Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Airbnb Sues New York City To Block User-Data Bill Over Privacy (bostonglobe.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tussle-continues dept.

Airbnb has filed a lawsuit against the city of New York over a recent law the city passed, requiring the home-sharing site to hand over information about its hosts. From a report: The company is hoping to avoid millions in losses when the law, designed to police short-term home rentals, takes effect this winter. The New York City legislation, which passed with a 45-0 vote, would require Airbnb to share the names and addresses of its hosts with the city's Office of Special Enforcement. "The ordinance is an unlawful end-run around established restraints on governmental action and violates core constitutional rights," the company said in a claim filed in New York court on Friday.

New York, which faces an affordable housing shortage, has struggled with how to enforce regulations to control Airbnb and other home-sharing services like Expedia's HomeAway. Regulators argue that short-term rentals, which can be more profitable than long-term leases, disrupt neighborhoods and drive up rents. The new legislation is designed to give officials enough information to catch Airbnb hosts who operate outside of strict home-sharing laws.

64 comments

  1. yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    "The ordinance is an unlawful end-run around established restraints on governmental action and violates core constitutional rights"

    or in other words. This law will fuck us over by making illegal rentals or tax evaders stop feeding us a share of their ill gotten gains.

    1. Re:yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh... NY should just revoke Airbnb's business license statewide.

  2. You can't a homeowner how to rent his property by saloomy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    We prefer free markets as opposed to central control. Nice try NYC, kindly piss off.

    1. Re: You can't a homeowner how to rent his property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you can tell a homeowner how to rent their property, and not only that, you can even tell them not to run it as a brothel.

    2. Re:You can't a homeowner how to rent his property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Sorry Saloomy, that's retarded. We have housing laws, discrimination laws, hotel tax laws, maximum occupancy laws, zoning/use restrictions, all kinds, totally legal and part of why NYC is still livable on any level. Don't be daft please.

      I know you need to flex your Libertarianism on slashdot for karma like the rest of the goonsquad but try to be less wrong about it, eh? Time and place and manner, not to mention having a legal leg to stand on, genius.

    3. Re:You can't a homeowner how to rent his property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you can and pretty well universally they do. land is zoned for various classes of buildings and the ability to rent, in additional local regulations in most places has specific requirements for rental properties that you are required by law to meet.

    4. Re:You can't a homeowner how to rent his property by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We prefer free markets as opposed to central control. Nice try NYC, kindly piss off.

      Nearly all jurisdictions collect transient accommodation tax. TAT pays for things like convention centers, tourist attractions, and advertising to attract tourists. It is unfair to make every resident pay for these, when most of the benefit accrues to hotels, Airbnbs, and restaurants. TAT is a fair, reasonable tax, as long as the pols stick to using the revenue for supporting tourism, and refrain from using it as a general purpose piggy bank.

      The hotels already pay TAT. Why should the Airbnbs get a free ride? NYC can only enforce the law if they know who is renting what.

      If you want a totally free market, there are plenty of remote locations that do not have TAT. Good luck getting renters.

      Disclaimer: I rent a few rooms on Airbnb, and I pay TAT. But not in NYC.

    5. Re:You can't a homeowner how to rent his property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      kill yourself you authoritarian retard

    6. Re:You can't a homeowner how to rent his property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you first you communist piece of shit.

    7. Re: You can't a homeowner how to rent his property by oh-dark-thirty · · Score: 1

      Well of course they can, AC, you own nothing. Just stop paying property taxes, you'll see how it all works.

    8. Re:You can't a homeowner how to rent his property by oh-dark-thirty · · Score: 1

      Hey now you two....go ahead and fuck each other but be sure to give a reacharound now and then, k?

    9. Re: You can't a homeowner how to rent his property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the most European of fuck you taxes. You can't vote on it, . And you can't avoid it when traveling. Get stuck by weather or an airline delay? That will be a ten to twenty dollar tax for being from out of town.

