Slashdot Mirror
NYC Fines Airbnb Hosts For 'Illegal' Home Rentals (cnet.com)
In October, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law one of the nation's toughest restrictions on Airbnb, which includes hefty fines of up to $7,500 for people who rent out space in their apartments. Several month have passed and the New York Post has learned of "the first casualties of [the] newly enforceable law." The city has reportedly charged two hosts with a combined total of 17 violations, and since each violation comes with a $1,000 fine, it adds up to $17,000. From their report: Property owner Hank Freid -- who was once crowned one of NYC's "Worst Landlords" by a watchdog group in 2005 -- and real estate broker Tatiana Cames were slapped with 17 violations, at $1,000 apiece, for their allegedly illegal listings on Manhattan's Upper West Side and in Bedford-Stuyvesant, in Brooklyn, according to documents obtained by the Post. Freid, who manages the Marrakech Hotel, was hit with 12 violations for listing SROs in the building on several booking platforms, including Booking.com, Expedia, Kayak, Hotwire, Travelocity, and Orbitz, the citations reveal. Meanwhile, Cames -- who was served with five violations -- allegedly posted five separate listings to Airbnb advertising 320 Macon St, which records show she purchased for $2.15M in 2015. The Macon St. property was discovered to have inadequate fire alarms, sprinklers, illegal subdivisions, and a confused bunch of French tourists in a rear unit, according the procured documents. Cames appears to be making money off the vacancies in the building as she attempts to fill the space, as the same units are advertised as "for rent" on her personal website. The listings also seem to suggest that drawing illegal Airbnb-ers into BedStuy will help "diversify" the locale. If Freid and Cames don't pull their listings, they could be hit with a second set of violations, at $5,000 a pop.
Ask most neighbors of air bnb rentals how they feel about having a different stranger live next to them every few days. Residential areas are created so that people can be part of a community that shares a common interest in the quality of living in that place. Even complaining to the police won't deter an air bnb resident because they know they will be gone soon.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Right.... AirBNB has some illegal unlicensed activity and NYC uses law to impose heavy fines.
At the left side of the argument, illegal unlicensed people in NYC get taxpayer subsidized healthcare and public services and, including cash benefits.
Can somebody explain to how to reconcile enforcement of one laws and ignoring the second laws, printed on the same paper with the same ink.
We're the government and we're here to help. You know, because babies and terrorists and shit. We sympathize, but we can't allow you to use you own home because [Redacted].
But now we have to get back to other important things, like polishing up regulation on restrooms and soda refills.
Also we need to kindly ask you to dispose of the lunch your brought to work today. New York special executive order 1428731, Section 4b, Paragraph 28, clearly states that your Michelinas frozen noodle lunch exceeds permissible caloric and sodium content. If you dispose of it now, we'll reduce your fine to $1500.
The failure to understand why people don't want a different stranger living next to them every week is a sure sign that our society is breaking down. You can only have a functional society if people have some sort of empathy for people.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
It is really illegal. There's a law against it. If the law was secret, you might have a point but, if not, you can avoid the fines by stopping listing rooms on AirBNB.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Because it isn't really illegeal becasue they changed the law after peoples sstarted doing it that's ENTRAPMENT
You obviously do not know what entrapment means, do you? There are many cases of laws that make previously legal behavior illegal.
Entrapment is when law enforcement induces you to commit a crime. Let me know if any of the words I've used are too big for you!
You're saying that municipal zoning is illegal?
No, residential areas are created to provide places to live. Period. Full Stop.
You don't get a veto over your neighbors, only who stays at YOUR house. . . . .
Just what we need - more government telling us what to do with our own damn homes.
Reason 124,151,813,523 Trump won.
What part of "The Macon St. property was discovered to have inadequate fire alarms, sprinklers, illegal subdivisions" you didn't get? Or maybe you missed the "Hank Freid was once crowned one of NYC's "Worst Landlords" by a watchdog group in 2005" part?
Newsflash: it might be your own damn home, but it's likely close to someone else' and, surprise surprise, you can't do as you please with it.
RT.
The problem is, the entire real estate market depends on having some stability in what to expect from any given residential area. How do you even place a value a house if it's neighbors might have a loud party every night?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Laws barring property rental are per se illegal, as the constitution does not give the government, at any level, the explicit right to dictate what one does (or does not do) with their own property. This goes for zoning as well.
Sure it does. It delegates or defers (depending on your view) to the states the authority to make laws that are not spelled out specifically in the constitution. States have done so, generally at the behest of their citizens. Granted money talks and not all citizens get an equal say, but the states do have the rights to make laws wherever not explicitly prohibited by the constitution (and federal law, which ultimately rolls up to the constitution.)
Zoning and property use laws are generally a good thing. I don't want a heavy industrial manufacturing process in the middle of my residential neighborhood. Because of this my neighbors and I (over history) have expressed this desire to government and zoning has occurred that prevents this.
The fines were $1000 per incident. Let's assume each unit rents for $1000/wk. And since there are multiple units in these buildings, a single ad could cover several units. I'll make a giant assumption of 10 units per building, and an occupancy rate of 50%.
(10x52x1000)/2 = $260,000. A $17,000 fine may cut into profits a bit, but it is hardly punitive. At $5,000 a pop, that starts to be enough to discourage the behavior. But even then the venture appears, if not wildly profitable, still better than having the units sit empty.
It's arguably an unconstitutional law, in that it takes property rights from owners without compensation.
Under anti-miscegenation laws, would you describe inter-racial marriages as illegal or "illegal"?
Where do you draw the line? Does your local government have the right to say you can't park a car at your house because they think mass transit is better? That would be a similar form of use restriction as this law.
