Slashdot Mirror
Governor Cuomo Bans Airbnb From Listing Short-Term Rentals In New York (nypost.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from New York Post: Gov. Cuomo on Friday bowed to pressure from the hotel industry and signed into law one of the nation's toughest restrictions on Airbnb -- including hefty fines of up to $7,500 for people who rent out space in their apartments. Backers of the punitive measure -- which applies to rentals of less than 30 days when the owner or tenant is not present -- say many property owners use Airbnb and similar sites to offer residential apartments as short-term rentals to visitors, hurting the hotel business while taking residential units off the Big Apple's high-priced housing market. Enforcement, however, will be a huge challenge, as thousands of short-term apartment rentals are listed in the city despite a 2010 law that prohibits rentals of less than 30 days when the owner or tenant is not present. Violators could be turned in by neighbors or landlords opposed to the practice, or the state could monitor the site to look for potential violations. But beyond that how the law would be enforced was not immediately clear. The new law won't apply to rentals in single-family homes, row houses or apartment spare rooms if the resident is present. But will apply to co-ops and condos. Airbnb mounted a last-ditch effort to kill the measure, proposing alternative regulations that the company argued would address concerns about short-term rentals without big fines. Tenants who violate current state law and list their apartments for rentals of less than 30 days would face fines of $1,000 for the first offense, $5,000 for the second and $7,500 for a third. An investigation of Airbnb rentals from 2010 to 2014 by the state attorney general's office found that 72 percent of the units in New York City were illegal, with commercial operators constituting 6 percent of the hosts and supplying 36 percent of the rentals. As of August, Airbnb had 45,000 city listings and another 13,000 across the state.
Forgive my Saturday school house rock education but each state is has the same separation of duties as the Federal government, don't they?
Sounds like an overreach of the Executive branch in NY.
..that new tech threatens it
It's easy to see the old school fighting back
I love new tech! but I recognize that it's an imperfect work in progress that I strongly believe will improve
The idea that people should be free to conduct business seems to be foreign to NYC. And has anyone bothered to actually confront how many issues this opens up? A girl stays with me for three weeks. Who gets to question me about why she is with me? Is she a relative, a friend, a sex partner or a health aid as I am an older man? Who exactly assumes the privilege of questioning me? Further, if cash changes hands with no receipt, how is proof established? Can i pound on the door of a neighbor i do not like and grill him about exactly why someone stayed with him overnight and can i legally prove that someone actually did stay overnight? Who defines overnight? I had a girlfriend who lived in a condo. I alway left about 4am. I rode a motorcycle that was banned from overnight parking. They were smart enough never to call a tow truck. If they had i would have sued them into the dirt. People almost never think of the consequences of writing rules or laws.
"Tenants who violate current state law and list their apartments for rentals of less than 30 days would face fines of $1,000 for the first offense, $5,000 for the second and $7,500 for a third."
This will be easy to get around...people will just list the property for a 30- or 60-day rental and have a $20 "early move out" or "cancellation" fee. So the "renter" will book it for 30 days, leave after a week, and pay a small, affordable "penalty" since they didn't stay the full 30 days.
And the owner will say, "I rented it for 60 days but they left after a week, what could I do?"
(I'm not saying this is right, just that this is what they'll do to get around the restriction.)
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
My property is zoned residential, I cannot establish a 7-11 on it. City planning isn't communism, fucktard.
Liberal bowing to big business. You suckers in NY should just keep taking it up the backside
No, under Communism there is no private property at all — it is all communal. What you are describing is Fascism. It is generally better than Communism, but still quite nasty — and inefficient.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
NY is the largest NAZI state when it comes to personal property... What I do with my private property is between me and who I rent to! I will not stop using AirBnB! People of NY need to wake up and realize this kinda law invades and needs to be overturned!
Why does everybody want to put George Clinton in prison. You can just stop listening to P-Funk, no need to put people in jail here :(
take away everything you have.