    10. Re:You can't a homeowner how to rent his property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tourists are scum we shouldn't support them as a society

    11. Re:You can't a homeowner how to rent his property by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Land zoning is one of the main examples of how even free markets can coexist with centralized control. And NYC has many laws (like rent control) that modify the free market. Clearly, they don't want a free market solution to housing.

      Also, what percentage of NYC residents do you think own, as opposed to rent from some really really rich fuck?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    12. Re:You can't a homeowner how to rent his property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither AirBNB nor the users thereof asked to partake in your tourism promotion campaign, building of convention centers, etc. These may be worthwhile programs, but there are better ways to raise funds for those entities wanting to partake in these programs. Want to attend a conference at a convention center? Make it a requirement that convention organizers come up with the funds to cover it or otherwise get a percentage of there convention attendees to book rooms with hotels that charge a convention center fee.

      There is no need to use violence to achieve a social good. Be it to promote tourism or to fund actual welfare programs for the impoverished. All this tax is is a social welfare program for the wealthy who profit off tourism. You shouldn't be forced into collecting a tax because some other entities want to promote tourism as is the case with these TATs.

    13. Re: You can't a homeowner how to rent his property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to disband the police and the army!

    14. Re:You can't a homeowner how to rent his property by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We prefer free markets as opposed to central control.

      Ironically, you can't have free markets without central control; someone has to stop fraud.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Fuck Airbnb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have Airbnb hosts in my building. Rental units, not owners. The hosts "break" our security gate so their "tenants" can gain access to the building. In doing so, they also let in the homeless folks who camp on our fire escapes, rooftop, etc. Packages disappear. Laundry room gets trashed. Etc. Fuck em.

    1. Re: Fuck Airbnb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just nail or screw their door shut. Absentee landlords running an illegal hotel/AirBnB deserve it.

    2. Re:Fuck Airbnb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did you think there is problem with building security?

      maybe add easy 5-minute process with no documentation needed to get ANONIMOUS "guest pass" for their guests/tenants so they would not have to do this?

      in office building my corp rents space all employees have permanent passes with picture (not that it is needed since its wireless card you just put next to sensor to enter), but at any time ANY of people holding permanent pass can go and in less than 5 minutes without filing any documents (just giving their own pass for check) get 2-3 temporary passes for guests that last up to 2 weeks, they don't even have to give name of guest for that, this solution would handle your issue with homeless 100%

    3. Re:Fuck Airbnb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about instead follow the fucking laws and don't sublet. The right approach is to report them and make it as inconvenient as possible for any hosts/guests.

  4. Have they tried building more housing? by El+Cubano · · Score: 2

    New York, which faces an affordable housing shortage...

    Have they tried building more housing? Of course, good luck trying to build anything of reasonable size in NYC. All the NIMBYs come out and shout things like, "but it will ruin my view of the skyline," or, "it will negatively affect the character of the neighborhood.

    Same problem as in SF and numerous other places.

    1. Re: Have they tried building more housing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have they tried building more housing?

      Yes. Property owners hated it.

    2. Re:Have they tried building more housing? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      Have they tried building more housing?

      Of course not. From a property owner's perspective, a lack of affordable housing is a GOOD THING, because it means their own property will go up in value.

      This is a flaw in democracy: Only the people that live in NYC get to vote there. They people that WANT to live in NYC, but can't, don't get a vote.

      Some economists believe that idiotic liberal NIMBYism in prosperous coastal cities contributes even more to inequality in American than idiotic conservative regressive tax cuts.

    3. Re:Have they tried building more housing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you need to build more high speed public transit links so you can build further away from the job centers but still have a reasonable commute of one hour or less.

    4. Re:Have they tried building more housing? by hwihyw · · Score: 1

      Hey, I got an idea. We'll let people who live in Moscow vote on NYC laws. Or we'll rotate between Moscow and Pyongyang every 4 years. Get rid of this pesky self-governance/democracy nonsense.

    5. Re:Have they tried building more housing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shanghai bill blathers at length for the rights of corporations to protect their rights, but now questions the rights of people to vote and control their local municipality?

    6. Re:Have they tried building more housing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the NIMBYs come out and shout things like, "but it will ruin my view of the skyline," or, "it will negatively affect the character of the neighborhood.