Well that goes for most laws, as the constitution was mostly written as a list of things that the government should not do. I expect even all the way back then that they expected the federal government to grow until it toppled from the weight of its own tyranny.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
.....for free. Once you charge money for individuals to stay at your home you are in direct violation of zoning laws put in place by the local government voted in place by you and your neighbors. You want to turn your house into a short-term commercial rental, then get the zoning and/or laws changed to allow for that use in a residential zone. Those zoning laws are the same reason why I can't buy the house next to you and on a whim decide to bulldoze it and put up a small factory.
I call Bullshit on that "part of a community" bit. Tell me the name and hobby of your next door neighbor.
And now find 5 other people who can tell that. Nobody gives a shit who's living next door in large cities. You would probably only notice that someone in your apartment megacomplex died because after a few months in Summer it starts to smell funny.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You can do what you want with your own damn home... up to a point. Running a hotel isn't one of them; not only can it be a cause of unreasonable disturbance to your neighbours, it is also unfair to those who run actual hotels and take care of fire proofing and escape routes, proper hygiene, insurance, and compliance with other regulations, at great expense.
Hank got off light, by the way. Some landlord in Amsterdam was running what amounts to an illegal hotel through AirBnB; now he and the property management company involved in the setup get to split a fine of almost €300,000. That may sound high, but if you have an efficient operation you can make a ton of money this way (at the expense of your neighbours, while endangering the tenants), and the fine has to reflect that.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
"Ask most neighbors of air bnb rentals how they feel about having a different stranger live next to them every few days." ...Say people in an urban area where they don't know their neighbors anyway. NYC regulations make it impossible to build any new housing units other than condos for the super-rich, so subletting apps are a natural way for the proles to eke out more living space.
If a city doesn't want to deal with this, then start making it easier to put up new apartment stock.
If this was already against the zoning laws, why did NYC need this new law?
Ask most neighbors of air bnb rentals how they feel about having a different stranger live next to them every few days. Residential areas are created so that people can be part of a community that shares a common interest in the quality of living in that place. Even complaining to the police won't deter an air bnb resident because they know they will be gone soon.
Most people these days don't even know their neighbors. If people want to exclude airbnb then they should create a homeowner's association and set that rule. I wouldn't even mind if a city voted to ban airbnb. My problem with this and similiar bans like smoking bans is that something major like this should be put on the ballot and voted on instead of being enacted by special interest groups.
Zoning is generally a good thing. We've already made a distinction between manufacturing and residential. AirBNB doesn't cover that.
Not bothering your neighbors is generally a good thing. But it's also a good thing for a renter to be able to make some money by renting out a spare bedroom. Example you have an apartment and so does your girlfriend. You rent out your apartment for the weekend and spend it at your girlfriend's place. And secondly in NYC there are lots of apartment buildings where you DO NOT know your neighbors; where a large percentage of the people are there for 1-2 years at max and only go there to sleep (and rarely seeing or interacting with their immediate neighbors.)
It's also a good thing for people coming to the city. Hotel's are crazy expensive. The money they save on hotels they spend elsewhere.
The city is being ham-handed about this. I can see restricting landlords from renting out apartments but I cannot see why a tenant cannot rent out his PRIMARY residential space. (Emphasized PRIMARY because we want to dissuade people from renting a second apartment for the sole purpose of being a "hotel operator" on AIRBNB).
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
"Might" ?? You can't value hypotheticals. Now, if they **DO** have loud parties every night, you call the cops for their disturbing the peace, or perhaps talk to your landlord or Homeowners' Association. The latter two generally have enforceable rules about nuisances. . .
TL;DR -> Coward dumb, not know what he says.
Zoning laws include whether a space can be used as a residence versus a hotel. Airbnb is trying to get around those zoning restrictions.
Airbnb would like you to think it is all about people renting out their spare bedroom occasionally. You can find offers like that, but they're probably the minority.
This is about property owners trying to run a hotel in property that is not suited to that purpose. If you want to run a hotel, you need a building in a commercial zone, so you don't annoy the neighbor. The building also has to meet requirements, like fire regulations, so that it is safe for such high occupancy. By never having any fixed residents, landlords can also skirt rent-control regulations; they may also claim that they have simply been unable to rent the property (even though they don't actually want to), which may give them undeserved tax breaks, etc..
tl;dr: It's not about your spare bedroom. it's about slimeballs.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
But it's not a hotel, it's a short term home rental. A hotel has a very different building structure as well as consumer protections to it. The only reason it's illegal is because big government Cuomo says it is and that's because he's been bribed by the hotel lobbyists.
This makes it practically illegal to rent out your property for any period of time unless it's registered as a hotel.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Even if you think that you're entitled do doing with your home whatever you want to, that's not entirely true.
You live in a society. This has implications regarding what you can and what you should do. The obvious example would be me setting $UNPLEASANT_INDUSTRIAL_PLANT on my own property next to your apartment, effectively killing its worth or your ability to use it.
But there are also finer, albeit none the less important implications. Take the social one for example: in Berlin, Europe rents have climbed by a factor of up to 2-3x in the past 10 years. Living space is at a premium, but there are hundreds of airbnb locations at a walking distance of few minutes of anywhere within Berlin. And I'm not talking the occasional unoccupied a self-sufficient grandma may have to offer in a slightly too-large aparment. Those who offer rooms for rent ofter offer several appartments (up to 40), not only single beds. In fact, average number of beds offered per user are around 3 (see http://airbnbvsberlin.com/). In other words, it's a business. People prefer to not rent their (surplus of) apartments to normal people, but to airbnb customers instead.
