7 ms·

As someone who rents from Equity Residential in NYC I will move to another apartment if they open my building up to this. It is illegal in NYC to rent an apart

by nemo44x 11y ago

As someone who rents from Equity Residential in NYC I will move to another apartment if they open my building up to this. It is illegal in NYC to rent an apartment for less than 30 days and is enforced by many landlords. If Airbnb is trying to convince landlords to look the other way, I find that disgusting. I don't want my building to be a hotel. I don't want random people in my building. The idea that landlords can rationalize steeply raising rents with the expectation that tenants will find the money by letting someone crash on their couch for a few days every month to make it up is dehumanizing. Will this be exploited by the 20% of affordable housing units in these buildings paying well below market rates?

bpodgursky 11y ago
> I don't want my building to be a hotel. I don't want random people in my building. Here's the thing... it's not your building. I totally understand it being wrong to AirBnB a rental without the landlord's approval. But if the landlord is ok with it... they own the building, that's their call. If you don't like it, find a different apartment.
- OJFord 11y ago
  > If you don't like it, find a different apartment. That's exactly what parent commenter said he would do, in opening sentence..
- CPLX 11y ago
  > they own the building, that's their call No, actually it's not. It's against the law to use a residential building as a short term occupancy hotel.
- mikeash 11y ago
  "My building" is a common English colloquialism to mean "the building in which I reside." It does not actually imply ownership. If you don't like it, find a different language. :P
  - digler999 11y ago
    In a lease agreement, it is a common convention to pay a rental rate for one dwelling or "unit" in the building. Not the "entire building " containing said dwelling. If you dont like what other people do with their dwellings, pay their rent for them in exchange for agreements governing what they do therein.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I don't understand what any of this has to do with the comment to which you replied.
    - OJFord 11y ago
      Nonsense, if I owned the whole building I would say "my [more familiar term than 'building']". Perhaps an example will put you at ease: "Oh could you help me take these to my flat? I know they're heavy, but don't worry, my building has a lift!" Substitute apartment and elevator if so inclined.
- ucsfgrad 11y ago
  nemo44x may not own the building, but her/his home is there. A home has greater meaning than its enclosing walls and a roof. It's the difference between a "home" and a "house". The home transcends ownership; the home goes beyond the physical space. Homes provide privacy, intimacy, personal expression, retreat. They are a place to love, to cry, to heal. They are a basic piece of the human experience. And all modern societies value them beyond their economic and materialistic dimensions. In high density areas, local governments have codified the value of "home" into law. NYC has housing laws that offer protection for people across the spectrum. From rent stabilization and eviction laws for the homes of those in lower income brackets, to Co-op and condo laws that protect the home of some of the wealthiest residents.
- ryguytilidie 11y ago
  Just because the poster doesn't own the building doesn't mean that the actual owner of the building can make illegal agreements re: the building.
- uptown 11y ago
  >But if the landlord is ok with it... they own the building, that's their call. Actually, it's very likely that a bank owns the building with a 30 year mortgage.
  - TheGirondin 11y ago
    No, the bank does not own it. The landlord can sell the building to a new owner. The bank can not.
- rmc 11y ago
  > they own the building, that's their call. Tenants have rights. Landlords are not, and should not be, allowed to do whatever they want with their building.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
btown 11y ago
A child comment was deleted that called nemo44x's opinion "dehumanizing" because it didn't account for the extremely limited supply of housing. My response is below: --- The assertion that, for residential rental, anything that is not a free market is "dehumanizing" to "everyone who came after you" is not self-evident. Consider this: when someone gets an apartment, they put down roots. Their utility curve is biased towards them wanting to stay where they are. They arguably should not be asked to swap the location of where they live as easily as a day trader would sell stocks. Think about commuting for a person already making ends meet with multiple jobs; think about the disruption to a child's schooling. Rent control is designed to account for this, to dampen the dynamic system of the housing market as an attempt for greater overall utility. Whether it is optimal, whether it is overapplied - since utility can't easily be quantified, that's something that everyone will have a different opinion on. Quoth the Dude, "That's just, like, your opinion, man." [0] You're certainly entitled to call someone else's opinion "dehumanizing," and they are equally entitled to downvote you in return. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c
- kazinator 11y ago
  In fact, a free market is dehumanizing because whether or not some entities participate in free market exchange has nothing to do with whether or not they are human. The concept of a free market only takes into account motivations to trade and subsequent evaluations, which has nothing to to with being human. Robots can engage in a free market with aliens. In a free market, your human attributes are set aside as irrelevant, except to the extent that being human gives you human-specific needs and desires that are relevant to the trade.
- bko 11y ago
  > Rent control is designed to account for this Well unfortunately intentions are not consequences. Rent control has very visibly benefits (grandma gets to keep her apartment at close to the same rent as she has been paying for decades) but distorts the market in very subtle but destructive ways (landlords not paying for any maintenance and harassment and dehumanization of tenants paying below market rates). There are transaction costs to everything. You think a landlord wants to go through the process of finding a new tenant and moving him in, ideally with no difference between your move out day and the new tenants move in date? Also, the protections you receive are priced into the cost. Would you take a slightly lower rent if the landlord could kick you out at any time? > Putting down roots This is very sentimental but that argument can be used to justify many policies that are meant to favor the recipients of a current system. In America there has been a huge transfer of wealth from the young and relatively poor to the old and relatively wealthy. > Whether it is optimal, whether it is overapplied - since utility can't easily be quantified, that's something that everyone will have a different opinion on. Yes, that's why we have a market and people are willing to trade based on their own utility (e.g. I signed a two year lease at a higher net effective rent)
kamaal 11y ago
>>If Airbnb is trying to convince landlords to look the other way, I find that disgusting. When your area of comfort is being disrupted = Disgusting(Airbnb). When somebody else's area of comfort is being disrupted = Innovation(Uber).
- nemo44x 11y ago
  All Uber drivers in the NYC area are licensed livery drivers and Uber is no different than any other car service. Airbnb is trying to turn buildings zoned for residential living into commercial hotels, which is illegal.
  - kamaal 11y ago
    livery drivers drive for Uber != All Uber drivers are livery drivers. Tenants who have landlord's permission to rent on Airbnb != All people who rent on Airbnb have landlord's permission. And yes disruption is always when it happens to others, when it happens to you, it looks 'unfair'.
digler999 11y ago
> As someone who rents > I don't want random people in my building
digler999 11y ago
> Will this be exploited by the 20% of affordable housing units in these buildings paying well below market rates? Well, why not ? when wealthy white people "exploit" legal loopholes and government subsidies for personal financial gain, it's called capitalism.
- nemo44x 11y ago
  Getting an apartment at a fraction of the market rate is not capitalism. It wouldn't be right for someone given this type of apartment to exploit it for profit considering there are thousands of other people who would qualify for these apartments and not take advantage of it. It has happened in Queens already and I believe the tenants have been evicted. Such a foolish choice considering the money they would have saved over the years. What do "white people" have to do with anything here?