      We have this issue solved by a reasonable right to appeal zoning decisions by the effected and relevant parties which are dealt with to the conclusion according to law. When the decision become legal after all appeals and complaints have been dealt with and the technicalities handled, they have the "rule of law" and there is no more NIMBY for the investors and builders to worry about. NIMBY almost never prevents building, it just alters the plans during the process.

    7. Re:Have they tried building more housing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New York, which faces an affordable housing shortage...

      Have they tried building more housing? Of course, good luck trying to build anything of reasonable size in NYC. All the NIMBYs come out and shout things like, "but it will ruin my view of the skyline," or, "it will negatively affect the character of the neighborhood.

      Same problem as in SF and numerous other places.

      Yes, there is construction all over New York--it is NOT the same as San Francisco.
      However the market rate for housing is still astronomical and affordable housing is very much a political issue. I'm not sure the actual law but generally developers must agree to make a certain percentage of units available at below-market rates in order to get permits for new construction.

    8. Re:Have they tried building more housing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so i can buy 10 story building in NY, and than i am guaranteed right to replace it with 50 story building if it is correctly/quality built?

      as in it cant happen that i buy it and than go trough this process and someone that owns building next door complains that it will reduce his property value/sun exposure/whatever and block me from replacing building with better one?

      i suspect answer is no because otherwise much more housing would be built

    9. Re:Have they tried building more housing? by PPH · · Score: 1

      They have an 800 acre empty lot right in the middle of the city.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    10. Re:Have they tried building more housing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can complain, but it ultimately depends about the merit of their complaint. If the project overshadows existing buildings in a way that is against the rules related the intended use of the buildings the officials would already have interfered during the design process. In the past the norm was to ensure that any new buildings will fit to its surroundings as part of the overall "city image." This lead to generally denying permissions to build very tall buildings. These days the officials have relented somewhat. Anyway, the neighbors have can complain and have a say many times during the project before going to court. By that time they would have to show a technical or intentional mistake or corruption by the officials.

  5. Boring La Cubana here to shit on herself again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Why not get a job so you don't have to waste your days whining about NIMBY's in NYC, or whatever you heard about them on Fox? You're so fucking trite and predictably pseudo-AM-radio conservative like the rest of the whiners. Get a life.

    We can't all live in Bakersfield and roll around in cowshit, some of us do have to live in urban areas. Deal with it snowflake, don't cry.

    1. Re:Boring La Cubana here to shit on herself again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't live in your country at all (i am from Europe) but how i see it REAL value of apartments is less than 10% of current one in cities like NY, remainder is pure price fixing
      both for land that is artificially inflated (compare price of 1 square kilometer in center of NY and in farmland in Arizona and you can easily add more land in most cities by allowing expansion of skyscrapers to suburbs),
      artificially inflated by building code (i am not talking about safety features, those are really needed, i am talking about not being to build buildings above certain height or having to spend over 50% of space on garages, or having to build apartments of certain size ( we don't all need 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms) ... )
      artificially inflated regulatory fees/taxes/everything else not needed for building to be safe and functional and so on, just cost of building materials and workers is less than 10% of current market value of apartments in NY and other "heavily regulated" cities

      i can easily afford apartment in center of NY (and pay for it in cache not credit), unlike most people i was lucky in life, but i would much rather buy 10 normal apartments than 1 price fixed apartment for that money,

      its not question of being able to afford something, it is question of that being good value for money

    2. Re:Boring La Cubana here to shit on herself again by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard of any area of the country that was not NIMBY? I've lived in small cities with 500 people, to large cities with millions, and they all don't want to build new housing. They all want everything to stay the same as when they moved there.

      It doesn't matter how much money everyone has: If you have five million people and housing for only 3 million, there are going to be people without housing.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Boring La Cubana here to shit on herself again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't build housing where housing is already, all the time. Some of those people have very defensible gripes, some places more population is unsustainable. NYC, SFC, those are very constrained areas. It's not all NIMBY.
      Some of it is just common sense fighting against the economic swing du jour, it's not all planned out as well as it could be either - the same Libertarian bullshitters like Cubana fight those kinds of major redevelopments also.