Why should you care?
Because that effectively fucks up society as a whole. The same societe *you* live in, and that you're relying on in order to survive. When people who own an apartment choose to rent it at prices similar to hotels, essentially everyone who can't afford to sleep at a hotel every night can't afford to live in a city, period. You think you're unaffected because you happen to own an apartment right now? Well, where do you think your kids are going to live 20 years from now, or their children when their turn comes? (Set up a tent in the woods? You know that wild camping is illegal in large parts of Europe, right?...) Or what do you think your city going to feel like when everyone who lives there is either a tourist, or an amateur hotelier, renting 30-40 apartments to tourists?
The line is drawn where the community draws it. If you don't like where they draw the line you either have to pick a different community, convince them to change their minds or accumulate so much power that you can overrule them. Whinging about natural law/rights has proven to be a very poor way of doing the latter. What works better is to be part of a tight nit minority and filling the media, judiciary and government with members of your minority.
Since you brought up zoning... Some zoning laws don't allow hotels, motels, or a bed and breakfast to be operated in a residential zone. I'm not arguing for or against what NY is doing, I'm just making a point that these operations MAY be in violation of their local zoning laws.
I'm all for what Air BnB does, as long as the original intent is followed. If my neighbor wants to rent out his house while he's out of town, more power to him. I would start to object when a slumlord is buying up the houses in my neighborhood, pimping them out on a daily basis to whomever is passing through town, and not maintaining them.
I mean that is kind of the point of zoning laws, isn't it? If I don't want to live next to a motel (or smelter plant) I am pretty secure in knowing that one isn't going to be built next to my house 2 years after I buy it. And having a stable place to live, knowing who my neighbors are, knowing who I need to keep an eye on is part of the value of living in a residential neighborhood. I certainly don't have the ability to control who my neighbors are, but by choosing to live in a residential area I have a certain expectation that I won't have a new set of neighbors in the house next door every week.
Which is precisely fuck all use if the culprits were only there two days and a week later another bunch arrives.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Laws barring property rental are per se illegal, as the constitution does not give the government, at any level, the explicit right to dictate what one does (or does not do) with their own property. This goes for zoning as well.
If you take an originalist, states right centric view of the constitution, the constitution defines limits on what the federal government can do, but does not in any way restrict the rights of the states to pass whatever laws they wish.
In the modern view of constitutional supremacy, where states are not allowed to limit rights granted by the constitution and the states are generally subordinate to the feds, there is nothing to prevent either the states or the feds from limiting rental rights.
So in both of the major schools of thought regarding the constitution, this is perfectly legitimate.
The fact that your home isn't built as a hotel and lacks the usual consumer protections is precisely why the city won't allow you to treat it as one.
However I agree that the NYC law seems overly strict. Over here, cities implement such laws to prevent disturbances caused by short term rental, but in most cases this amounts to a rule that properties cannot be rented out short-stay for over 30 or 60 days a year; anything below that is fine. The idea is that people should be free to rent out their own home for short periods (even when they are away themselves), while preventing landlords from turning entire tenement buildings into year-round AirBnB short term rentals. Because that does amount to running a hotel.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Preposterous! Next you'll be saying that Uber doesn't match you up with someone going to the same place as you were going anyway in order to split the gas money! Have you no shame, sir?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You would probably only notice that someone in your apartment megacomplex died because after a few months in Summer it starts to smell funny.
Actually, the last apartment building I lived in didn't smell that great when everyone was alive!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
You don't own your property, stop paying your property taxes if you want proof you don't actually own anything
You mean lobbyists. Government answers to lobbyists.
A troll giving legal opinion. Will wonders never cease....
Speaking of enforceable, what got me in TFS was this:
"and a confused bunch of French tourists in a rear unit"
Is that really illegal in NYC?
No, residential areas are created to provide places to live. Period. Full Stop.
You don't get a veto over your neighbors, only who stays at YOUR house. . . . .
I agree that your neighbors shouldn't have anything to do with whatever happen INSIDE YOUR HOUSE (not AT) because it is your own space. I have no objection on that. However, when you start invading other people's space, then there must be rules or laws against that type of activities. For example, playing loud music that neighbor can clearly hear it is invading other people's space. Similarly, having strangers who short rent/lease the place to come in and out and/or use the same COMMON areas with everyone who lives in the same neighborhood is also invading other people's space. It is about neighbor safety. Of course you don't see it because you are benefiting from doing so, but that doesn't mean it is OK to others because others around your house are affected. If your house is located somewhere that nobody is living nearby (think of each house is a mile away), then I guess it would be OK. Please stop thinking about ME ME ME and start looking around for CONSEQUENCES of what you do on others. The world is not evolving around you.
P.S. This is not include visitors because they are people you personally know (or they shouldn't be "visitors").
Well where I live, all the kids of the block played together and all the parents hung out. If you want to live in an area where everyone is dead inside then I can't stop you but don't push it on me.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
. . .in which case you target the property owner.
If this was already against the zoning laws, why did NYC need this new law?
Because the activity is in the gray area. It is very similar to share riding companies. If there is no clear law, corporation will keep exploring it (and get individuals involved because individuals will get a piece of the pie even though they don't realize (or care) about how tiny the piece is).
I'm not going to post my neighbor's names, but on the block I live, everyone had kids around the same age and we all hang out together with the kids running up and down the front lawns. We regularly congregate on a driveway and have some drinks. Yes I do know the name of everyone on my block and what their interests are. That's what a community is.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I suspect the laws were either weakly enforced, not well defined or the fines were so small as to only discourage thinking about it.
Airbnb now makes it so much easier to tap into a large market to make a lot of money that those small fines could just become the cost of doing business.
