That's a remarkably good solution and lucid explanation.
Of course it will be a long time coming. It requires not only technical implementation but also assaults by a large assortment of states-rights lobbyists.
But it's an excellent suggestion; the best I've ever seen.
Actually it's that I don't want to shame people voting for Trump who are also so stupid that they post a selfie of them doing so. One must protect even the unintelligent, the gullible, and the confused, in a just society.
Uh, the whole point of this article was that this practice was lowering prices in the short-term rental market. Providing a demanded service cheaply is rare considered "extortion". And just because a law was pre-existing doesn't mean it's a good law - just like the various taxi restrictions that Uber ran into, it was a service using governmental power to protect themselves from competition. If you want to talk actual extortion, start there.
The point of my post -- you seem to have missed it -- is that the result has been significant raising of prices in the apartment market. For example, a studio that may garner $2500 rented out on a one or two year apartment lease (yeah, an expensive shoe box) can easily bring in two or three times that when the landlord turns it into a short-stay (hotel) room rental. Now maybe that short-term price is lower than what it would cost a tourist to rent a regular hotel room of similar size with cooking facilities, but that landlord has just removed one more legal studio apartment from the already untenable housing market and turned it into an illegal hotel room.
And please, stop with the "providing a demanded service cheaply" crap. Tenants in a building that is being converted -- one apartment at a time, to airbnb rentals -- are being done out of the "demanded service" that the landlord previously entered into with them -- namely, providing an apartment in which to live around others who have also made that building their "home". They didn't rent their apartments expecting to have 365 different next door neighbors per year.
So while stopping airbnb from making it easy for landlords to do this crap may cause some tourists to pay a bit more for a hotel room, the law -- and it's a good law -- helps to keep the already disastrous housing market from becoming significantly worse.
It sounds like your parents would be in compliance with the NY laws then, because they are living in the place that they have listed on airbnb. They "see their customers for an hour or two in the evening, and then briefly in the morning for breakfast". Perfectly legal in NY also under the present law.
Since 2010, it has been illegal in New York to rent out a whole apartment for fewer than 30 days. But some tenants and landlords have ignored those rules and have been using Airbnb to rent out their apartments for much shorter periods.
The law does not preclude you from offering a room for rent on AirBnB in an apartment you continue to reside in, i.e., while you are present. Bottom line is that you must continue to live there during the rental period, sort of like taking on a short-term roommate. Perfectly legal.
The law doesn't even preclude you from subletting or renting your entire apartment on AirBnB, provided that the rental period is 30 days or longer. That brings the rental under New York's apartment rental laws, and gives the person who rents the apartment certain rights that they would not have had with a shorter rental period. Perfectly legal.
The law does preclude you from renting an apartment for fewer than 30 days in which you will not be also residing during the rental period.
TL;DR : the law is intended to prevent landlords from turning their apartment stock into hotel rooms.
Cry me a river for AirBnB and for the landlords who have been abusing the already existing NYC law to extort even more money from their already overpriced NYC housing inventory. They bought their apartments knowing what the law was; they just figured that nobody would bother enforcing it. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!
I'd do that in a second except that it would turn my 40 minute commute via bus and subway (during which I can read or zone out) into a probably longer commute by car (during which I would have to pay rapt attention or risk killing myself or someone else).
I don't understand your comparison; if you would elucidate I'd appreciate it.
However regarding the type of business practices described, I will note that no ethical business person conducts their business dealings that way. It was not an isolated case of a dispute over what was owed but a frequently repeated method of obtaining goods and services for free or at unconscionably reduced rates. Trump enriched himself over and over again on the backs of those who entered into good faith business dealings with him.
Yes, I realized that after posting. But I am not aware of such a "movement" in NYC either.
The buses are a sore point with me because the wrap-around advertising serves to sort of camouflage them against the backdrop of traffic. I think that's a safety issue, especially for pedestrians.
He worked as a civil rights attorney and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School between 1992 and 2004. While serving three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004, he ran unsuccessfully in the Democratic primary for the United States House of Representatives in 2000 against incumbent Bobby Rush.
