but in condominiums and cooperative housing. But these two forms of housing ownership grew important as a way of getting around rent control.
Terms of lease: 35 days
Amount: $3500
Terms of Payment: weekly
No Penalty for premature ending of lease. If early termination, lease will be prorated at $100/day
Hey look it's a legal 100/day hotel listing on air bnb.
Actually, don't laugh. The government does in fact regulate what you can and cannot poop. There are substances that it is a crime to put into a public sewer. One of those things it is illegal to put into a sewer is "untreated biohazardous waste," such as, you guessed it, poop. Believe it or not, it is a crime to poop into a public sewer. Also, if you use a piece of TP to wipe the cut from your razor blade, and then flush it, that's also a crime under the same rule.
Also, your poop is considered refuse and therefore government does not need a warrant to search it for, say, drug metabolites that would lead to you being charged under controlled substance laws. So, be sure you don't poop things like
You are not the only one who feels this way, but unfortunately the point of no return was crossed about 75 years ago when The People traded their liberties to the government in exchange for free stuff.
A big part of this is no doubt NYC protecting tax revenue. Most cities like to tax visitors because they don't vote in the district.
A NYC hotel stay has the following taxes -
New York State Sales Tax = 4%
New York City Sales Tax and Transportation District Surcharge = 4.875%
Hotel Room Occupancy Tax = $2 + 5.875%
A simpler solution would have been to pass a law requiring AirBnB to remit these taxes monthly for any booking made in New York City.
Not every market is NYC or SF.
Once a "home" becomes a "business" the value of that home and the homes in the area are going to go down. Business owners don't improve a property any more than the very minimum needed.
No one will buy your home if the homes around it are all listed on AirBnB.
Neighborhoods and roads are planned out for a certain amount of people/homes/traffic. Enough BnB's and lose any balance. You end up with more wear and tear on the neighborhood by people who do not pay taxes to repair that damage.
And please, stop calling AirBnB and Uber "sharing".
I have read the bill. You appear to be mistaken, or else you don't understand what I'm saying. You should also learn some manners.
Wouldn't actual hotels be subject to these laws? What is the difference? Zoning?