      What slashdot doesn't understand is these are AM radio non-intellects who just come here to shit on NYC and other urban cities because that's what brainfight/breitbart tells them to. They're a step above bots.

    4. Re:Boring La Cubana here to shit on herself again by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You can't build housing where housing is already, all the time.

      Yes you can? It's called an "apartment complex." There's plenty of space for more housing even in Manhattan. Even in central Tokyo.

      Cities are building office spaces, which attract people, without building housing. I would call it dumb but it pushes their property values up. If they wanted housing costs to be lower, they should have built more housing units.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Boring La Cubana here to shit on herself again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're doing two things - one, talking about centrally-macro-planned economics and development, and two, talking about places that are already at relatively high density compared to nearby areas. I don't know why this is hard.

      The reality is a lot more piecemeal and has a lot more inertia, legally, in terms of planning for transport and EIR and on down, waste collection, parking. Yes of course, more physical units could be built, were this not so, instantly.

      Snap out of it. The real world doesn't work like that.

    6. Re:Boring La Cubana here to shit on herself again by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You're doing two things - one, talking about centrally-macro-planned economics and development, and two, talking about places that are already at relatively high density compared to nearby areas. I don't know why this is hard.

      It's not hard, all you have to do is build more housing. People commuting from outside will cause more traffic problems than people commuting five minutes to work.

      Snap out of it. The real world doesn't work like that.

      It really does: build enough housing and the price of housing will go down. We know how to build dense cities, it's something we can do.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Boring La Cubana here to shit on herself again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're being continually retarded. Your solutions require a market driver, 10-20 years to effectively accomplish, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, tons of oversight and lawsuits to pay out and contractors to strike, etc.
      It's not trivial. To say so is Trump level retarded, like winning trade wars.

      If it were trivial, they would do it your way. You must have Trillions in the bank set aside for your low-rent housing, how generous of you. Write a big check, kiddo.

      The reason you're not in a job of planning such projects is because you can't really comprehend how complex they actually are, in reality. They take a long time, they take a lot of investment.
      And they take a suitable location. Do you also plan to buy the existing buildings you're going to knock down to build your ultradense expensive skyscrapers? Eminent Domain?
      Brilliant. How many of those have you actually seen go through, over how many years?

      Hmm? Oh you're saying you have no actual experience even thinking about this at length and were just blathering magic solutions like urban redevelopment were trivially easy, you do it all the time lol? As you were .

    8. Re:Boring La Cubana here to shit on herself again by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Your solutions require a market driver, 10-20 years to effectively accomplish, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS,

      Well yes, actually, there is a market driver: people who are willing to pay billions of dollars to buy apartments. If apartments cost $500k each, then you'd need 2000 people willing to pay that amount. But there are more than 2000 people willing to pay that amount.

      If it were trivial, they would do it your way.

      NIMBY. People don't want to do it, it's not that there isn't a solution.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Boring La Cubana here to shit on herself again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ahead and show me a massive development like that in the US where someone is spending Billions to house low income people in urban major buyouts, I'll wait.

      If you could do it, you wouldn't need to pretend in this longwinded spiel like a moron. You'd have something real to point to already.

    10. Re: Boring La Cubana here to shit on herself again by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      There was a project in San Mateo that got rejected because the city council didn't like it. NIMBY, That's how it goes. So what's your solution? Let the suckers live somewhere else? You don't care where as long as it's not near you?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:Boring La Cubana here to shit on herself again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reality is a lot more piecemeal and has a lot more inertia, legally, in terms of planning for transport and EIR and on down, waste collection, parking. Yes of course, more physical units could be built, were this not so, instantly.