Yes I do know the name of everyone on my block and what their interests are. That's what a community is.
I haven't had that since I was a child. Nobody wants that now. Also, I don't want to know my neighbors. I've seen how they drive, and they are inconsiderate fuckbags.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Well if you're neighbors are like you, I don't blame you.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If you really read TFA, you should know that it is a state law, not a city law [news]. Even AirBnB appears to disagree with the type of activity in TFA (though, I don't know for sure if they really care).
Airbnb offered an alternative to the legislation, saying it would crack down on hosts with multiple listings who essentially run illegal hotels and provide a registry of hosts to local regulators to make it easier for them to enforce existing housing rules. The company also emphasized that it had already removed nearly 3,000 commercial operators from the service.
Actually, some communities do restrict street parking -- some overnight, some at any time. Generally it's because people don't want their streets clogged with a bunch of RVs, not to promote mass transit. So yes, your local government have the right to say you can't park a car at (or at any rate, on the street in front of) your house.
It is puzzling that Cuomo rapidly applies the stick here while other disruptive services like UBER get more of the carrot.
UBER reduces the value of the medallion while reducing the tax income from licensed taxis.
Since it is known that Cuomo is taking graft perhaps UBER came up with a better kickback than AirBnB
Just what we need - more government telling us what to do with our own damn homes.
Reason 124,151,813,523 Trump won.
Yes, it may be reason 124,151,813,523 why Trump won. His voters, like this post, seem to think of things in very simplistic and superficial terms; not considering the wider ramifications of what they are advocating.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Which is why its not the Feds who have doing this.
Owning your home doesn't mean you get to use the rest of the city's infrastructure for free.
Well if you're neighbors are like you, I don't blame you.
My comment made you so angry you forgot how to use apostrophes? U MAD BRO?
The neighbor behind me runs his bulldozer for hours and hours and hours every week working on and reworking his roads like he's some kind of tweaker and drives like canned fuck. Oh yeah, and one time I had to go down to the lower part of my property and fire off my .22 semi auto rifle rapidly into a burn pile because he was behind my house SHOOTING INTO MY HILL, WHICH IS TO SAY TOWARDS MY HOUSE. If he had just aimed up a little high, he could have fucking killed me. The neighbor across the road from me sets fires that threaten the neighborhood and set up his trailer in the one place on his property where it looks straight into my windows. Across the road and up the way, they put a PRIVATE PROPERTY sign on a BLM access road and shout at people who drive up. Fuck all these fucking fucks right in their fucking necks. Suggesting that I should like these assholes or want to be involved in their business is idiocy. Don't even get me started on the rich white horse owning women with permanent birch face. Slow down to below 25? How's about getting out of the fucking road? The rider is always responsible for the behavior of the animal, and if a horse can't handle vehicles passing nearby, then it should not be ridden on public roads. That, in fact, is the law.
Meanwhile, I restrict my noises to reasonable hours, drive conscientiously (I did slow down and go away around the horse bitches who were standing their horses in the middle of the roadway jaw jacking), clean up trash in front of my house, stop to check on disabled motorists or on people who appear to be running an illegal grow on someone else's property (are you guys having a problem? Are you sure you're not having a problem?) What's not to like? I'm a fucking angel in this neighborhood, and I'm surrounded by complete pieces of shit who have proven their lack of consideration for those around them by their actions, which is how I know them. If they don't want me to think they're pieces of shit, perhaps they shouldn't behave like pieces of shit.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
See Zermatt, Switzerland. http://www.zermatt.ch/en/arriv...
We sympathize, but we can't allow you to use you own home as a bed and breakfast because it's a home and not a bed and breakfast.
FTFY
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Do pay attention, AC.
The fact that any of us would agree that it's not ok to just build a smelting plant by someone's home, is enough to show that it is not the case that:
No, residential areas are created to provide places to live. Period. Full Stop.
Maybe once upon a time, MANY years ago....
But these days...people don't even know the name of their next door neighbors for the most part.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If you support the right if people to do as they please with their homes, then support zoning reform to eliminate restrictions on what people can build.
The restrictions on what can be built are what make being an AirBNB host profitable.
On most (typically 80%) land in North American cities, the only thing that can be built is a single family detached, no matter how much demand there is. Cheaper options like townhouses, row houses, and apartments are either forbidden or squeezed into a few slivers of land designated for them.
Allowing people to do as they please means allowing one's neighbor to build an apartment building if they want to, and not giving anyone a defacto veto through consultation.
Without zoning laws there would be no need for AirBnB laws.
It's arguably an unconstitutional law, in that it takes property rights from owners without compensation.
I don't think so. The Constitution says nothing about depriving one of property rights; only property.
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Maybe you were born in a shit pile and lived in one your whole life, so if you don't want to search for anything better then that's fine. Many other people don't live that way and don't want to have it forced on them. Frankly you sound like the kind of stereotype a lot of Americans try to deny.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
That is what zoning laws are for.
And if a place is zoned residential, it's designated for long-term occupancy.
Short-term occupancy such as hotels and hostels are almost always commercial zones.
Thus, the AirBnB rentals are almost always an attempt to use residential property for commercial purposes. Especially if the owner does it regularly or frequently.
I've lived in apartments, and noise problems are difficult enough without adding people who don't care because they won't be around next week.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Were you live perhaps. Not where I live. Not where a lot of other Shashdotters live. Not everywhere BnB operates. If that's the way you want to live then fine.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Maybe you were born in a shit pile and lived in one your whole life, so if you don't want to search for anything better then that's fine.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but housing in California is severely fucked up. This is what I could find that was within my budget. I'd love to have neighbors that aren't nasty shitbirds, but you can easily move to someplace where they're all great, and then have them all die and/or move away and be replaced with fuckbags. The best laid plans of mice.