In 2004, Obama received national attention during his campaign to represent Illinois in the United States Senate with his victory in the March Democratic Party primary, his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July, and his election to the Senate in November. He began his presidential campaign in 2007 and, after a close primary campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2008, he won sufficient delegates in the Democratic Party primaries to receive the presidential nomination. He then defeated Republican nominee John McCain in the general election, and was inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009.
Significantly different from a candidate whose resume consists of real estate deals, discriminatory renting policies, operating gambling casinos, and promoting beauty pagents.
An alarmingly large portion of the US electorate believes that someone without political or governmental experience would make a better candidate than someone who has devoted the bulk of their life to the field.
Would you prefer a doctor who hadn't been tainted by going to medical school? A surgeon who never before performed surgery?
Would you prefer an airplane pilot who never went to flight school but "knows he can fly that damn thing"?
"Off the top of my head", and relatively recently, the only presidential candidates I could point to are George Romney and his son Mitt Romney, both known to be ethical businessmen. George Romney campaigned for the Republican nomination but lost to Richard Nixon; Mitt Romney ran as the Republican candidate but lost to Barack Obama.
Fun Fact (with parallels to Trump's "birtherism" and "Mexican-parented" judge-baiting): George Romney was born in Mexico. "Questions were occasionally asked about Romney's eligibility to run for President owing to his birth in Mexico, given the ambiguity in the United States Constitution over the phrase "natural-born citizen". Romney would depart the race before the matter could be more definitively resolved, although the preponderance of opinion then and since has been that he was eligible."
The other presidents I can think of were, I think, either war heroes or lawyers, and typically spent a great deal of time in "public service" / "elected office" prior to becoming president.
Well, George W Bush was a Texas oil tycoon, so maybe that's what you're asking about.
I take it that you consider Donald J Trump -- real estate developer, casino operator, restaurant operator, resort hotel operator, golf course developer, and self-proclaimed multi-billionaire -- a man who is shrewd enough to take his companies into bankruptcy when other people's money can be lost instead of his own, and smart enough to pay no income tax for the last 18 years, "not establishment".
Things were different 30 years ago. A woman who screamed bloody murder and filed lawsuits would have been slut shamed mercilessly. And she said that she expected that it would cost her her job in the meantime.
What are you talking about? After hearing Trump describe his seduction method as "grab their pussy and kiss them" I have changed my vote from Ms Clinton to Mr Trump.
He's the Man!
I have also been arrested for sexual assault whilst following his advice and I hope that Mr Trump will issue a Presidential pardon to me as soon as he is sworn in.
Quote: "First it was Sao Paulo, then Chennai. Then Grenoble, Tehran, Paris and now even New York have spawned movements to replace or ban outdoor advertising."
I'm curious who you are quoting (above) because in NYC even the MTA buses carry ads, and the "express" buses catering to the "commuter elite" have advertising that wraps all around the bus - sides, rear, even the windows:
I've found that a lot of people just want to "make themselves whole" in the legal sense, meaning they want to recover what they feel has been unjustly taken from them.
For many, advocating for the public good takes a back seat to that recovery; just think about all of the times that one reads of a settlement that was reached with the provision that the injured party not discuss the matter with anybody.
Thus he might have been engaging in such a discussion with Samsung, or at least intending to do so.
What ever happened to good old-fashioned detective work?
Well, there were hand-written documents (the bad guy's "blackbook" of phone numbers, for example). There were wiretaps for phone surveillance, and the murderer had to make his phone calls from actual physical locations - not an ever-changing array of cellular and/or IP devices. If he sent a letter, the USPS could intercept it and send it on its way again undetected after the LEO folks read it. While a given operator with sufficient training could manually encrypt or obfuscate these communications, most didn't have that training.
Now the "blackbook", the phone conversations (including various forms of electronic text messaging), and email can all be automatically locked up tight with excellent, free, encryption software; little if any training is needed.