      Transport planning comes from the city as it allocates new properties for development. I think you and phantomfive are talking about different things here: big buildings are built to last decades, sometimes 150 year hear in the West (Europe, US) and it is not realistic to expect those city centers to come down for a quick, high profile sky scraper housing development. Such a thing attracts the 0.5 percenters only anyway, and often pushes the surrounding real estate value higher.
        The other side is the almost organic development of the sub-urban areas some countries like to do, with the inefficient building types chosen just for political or customary reasons. Something should be done about it, if possible.

    12. Re:Boring La Cubana here to shit on herself again by torkus · · Score: 1

      NYC has, is, and continues to build more housing (and offices/buildings/etc.)

      The problem is the only thing being built is 1) ultra luxury rentals with 2) a few token low income units.

      It only makes the housing problem when you add a few thousand new units and they push the average rental price UPWARDS. The lower priced units raise their rent because...well...it's less than the new overpriced units.

      And...repeat. Forever.

      Oh, and factor in hipsters who take over neighborhood by neighborhood and pay obscene rent because it's a 'trendy place' and then abandon it and move elsewhere in a year or three. Then that area is left with greatly elevated rents and stores that no one else can afford but are stuck with the costs...

      welcome to NYC. no place like it on earth - both for the good AND the bad.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    13. Re:Boring La Cubana here to shit on herself again by torkus · · Score: 1

      It really does: build enough housing and the price of housing will go down. We know how to build dense cities, it's something we can do.

      Actually, NYC is the test bed for ultra dense 'modern' city life. I'd argue that we don't really know how to do it all that well...or else they wouldn't skimp on things like mass transit maintenance and accountability.

      > build more housing

      Ha! They are and have been. Guess what though? Virtually all that housing is more expensive than the existing rental units. No one is building a middle class, non-luxury apartment building. They're building ultra-luxury, ultra expensive high rises with a pittance of low income units as require to get their permits and variances.

      Stop talking like you 1) know NYC or 2) understand housing markets in major developed cities

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    14. Re:Boring La Cubana here to shit on herself again by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      NYC has, is, and continues to build more housing (and offices/buildings/etc.) The problem is the only thing being built is 1) ultra luxury rentals with 2) a few token low income units.

      Manhattan population is growing faster than they are building new houses, which pushes prices up. New York is in many ways an example of what not to do. You would be smart to leave there as fast as possible.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  6. Craigslist, the old fallback... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Obvious solution: advertise on Craigslist's "short-term/sublet" section, which is semi-anonymous, take cash only in payment. Guess the city will lose out on potential revenue that way, but that's the price it will pay for violating people's privacy.

    1. Re:Craigslist, the old fallback... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      What revenue do you think the NYC city will lose out on? Because it's trying to collect tax information that's the "people's privacy" being violated.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  7. It's got nothing to do with privacy by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    they're breaking long standing laws about sub-letting designed to control housing prices for residents. Those laws exist because wealthy people would buy up all the property during cyclic economic crashes and rent it back if they were allowed. There's currently a big problem with Chinese using foreign land to hide money from their corrupt government. They rent it out on services like airbnb. New Zealand just blocked them from buying land to prevent their countrymen from being extorted. But you don't really need the Chinese to buy up the land. Like I said, just wait for a few cyclic downturns when people are forced to sell homes for pennies on the dollar.

    Once again a practice that was made illegal for a very good reason has become "legal" again because, hey, it's on the Internet.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's got nothing to do with privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AirBnB and similar portals have become a massive problem where I live in Lisbon, Portugal. Rents are skyrocketing, it is becoming more and more impossible to actually get an apartment in the city. The average salary in Portugal is only about 800 Euro, which is about what your expected to pay for a 2 or 3 room apartment. Yesterday I've seen an add for students to live in a camping van in a garden outside the city for 600 EUR/mo with access to some shower and toilet. Families are easily spending more than 50% of their salary on rent.

      The same happened in Berlin, Germany, and one of the reasons apart from other socio-economic effects are pseudo-hotel services like AirBnB. In Berlin they have limited AirBnB, I pray they do the same in Lisbon, or else we'll get a situation like in London or SF.