Frankly you sound like the kind of stereotype a lot of Americans try to deny.
Oh yeah? Because I'm conscientious and don't want to hang out with a bunch of fuckheads who have proven that they're selfish fucks? Run that one by me again, I'm having trouble following what you've got that passes for logic.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Last I heard NYC could decide what is and isn't legal with regards to zoning and rentals. Why do we let companies do things that aren't legal without changing the law first? It's nuts. I don't get to break the law and call it 'sharing'.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
No, residential areas are created to provide places to live. Period. Full Stop.
You don't get a veto over your neighbors, only who stays at YOUR house. . . . .
Maybe where you live. Not in NYC. Hence the law, dipshit.
... Nobody gives a shit who's living next door in large cities. You would probably only notice that someone in your apartment megacomplex died because after a few months in Summer it starts to smell funny.
Nonsense. Condo homeowners' associations work to keep the property values up – by law – so they order maintenance & repairs, and hire & track services such as janitorial, gardening, and so on. Many in the community take their turn on the HOA Board every few years, depending. This keeps things stable for the community.
Now imagine one owner starts renting out their unit to vacationing groups of frat boys every weekend. I might not know my neighbors' hobby (actually I do), but the HOA Board will be hearing from me, and that same neighbor will be hearing from the HOA Board, which functions as an intermediary.
Short-term rentals are against zoning laws, HOA rules & regs, and the very concept of having a home in a "community".
Laws barring property rental are per se illegal, as the constitution does not give the government, at any level, the explicit right to dictate what one does (or does not do) with their own property. This goes for zoning as well.
Yes, it most certainly does. The Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Because there is nothing in the Constitution specifically prohibiting laws barring rental property, that power is reserved to the states or the people. So it is perfectly constitutional.
You know, I really wish you folks who are so obsessed with the constitutionality of things would actually read and understand the document. I don't blame you for posting AC; I would be embarrassed to put my name to that post too.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
No, residential areas are created to provide places to live. Period. Full Stop.
You don't get a veto over your neighbors, only who stays at YOUR house. . . . .
This is how it should be, but ain't. Just take a look at homeowners associations, and all the regulations they lay out - like you can't paint your house mauve. The pretext being that it alters the value of other houses in the neighborhood, hence the 'greater good' argument.
Anyway, it's funny how AirBnB, which wants to defy the travel ban, is now running into rough weather w/ Comrade deBlassio just for doing their own thing
I don't think this is quite the kind of person they're clamping down on.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Those who did not vote for Trump, seem to think of matters too broadly, so broadly that the broad impact extends to someone else's pocket.
What's the matter? Are you unable to remain independent of and unaffected by the world around you? Or is some law preventing you from making money?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I'm a fucking angel in this neighborhood, and I'm surrounded by complete pieces of shit
Have you considered that it's not them but you?
voted in place by you and your neighbors.
What kind of government is that? Is this the mythical democracy I keep hearing about that other non-US countries have?
I certainly don't have the ability to control who my neighbors are, but by choosing to live in a residential area I have a certain expectation that I won't have a new set of neighbors in the house next door every week.
Entirely agree. You get new neighbors every weekend but you also get an empty property the meantime. In my community I'd argue that the increase in Airbnb rentals is highly correlated to the closing of local small businesses. These properties are entirely empty from Sun-Thur every week and there have been a rash of barber, bookstore, coffee shop, etc. closings in what's a fairly metropolitan area.
Perhaps with fines for renting out the apartment?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
What are the proper punctuation marks to communicate disdain or contempt for stupid laws which were enacted by people with ulterior motives?
I thought being a selfish fuck is mandatory in the US? Ain't that one of the tenets of capitalism?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Are you sure you wanted to reply to me? If yes, please explain 'cause I'm really confused now.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I live in a comfy suburb and in my neighborhood we use a Facebook group to keep in touch, set up Easter egg hunts for the kids, fireworks for 4th of July (one guy has a drone and he flies it over the crowd and through the fireworks and posts the videos later, it's really neat), board game nights, cook outs, somebody has an outdoor movie projector he sets up for family movies, talk about neighborhood issues, and catch the thieving kids who were going into people's unlocked cars at 3am that one time. Not everyone is a misanthrope.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
For all that the Progressive Leftists claim to be against big business and for the working people, they sure as hell don't show it. AirBnB gives people the ability to rent out their property for a few extra bucks. It gives consumers a chance for a possibly better price and experience for accommodations when traveling. That takes the money away from Hotel conglomerates and massive union control and puts it back into the hands of the working people. Isn't that what the Left claims to be all for?
I find it very odd that instead of looking at perhaps viable concerns with "Does insurance cover certain events?" or "Do we need a vetting and registration process to ensure users are not criminals?" the politicians on the left move to _ban_ them with a vocal minority supporting them. The leftist followers and ideologues boycott and ostracize anyone who agrees with, works with, or uses the service. We just saw that with Uber, because how dare a person try to make money picking up people from the Airport when Union cabbies went on strike to support the lefts complaints about the immigration moratorium. By the way, a neighbor of mine who is a middle class legal immigrant may not be able to pay rent this month and he drives Uber Black and does not even handle airport pickups normally because #boycottuber (or whatever the hashtag is). Way to be for the little guys!