With the content out of reach, some "privacy" folks are complaining even that cellular and other electronic metadata is being captured and examined.
So I think that a little bit of understanding ought to accompany the criticisms of the FBI's stance.
Slashdot Mirror
So don't allow the user to view the settings or the selections, only to make them.
And provide adequate money for law enforcement and the judiciary to prosecute those who coerce.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the tax money of patriots and tyrants.
That's a remarkably good solution and lucid explanation.
Of course it will be a long time coming. It requires not only technical implementation but also assaults by a large assortment of states-rights lobbyists.
But it's an excellent suggestion; the best I've ever seen.
Actually it's that I don't want to shame people voting for Trump who are also so stupid that they post a selfie of them doing so. One must protect even the unintelligent, the gullible, and the confused, in a just society.
The point of my post -- you seem to have missed it -- is that the result has been significant raising of prices in the apartment market. For example, a studio that may garner $2500 rented out on a one or two year apartment lease (yeah, an expensive shoe box) can easily bring in two or three times that when the landlord turns it into a short-stay (hotel) room rental. Now maybe that short-term price is lower than what it would cost a tourist to rent a regular hotel room of similar size with cooking facilities, but that landlord has just removed one more legal studio apartment from the already untenable housing market and turned it into an illegal hotel room.
And please, stop with the "providing a demanded service cheaply" crap. Tenants in a building that is being converted -- one apartment at a time, to airbnb rentals -- are being done out of the "demanded service" that the landlord previously entered into with them -- namely, providing an apartment in which to live around others who have also made that building their "home". They didn't rent their apartments expecting to have 365 different next door neighbors per year.
So while stopping airbnb from making it easy for landlords to do this crap may cause some tourists to pay a bit more for a hotel room, the law -- and it's a good law -- helps to keep the already disastrous housing market from becoming significantly worse.
It sounds like your parents would be in compliance with the NY laws then, because they are living in the place that they have listed on airbnb. They "see their customers for an hour or two in the evening, and then briefly in the morning for breakfast". Perfectly legal in NY also under the present law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/technology/new-york-passes-law-airbnb.html
The law does not preclude you from offering a room for rent on AirBnB in an apartment you continue to reside in, i.e., while you are present. Bottom line is that you must continue to live there during the rental period, sort of like taking on a short-term roommate. Perfectly legal.
The law doesn't even preclude you from subletting or renting your entire apartment on AirBnB, provided that the rental period is 30 days or longer. That brings the rental under New York's apartment rental laws, and gives the person who rents the apartment certain rights that they would not have had with a shorter rental period. Perfectly legal.
The law does preclude you from renting an apartment for fewer than 30 days in which you will not be also residing during the rental period.
TL;DR : the law is intended to prevent landlords from turning their apartment stock into hotel rooms.
Cry me a river for AirBnB and for the landlords who have been abusing the already existing NYC law to extort even more money from their already overpriced NYC housing inventory. They bought their apartments knowing what the law was; they just figured that nobody would bother enforcing it. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!
I'd do that in a second except that it would turn my 40 minute commute via bus and subway (during which I can read or zone out) into a probably longer commute by car (during which I would have to pay rapt attention or risk killing myself or someone else).
Like they do in the movies?
You're Next!
(with blood dripping from the letters of course)
Corruption? Like this? http://time.com/4465744/donald-trump-undocumented-workers/
But I suppose there was no need for WL to leak the info given that it is already well documented in the MSM.
I don't understand your comparison; if you would elucidate I'd appreciate it.
However regarding the type of business practices described, I will note that no ethical business person conducts their business dealings that way. It was not an isolated case of a dispute over what was owed but a frequently repeated method of obtaining goods and services for free or at unconscionably reduced rates. Trump enriched himself over and over again on the backs of those who entered into good faith business dealings with him.
Yes, I realized that after posting. But I am not aware of such a "movement" in NYC either.
The buses are a sore point with me because the wrap-around advertising serves to sort of camouflage them against the backdrop of traffic. I think that's a safety issue, especially for pedestrians.