  8. MYC laws already seem fairly effective by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I'm 0 for 2 in being able to use Air BnB in NYC - in both cases sometime after I booked, they were told they had to shut down. One of them, a day after... I've sadly already given up on Air BnB in NYC, my heart goes out to those just trying to get a little extra cash to be able to afford living in NYC...

    Hopefully Air BnB prevails.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:MYC laws already seem fairly effective by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      ... my heart goes out to those just trying to get a little extra cash to be able to afford living in NYC...

      A little extra cash isn't a sufficient justification for you to be able to do anything you want. You could make a little extra cash making and selling drugs from your residence. You could make a little extra cash running a brothel from your residence.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    2. Re:MYC laws already seem fairly effective by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      You could make a little extra cash making and selling drugs from your residence.,

      Yes, and??

      You could make a little extra cash running a brothel from your residence.

      Yes, and?????

      People like you are interfering assholes. I really wish the world would create a country devoted solely to housing assholes, and anyone that wanted to interfere with the lives of others across the globe would be sent to live in the Stalinist hell they desire.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  9. Sounds like a fishing expedition by Flexagon · · Score: 1

    The new legislation is designed to give officials enough information to catch Airbnb hosts who operate outside of strict home-sharing laws.

    This sounds like governmental fishing when a court-issued warrant backed by actual probable cause is the correct way to go about this. It would expose anyone who is not operating "outside of strict home-sharing laws" to an unnecessary search.

    1. Re:Sounds like a fishing expedition by mr.mctibbs · · Score: 1

      You're kidding, right? Airbnb, as a platform, is knowingly facilitating illegal activity. At least as far as the NYC market is concerned, that is what it is *designed* to do.

      Look, unlike most of the yahoos opposing this because "muh free market" I actually own an apartment in NYC, and I'm deeply opposed to the way airbnb is fucking up our housing market. Short-term rentals are decreasing hotel revenues (and thus taxes that fund the services I use), driving up ownership costs (who do you think pays for the wear-and-tear of all those fuckwit tourists to my building?). We, the actual residents of this city, voted for this measure. So fuck outta here.

  10. SHANGHAI BILL SAID WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a flaw in democracy: Only the people that live in NYC get to vote there. They people that WANT to live in NYC, but can't, don't get a vote.

    Some economists believe that idiotic liberal NIMBYism in prosperous coastal cities contributes even more to inequality in American than idiotic conservative regressive tax cuts.

    Your head is firmly wedged in your ass Bill. Your fakedick-economic theory is almost as rich as Trump U's Casino Management PhD program, you fucking idiot.

  11. Good Luck by will_die · · Score: 1

    They require the same thing from gun purchasers and that has constitutional protections, the chance that local judges will rule against the city is low.

    1. Re:Good Luck by Agripa · · Score: 1

      They require the same thing from gun purchasers and that has constitutional protections, the chance that local judges will rule against the city is low.

      Having studied some lawsuits and criminal trials that progressed through the NY court system, I would say that the chances are zero.

  12. Federal authorities - fine, local - not fine by mapkinase · · Score: 0

    Local governments are the worst violators of human rights. The amount of abuse by local feudal governments in the form of arbitrary taxes, dubious road laws, and outright gang-like collections on the road in the form of speed traps on interstate is astounding.

    I'd rather share the data with with FBI rather than my city. It will most certainly use the data for evil.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:Federal authorities - fine, local - not fine by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Local governments are the worst violators of human rights.

      Yeah! Local governments are responsible for the holocaust! They conquered America and genocided the natives! They invaded Panama and lied about WMDs in Iraq! Er, wait...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re: Federal authorities - fine, local - not fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well there is a documentary about a local government that outlawed dancing.

  13. Self audit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Search Air B n B listings in your building if a concern and file complaints. Likewise for NYC , contract a firm to develop a program to scan and cross reference out of zone listings. NYC can request Air B n b to delist out of zone locations.

  14. Looking at Amsterdam as example... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's entirely understandable that large cities take matters in their own hands. Sites like AirBnB and similar are literally making the city unlivable in. Legislation is already being drafted to put a halt to this (and other tourist-related issues). AirBnB either plays along or gets it's business model destroyed. It's that simple.