I think the bigger problem in society right now is a vocal minority of people refuse to have rational dialogue about any issue. The Right may have some past guilt , but the Left is most certainly guilty over the last several years and owns most of the media. Perhaps it's time for the Left to do what we demanded of the Right when they were deemed to be "too Christian", and start listening to the People as a whole instead of being dead set on forcing your ideology down people's throats.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The only reason it's illegal is because big government Cuomo says it is and that's because he's been bribed by the hotel lobbyists.
And nobody who lives in apartments adjacent to AirBnB apartments were happy about this? My parents live in a condo community and their homeowners' association was absolutely taking action against people who were trying to rent out their units because they didn't want to put up with the noise, the parties, and the scumbags. The community was set up for owners, not renters. If you don't want to play by those rules, don't buy one of those condos. But you don't get to ignore the rules and get on some high horse about "how dare you tell me what I can do." If you wanted to run a hotel, you should have opened a hotel, not bought a condo in a living community.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Not point. you don't own ANYTHING
Not a measly $1000 per instance fine. Just make Airbnb rentals subject to NYC's rent control laws. Rent out a unit off season for a low rate and you can't raise it or kick the occupants out.
Have gnu, will travel.
I thought being a selfish fuck is mandatory in the US? Ain't that one of the tenets of capitalism?
It's one's god-given right. Manifest destiny FTW!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Residential areas are created so that people can be part of a community that shares a common interest in the quality of living in that place"
If you live in some areas like Washington DC metro, it's rare that people know many of their neighbors. I've lived in my home since '02, and can only tell you the names of the owners of a few. If my kid hadn't played with neighbor kids, I'd likely know fewer. It's a transient area, and people head to work in the dark, and come home when it' dark, and try to catch up on the weekends. And, while you might say it's just me, I hear the same from many cow-orkers.
Just another day in Paradise
Fine, have fun shooting your gun. Yeeeehaaaaaaw.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
" there have been a rash of barber, bookstore, coffee shop, etc. closings in what's a fairly metropolitan area"
Um, sure there have, but are you putting the blame on the correct source. It's difficult for smalltime barbershops, and coffee shops to compete with the likes of Haircuttery, and Starbucks. As for bookstores, how does a bricks & mortar compete with Amazon?
Just another day in Paradise
But you are aware that there are humans living next to you that probably won't like a loud stereo blasting at night and you care about that somewhat.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
It's like when you write something, and people feel what you say may inconvenience them, they just don't comprehend it. Is that an American thing?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Well, that is definitely legal in New York.
Incidentally, I found the anonymous Texan! lol
Anyways, the point is these confused tourists might not even realize they rented an illegal unit, and if they're French then they're physically incapable of speaking English to Americans, so there is probably no way to even explain the situation to them. Maybe if you can find a German who speaks English, then you can inform them about why there are government inspectors shoving in, and where to find a legal hotel.
No, not with fines for renting out the apartment. Fines for disturbing the peace. The problem isn't the rental, which is no one's business but the property owner's. The problem is holding the property owner accountable for the use of the property, including use by guests. You want to rent out your apartment on AirBnB? No problem—but you are responsible to your neighbours for your guests' behavior during their stay. So you'd better make sure they're well-behaved and considerate before letting them stay at your apartment.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Exactly! This is the point some people are missing; a community gets to set its own zoning and usage requirements. It is not a requirement to know your neighbors or be "friends" with them in order to have zoning and usage requirements, or other aspects of community.
It is not only Good People who go to [Approved Religious Institution] every [Sabbath day] and let their kids play in the street with the neighbors who have a right to community and to civic standards and laws. Horrible people like me who don't want to talk to their neighbors unless there is a good reason also have a right to community standards and zoning laws. It may even turn out that the reasons for the existence of zoning and usage laws is something other than allowing friendships with neighbors.
In fact, neighbors who try to be "friendly" and get involved in my business are usually the same ones who throw loud parties. The same people who feel obligated to pretend to be friends during the day are the ones calling the cops at night. I know I get along with most of my neighbors because I was never forced into enough interaction with them to find out their names; we can smile and nod or wave and maintain a mostly harmonious community without needing a bunch of words.
The Constitution says nothing about depriving one of property rights; only property.
A distinction without a difference. Property rights are property, and vice-versa. Any time your property rights are infringed you have been deprived of your property to at least some degree. To argue otherwise admits the absurd legal fiction that the property technically still belongs to you, you just don't have any actual right to use it—the property rights belong to someone else. When people talk about being deprived of their property, it's not mere physical possession that they're referring to but rather their legal rights relating to the property.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
"Talk to your landlord" you say? The law is being enforced primarily against landlords who keep their apartments off the rental market so that they can collect hotel-like rents instead of apartment rents. These are AirBnBers who have 5 or more properties on AirBnB at the same time, all the time. They are operating illegal hotels, plain and simple.
https://www.cnet.com/news/airbnb-nyc-law-hosts-fined-for-illegal-home-rentals
All without realizing that their support for overweening government is what gives the government the power and resources to actually perform such surveillance of everyone.
"But, we want an all-powerful government that will give us anything we want or need but we don't want it to affect us personally in a negative way, and/or have the power to take anything away from us! (just those other people we don't like!)" /sarc
The primary thing governments do domestically is enact laws and enforce them. Governments are a necessary evil, and are evil precisely because governments are made up of people with power over others. Human nature comes into play. People just don't get that it means that big governments enact many laws and do a lot of enforcement because they have the manpower & resources. It leads to a 'soft tyranny' until a watershed event triggers either a revolution or a police state.