I'm pretty sure that the US government can't just agree to pay ten cents on the dollar after being dragged into court for nonpayment.
This ought to refresh your memory regarding Trump's "paying off his debts":
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Significantly different from a candidate whose resume consists of real estate deals, discriminatory renting policies, operating gambling casinos, and promoting beauty pagents.
Maybe this is what you're looking for:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_occupation
Good questions.
An alarmingly large portion of the US electorate believes that someone without political or governmental experience would make a better candidate than someone who has devoted the bulk of their life to the field.
Would you prefer a doctor who hadn't been tainted by going to medical school? A surgeon who never before performed surgery?
Would you prefer an airplane pilot who never went to flight school but "knows he can fly that damn thing"?
"Off the top of my head", and relatively recently, the only presidential candidates I could point to are George Romney and his son Mitt Romney, both known to be ethical businessmen. George Romney campaigned for the Republican nomination but lost to Richard Nixon; Mitt Romney ran as the Republican candidate but lost to Barack Obama.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney
Fun Fact (with parallels to Trump's "birtherism" and "Mexican-parented" judge-baiting): George Romney was born in Mexico. "Questions were occasionally asked about Romney's eligibility to run for President owing to his birth in Mexico, given the ambiguity in the United States Constitution over the phrase "natural-born citizen". Romney would depart the race before the matter could be more definitively resolved, although the preponderance of opinion then and since has been that he was eligible."
The other presidents I can think of were, I think, either war heroes or lawyers, and typically spent a great deal of time in "public service" / "elected office" prior to becoming president.
Well, George W Bush was a Texas oil tycoon, so maybe that's what you're asking about.
I take it that you consider Donald J Trump -- real estate developer, casino operator, restaurant operator, resort hotel operator, golf course developer, and self-proclaimed multi-billionaire -- a man who is shrewd enough to take his companies into bankruptcy when other people's money can be lost instead of his own, and smart enough to pay no income tax for the last 18 years, "not establishment".
Really?
Things were different 30 years ago. A woman who screamed bloody murder and filed lawsuits would have been slut shamed mercilessly. And she said that she expected that it would cost her her job in the meantime.
What are you talking about? After hearing Trump describe his seduction method as "grab their pussy and kiss them" I have changed my vote from Ms Clinton to Mr Trump.
He's the Man!
I have also been arrested for sexual assault whilst following his advice and I hope that Mr Trump will issue a Presidential pardon to me as soon as he is sworn in.
I'm stealing your tagline.
I'm curious who you are quoting (above) because in NYC even the MTA buses carry ads, and the "express" buses catering to the "commuter elite" have advertising that wraps all around the bus - sides, rear, even the windows:
http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/02/09/finding-the-money-ad-agency-owes-mta-18m/
When you’re a star they let you do it.
I've found that a lot of people just want to "make themselves whole" in the legal sense, meaning they want to recover what they feel has been unjustly taken from them.
For many, advocating for the public good takes a back seat to that recovery; just think about all of the times that one reads of a settlement that was reached with the provision that the injured party not discuss the matter with anybody.
Thus he might have been engaging in such a discussion with Samsung, or at least intending to do so.
Well, there were hand-written documents (the bad guy's "blackbook" of phone numbers, for example). There were wiretaps for phone surveillance, and the murderer had to make his phone calls from actual physical locations - not an ever-changing array of cellular and/or IP devices. If he sent a letter, the USPS could intercept it and send it on its way again undetected after the LEO folks read it. While a given operator with sufficient training could manually encrypt or obfuscate these communications, most didn't have that training.
Now the "blackbook", the phone conversations (including various forms of electronic text messaging), and email can all be automatically locked up tight with excellent, free, encryption software; little if any training is needed.
With the content out of reach, some "privacy" folks are complaining even that cellular and other electronic metadata is being captured and examined.
So I think that a little bit of understanding ought to accompany the criticisms of the FBI's stance.
Well it sounds like there was a manual component to their process, so I guess it would be called a ... oh, nevermind.