Tell us more about how zoning restrictions AIMED AT PRESERVING PROPERTY VALUES is "taking away everything you have"
Those fancy expensive New York apartments are fancy and expensive BECAUSE they outlaw transient dwellers, and the owners LIKE IT that way.
DUH
that's okay us liberals will drag your neanderthal asses into the 21st century
With or without proper use of punctuation?
I'm in favor of AirBNB being in my city.
As long as they aren't in my building.
even landlords can't do whatever they want with their properties. I dunno why you think its that simple.
Real estate have community value far beyond just their material one. We treat them specially in a lot of ways...you have neighbors who have right too, people have rights to homes, tenants have rights. This isn't the bullshit taxi cartel we're talking about here. This shit can make or break people's lives.
Rent controls cause this situation.
When landlords can not raise rents to match economic conditions, they are forced to find new revenue streams.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Under a reasonable legal system I should be able to sue you for ruining my property value (and my air, for that matter). There's no need for a specific law for every possible annoyance. That way, the owner can make sure whatever he puts on his property won't annoy his neighbors. If he lets quiet, normal people stay, that should be fine. Now it's just a case of the government building a moat around the hotel business.
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
Then yes.
But, hey, at least, abortions are still legal — is not that comforting?..
Sure, as long as you have a note from your husband, have attended a local church's "Don't do it!!" seminar, you've lasted through the mandatory 48 hour waiting period just to be really really sure you're certain you want one and then you've driven outside the state to find an actual clinic....
Conservatives, strict on property rights and still trying to consider women as property.
Under the legal system you call for, it's your own fault for living next door to an oil lake and lead smelter. You should have picked better neighbors. Also since it's not illegal in your system to have an oil lake in your property, you can't sue anyone for it either.
What a truthful answer. Also, I happen to agree with you. I live in a condo where the rules are very specific about rentals and guest registration ( basically rent out your place 1 time a year, and renters guest have to have a criminal background check ) . Airbnb brought about people for holiday ( I live a 20 minute walk to the beach ) which are here for holiday ( have fun, have parties, have joy ) and are rather interesting lot of people, mostly good but many have little property or neighbor respect.
I was tasked to weed out this issue. Which I did with great vigor, and resolved all. The biggest problem is; Confrontation of an owner, they forgot that they acknowledge that they read the condo rules. which are clear about short term rentals. and with the gentle reminder that legal department charge both parties and that I would win at the end, it would cost them their condos ( a condo lien last until sold or foreclosed, but at the end, it's paid in full to the association ).
I would advise all, if you buy a vacation home, make sure that you read the condo rules and are clear about short term rental, there is viable reason why my building is priced at a 15% to 30% discount to a liberal rental policy buildings.
if you see me, smile and say hello.
The state has banned its cities from banning AirBnB. This move is generally popular but has been controversial in some towns because of the possibility that, as is feared in NYC, that short-term rentals would cut into the supply of "affordable" housing. In AZ, we're not concerned about low-income housing - in fact we hate it when the feds ram Section 8 developments down our throats - but we do want rentals that our baristas and tour guides can afford.
My thought: if the AirBnB model works as an incentive for homeowners to rent nights to tourists, wouldn't there be an even bigger market for the same kind of startup to simplify renting by the month to service workers?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Once again am American politician shits all over one of the ideals on which your country is apparently built; 'freedom.'
Although, I suppose "freedom to engage the corrupt services of an elected official to protect your out-of-date business model" is s type of freedom?
Requiem for the American Dream
Don't be a dumbass. If a woman wants to kill her baby after it's born she'd just put it in a hoodie and claim she had to stand her ground.
The government big enough to give you everything you want, is also big enough to take away everything you have.
That's one of the dumbest libertarian memes. A government which doesn't give you anything can also take away everything you have. You have to hand it to the Reaganites though, they're three decades of propaganda has been so effective it's got ordinary people spouting support for the mega-rich who wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.
Telling people what can and cant do with Their own property is called Communism.