"That government is best which governs least" - Henry David Thoreau: 'Civil Disobedience'
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
But it's really just a harsher enforcement of regular zoning laws. You can't run a commercial hotel in a residential neighborhood, and you shouldn't be able to get around those laws by saying "no it's different because it's on the internet." When there's such a pattern of behavior of disruption coming from apartments being rented out, isn't it okay to ban the underlying bad behavior? Drunks are so likely to cause accidents, injuries and deaths on the roads that we just ban drunk driving all together. We don't say "well, you can drive hammered and we'll only punish you if you run somebody over."
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Because it isn't really illegeal becasue they changed the law after peoples sstarted doing it that's ENTRAPMENT
You're thinking of "ex post facto" - making an act illegal after it takes place.
I think that would apply to, at least, any rentals that were in progress when the law came into effect. New rentals might be a different matter.
This law amounts to a zoning/land-use law change. If the rentals were actually legal under the previous laws, they might remain legal as a "non-conforming use", despite the new law, until the property is sold to a new owner.
Also: If the new law has the effect of substantially reducing the property's value to its owner, the owner might be able to sue the city for the difference, under the Fifth Amendment's "takings" clause and the doctrine of "partial taking".
But IANAL and even if I were I'm not a New Yorker.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The line in the summary about one of the people running a hotel got me thinking "huh, why would they object to someone renting out hotel rooms?" Well, I found this article: ...which states:
http://www.cntraveler.com/stor...
Freid, owns and manages an Upper West Side hotel called The Marrakech and was reportedly putting some of the rooms and suites on Airbnb and other short-term booking sites instead of listing them as proper hotel rooms.
Basically, he was probably dodging the NYC hotel taxes, but otherwise just renting rooms to tourists same as any other hotel. So in his case at least all the outrage above about innocent neighbors not wanting transient guests is not applicable.
That's a fair criticism. Business competition is probably a larger factor.
I call Bullshit on that "part of a community" bit. Tell me the name and hobby of your next door neighbor.
And now find 5 other people who can tell that. Nobody gives a shit who's living next door in large cities. You would probably only notice that someone in your apartment megacomplex died because after a few months in Summer it starts to smell funny.
Are you sure you wanted to reply to me? If yes, please explain 'cause I'm really confused now.
Because TFA is talking about NYC, you seem to make an assumption that this is all about big city problems (keywords: large cities, megacomplex, etc.). That's why I am pointing out that it is not the case. When state legislatures pass a bill, they intend to cover the whole jurisdiction even though the law may be focused on their big cities. Though, the issue could happen anywhere.
And to counter about people don't care about their own neighbor, you should go out of NYC to a smaller town in NY and you would see that everyone knows everyone else. There are plenty of AirBnB outside of NYC as well, and they aren't listing their properties in all places like those 2 in TFA.
And I pointed out to the topic that AirBnB appears to help catching these people in TFA (and doesn't want the law), but their action doesn't seem to work, or the story wouldn't exist.
No. It shouldn't be. But if the law is broadly written then it could be (at the whim of an inspector). And you would lose in court.
In NY there is alternate side of the street parking. Namely the city cleans one side of the street and you have to move your car. It is acceptable and normal to double park on the other side of the street during the hour and half time period that the street cleaner comes by.
However - the double parking is against the law. And, once in a while, tickets are given to everyone who double parked. And you, the poor schmuck who got the ticket, will not win if you dispute the ticket. The judge will say that double parking is against the law. He may take a few dollars off the ticket but you're still out 60.00+ dollars.
So, the fear is that the city, at their whim, will ticket everyone. How would you like to get a $1000 ticket?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
When there's such a pattern of behavior of disruption coming from apartments being rented out, isn't it okay to ban the underlying bad behavior?
No, that sort of prior restraint requires serious justification—"imminent threat of irreversible harm". The handful of minor disruptions which have actually occurred are nowhere near that level of threat; very few things are, short of direct physical attacks. While it would certainly be a simpler solution, prior restraint violates the property rights of those who rent out their apartments to considerate guests who do not cause such disruptions, while also causing harm to the guests themselves in the form of fewer choices of accommodation and correspondingly higher prices.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Who modded this crap up?
The first Muslim I ever spent much time with was M.A.R. Barker (the Tekumel guy) who looked like an average white American, except rounder and with a cooler beard.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Where do you get this from? Zoning laws are not designed to prevent imminent threats of irreversible harm. You' started talking about an apartment building, and in those places the residents are not the owners, and have only very restricted property rights.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
State and local governments tend to be more influenced by the people.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
We're not social people, really, but we're inoffensive.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
What does that have to do with normal zoning laws, or laws requiring buildings to be reasonably safe for their actual use?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
A few bad apples spoil the whole barrel. That's how it works in life.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You can rent your house out for long term occupancy, not short term. And only if it is registered as a rental property.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You' started talking about an apartment building, and in those places the residents are not the owners, and have only very restricted property rights.
In at least some of the cases in question it was the owner of the apartment building, not a renter, who was fined for using AirBnB. A renter's right to sublet, and more generally to allow others access to the apartment, is, of course, subject to the terms of their contract with the owner of the apartment building.
Zoning laws are not designed to prevent imminent threats of irreversible harm.
Yes, which is one of the many things wrong with zoning laws. Zoning laws in general are no more justifiable than the more specific restrictions on using AirBnB. However, that is a topic for another day.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
You think wrong. Regulatory takings have been recognized by the Supreme Court for more than a century, and lately have been interpreted to protect more rights of property owners, for example this case. (Koontz is not only about takings and compensation, but it clearly illustrates that zoning rules and restrictions can be unconstitutional takings.)
I hope you're looking forward to the next eight years, because Donald Trump has some great lines for the community to draw. The community is going to draw a huge line between the US and Mexico, and Mexico is going to pay for it. Maybe after that some poll taxes, maybe some literacy tests before voting -- but don't worry, real Americans won't have to worry about those, because the lines will be drawn by the community so only brown people have to pass those.
I should have been clearer; I meant to focus on parking on one's own property. Obviously, where there is an easement like a public street, the government has substantial say over who can park there and when.
You know that your summary of the distinctions between the common law and Napoleonic code-like systems is horribly inaccurate, right? For example, this law is a good example of the NYC government saying "here's how we want people to live and we're going to force you to do so", in sharp contrast to how people have already been living.
Define "own", because I can think of a lot of things I own that fit my definition of "own" just fine.
A hotel advertising on hotel booking sites is illegal? How is one supposed to visit NYC if it's illegal to book a hotel room?
Is the problem with the BedStuy property that is isn't up to code, or that she's trying to make money off apartments she hasn't rented out yet? You can't even make the claim that there's a lease-violating sublet since it's the building owner doing it.
Seems to me that NYC picked the wrong cases to start with.
What do you do when you have owners that make noise, party and are scumbags, they're a hell harder to get rid off than renters? If you want absolute peace and quiet you live somewhere you don't have neighbors.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
You going for a +5 funny there. State and local governments tend to be career progression steps in the federal government and are just as much about as doing whatever the hell they want after an election than any other level of government.
Have you considered that it's not them but you?
Yes. I considered the idea and discarded it, because of the reasons given above in my comment. If those people think there's something wrong with me, they need to fuck off and die in a fire of ass cancer, because I am being conscious of my neighbors and they are being life-threatening fuckbags who care about no one but themselves.
Have you considered that you make excuses for shit behavior because you're a shit person?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Fine, have fun shooting your gun. Yeeeehaaaaaaw.
Wow, you are a spectacular dumbfuck. The shooter next door was violating the law by firing towards and across my property boundary, and violating it again by firing towards my house. To boot, he was threatening the life of myself and my lady with his careless actions. I take my guns to the range because there is nowhere safe and legal to shoot on my property. There's someplace safe, but it's not legal. There's someplace legal, but it's not safe.
Why don't you just strangle yourself with your keyboard cord and make Slashdot a better place?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You sanction them in whatever ways the homeowner's association can or call the police if they're in violation of some type of city noise ordinance. Do that enough times and they'll get the picture and either shape up or ship out. The problem with short-term rentals is it's a different set of scumbags every weekend, and they're more inclined to be partying since they're renting the place for some kind of special reason. Even the scummiest of neighbors don't throw raves every weekend.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
No, the manner in which people were living in apartments was long-term rentals or ownership. Then people started renting the apartments out for short term rentals, which reduced the quality of life of the other occupants. They went from quiet or at least consistent neighbors to a different set of partiers every weekend who had no incentive to respect the peace of the community because fuck it we'll be gone on Monday. Now the government is putting in rules and punishments for people who disrupt the way people were living already. That's descriptive, not prescriptive.
So, start with culture where no one is throwing parties every weekend (no pool shit culture) because who could keep up that pace without being confronted (no need for a "don't shit in the pool" sign) to assholes showing up to rent out a place for the weekend and party (pool shitters show up) and now government enforcing rules to protect the original community standards ("No Shitting In Pool" sign and enforcement). The laws were enacted after people fucked up the culture, not beforehand (prescriptive). My description is accurate.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
You've obviously never lived in an urban neighborhood, various of my neighbors are continuously in various violations of city ordinances (junk cars in the driveway, summer block parties all summer long).
You can do the same with AirBNB hosts, just keep reporting them and get the city inspector to send them fines, they'll quit eventually. Making it illegal for everyone from renting out a room in their house (eg. to college students) across an entire state is not the answer because YOU don't want to deal with calling the cops once in a while.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Do please make the effort to troll more coherently in future.
Since you brought up zoning... Some zoning laws don't allow hotels, motels, or a bed and breakfast to be operated in a residential zone. I'm not arguing for or against what NY is doing, I'm just making a point that these operations MAY be in violation of their local zoning laws.
I'm all for what Air BnB does, as long as the original intent is followed. If my neighbor wants to rent out his house while he's out of town, more power to him. I would start to object when a slumlord is buying up the houses in my neighborhood, pimping them out on a daily basis to whomever is passing through town, and not maintaining them.
I mean that is kind of the point of zoning laws, isn't it? If I don't want to live next to a motel (or smelter plant) I am pretty secure in knowing that one isn't going to be built next to my house 2 years after I buy it. And having a stable place to live, knowing who my neighbors are, knowing who I need to keep an eye on is part of the value of living in a residential neighborhood. I certainly don't have the ability to control who my neighbors are, but by choosing to live in a residential area I have a certain expectation that I won't have a new set of neighbors in the house next door every week.
in many jurisdictions, a tenant has a right to remain, destroy the property through abuse or neglect, and complain if the rent increase is more than a prescribed rate. By going AB&B, landlords earn about the same money or a little more, have 70-80% occupency, have premises that are maintained in good order, and they can eject undesirables (drug house, drunkards, etc) by refusing to extend the rental period.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Short-term rentals (less than a month) were defined as being in the "hotel" category a long time ago, and a "hotel" faces licensing and taxing and insurance and legal responsibilities and all sorts of things. You could rent rooms in your own home if you were living there - no different from having visitors - but renting out to people when the owner is NOT living there is a "hotel". This is not news. One could argue that a different category would be nice to have; I have rented apartments in Edinburgh and London, both of which were registered with the appropriate tourist boards, licensed and insured appropriately, and had a hefty deposit to dissuade misbehavior. But the various online services don't seek to change or expand the laws, just claim that everyone can bypass them.