Not by a long shot. And if you don't believe me, wait until the next person tells you where to shove it and check their political affiliations.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
No, under Communism there is no private property at all — it is all communal. What you are describing is Fascism. It is generally better than Communism, but still quite nasty — and inefficient.
I believe you're actually talking about authoritarianism. Fascism is authoritarian, but there are non-fascistic authoritarian systems too. Communism is quite the opposite, because it is about local direct democracy (in "communes"), and most so-called "communist" countries have instead been authoritarian. You could even describe Stalin as history's most successful fascist, as he was an authoritarian leader running the largest, most integrated state machinery in the world, and he favoured one nation and its people over all others in the world, and even over other nations within the USSR.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
How are you going to sue without government regulation? If you don't want any elites telling you what to do, then we end up descending to the law of the jungle. If your friendly neighbourhood lead smelter has a bunch of hire goons, you're SooL...
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
That's two non-sequitur off-topics from you, dumbass.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Muhahahaha. Ahahhhaaa. :D
Omg lol. That was a good one
Where is your next stand-up show? With material like that you're virtually guaranteed a large turnout :D
Requiem for the American Dream
BS. Once you choose the Glorious Collective over the Deplorable Individual, an authoritarian at the top becomes inevitable.
It is no surprise, that all attempts to build Communism/Socialism in earnest — from Stalin to Chavez — resulted in just such a situation.
You can't. Fascism allows private property and leaves the means of production in private hands — as long as the businesses do the State's bidding, they can manage the details on their own and can even compete with each other — this degree of freedom and the competition is what makes Fascism more efficient. Communism and Socialism (a.k.a. Communism-lite) do not allow any means of production in private hands at all. By definition.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Where, exactly, is the theft in renting the property?
Technically, copyright infringement isn't theft. Offering TV at a negative price to cable Internet subscribers is tying or dumping, not extortion. And in the same way, owner-absent short-term sublets are evasion of hotel tax, not theft. But morally, tax evasion could be thought of as like a theft from the other residents of the state, who have made a decision through their elected representatives to tax a particular behavior.
Joe Sixpack rents a place, but then he "has to cancel" and leave early *cough*. He pays the owner an "early-termination penalty", and then the owner would, of course, relist the room to be rented.
Where is the crime, and how would anyone prove that anything illegal had occurred?
The proof is that the property's owner failed to document good cause for early termination with more than three-fourths of the lease term remaining by five out of six sublessees of the same property. An allowance for "good cause" isn't a bright line, I'll grant, but it's like the difference between an excused absence from school in states with truancy laws and an unexcused absence.
Fascism. It is generally better than Communism
Citation needed.
Franco's Spain vs. USSR.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Truth hurts, huh?
It could happen, yes. But the government, that's not expected to take care of all the citizenry's needs, does not need to become so powerful and omnipresent as to be able to take it all away.
So, there you go — a government limited in its responsibilities can remain limited in its power over the governed. The government expected to provide for all — can not. It inevitably becomes powerful enough to abuse the citizens. Whether it actually does abuse, well, TFA seems to provide an example... Numerous others abound.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
BS. Once you choose the Glorious Collective over the Deplorable Individual, an authoritarian at the top becomes inevitable.
[snip]
Communism and Socialism (a.k.a. Communism-lite)
This is the classic mistake of conflating communism and socialism. Communism is inherently decentralised, so the idea of an authoritarian is actually pretty alien to it. But the USSR was not called the Union of Soviet Communist Republics, was it? It was socialist, which puts ownership at the level of society, not the commune. Once you establish state socialism, that's when authoritarianism becomes likely.
Most of what we call "socialist" in Europe isn't truly state socialism -- most "socialists" are in favour of a mixed economy, and are more interested in getting infrastructure in public ownership than industry.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Yes. As I said, Fascism is nasty. But Spain, for all its ills, was still better than USSR, where life was even worse.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Genuinely curious, here. Why do you have a landlord and would incur $2,500 in real estate broker fees? When I've rented, no real estate broker was involved. I assume it works differently where you are?