by nemo44x 11y ago

bpodgursky 11y ago

> I don't want my building to be a hotel. I don't want random people in my building. Here's the thing... it's not your building. I totally understand it being wrong to AirBnB a rental without the landlord's approval. But if the landlord is ok with it... they own the building, that's their call. If you don't like it, find a different apartment.

OJFord 11y ago
> If you don't like it, find a different apartment. That's exactly what parent commenter said he would do, in opening sentence..
CPLX 11y ago
> they own the building, that's their call No, actually it's not. It's against the law to use a residential building as a short term occupancy hotel.
mikeash 11y ago
"My building" is a common English colloquialism to mean "the building in which I reside." It does not actually imply ownership. If you don't like it, find a different language. :P
- digler999 11y ago
  In a lease agreement, it is a common convention to pay a rental rate for one dwelling or "unit" in the building. Not the "entire building " containing said dwelling. If you dont like what other people do with their dwellings, pay their rent for them in exchange for agreements governing what they do therein.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I don't understand what any of this has to do with the comment to which you replied.
  - OJFord 11y ago
    Nonsense, if I owned the whole building I would say "my [more familiar term than 'building']". Perhaps an example will put you at ease: "Oh could you help me take these to my flat? I know they're heavy, but don't worry, my building has a lift!" Substitute apartment and elevator if so inclined.
ucsfgrad 11y ago
nemo44x may not own the building, but her/his home is there. A home has greater meaning than its enclosing walls and a roof. It's the difference between a "home" and a "house". The home transcends ownership; the home goes beyond the physical space. Homes provide privacy, intimacy, personal expression, retreat. They are a place to love, to cry, to heal. They are a basic piece of the human experience. And all modern societies value them beyond their economic and materialistic dimensions. In high density areas, local governments have codified the value of "home" into law. NYC has housing laws that offer protection for people across the spectrum. From rent stabilization and eviction laws for the homes of those in lower income brackets, to Co-op and condo laws that protect the home of some of the wealthiest residents.
ryguytilidie 11y ago
Just because the poster doesn't own the building doesn't mean that the actual owner of the building can make illegal agreements re: the building.
uptown 11y ago
>But if the landlord is ok with it... they own the building, that's their call. Actually, it's very likely that a bank owns the building with a 30 year mortgage.
- TheGirondin 11y ago
  No, the bank does not own it. The landlord can sell the building to a new owner. The bank can not.
rmc 11y ago
> they own the building, that's their call. Tenants have rights. Landlords are not, and should not be, allowed to do whatever they want with their building.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

btown 11y ago

A child comment was deleted that called nemo44x's opinion "dehumanizing" because it didn't account for the extremely limited supply of housing. My response is below: --- The assertion that, for residential rental, anything that is not a free market is "dehumanizing" to "everyone who came after you" is not self-evident. Consider this: when someone gets an apartment, they put down roots. Their utility curve is biased towards them wanting to stay where they are. They arguably should not be asked to swap the location of where they live as easily as a day trader would sell stocks. Think about commuting for a person already making ends meet with multiple jobs; think about the disruption to a child's schooling. Rent control is designed to account for this, to dampen the dynamic system of the housing market as an attempt for greater overall utility. Whether it is optimal, whether it is overapplied - since utility can't easily be quantified, that's something that everyone will have a different opinion on. Quoth the Dude, "That's just, like, your opinion, man." [0] You're certainly entitled to call someone else's opinion "dehumanizing," and they are equally entitled to downvote you in return. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

kazinator 11y ago
In fact, a free market is dehumanizing because whether or not some entities participate in free market exchange has nothing to do with whether or not they are human. The concept of a free market only takes into account motivations to trade and subsequent evaluations, which has nothing to to with being human. Robots can engage in a free market with aliens. In a free market, your human attributes are set aside as irrelevant, except to the extent that being human gives you human-specific needs and desires that are relevant to the trade.
bko 11y ago
> Rent control is designed to account for this Well unfortunately intentions are not consequences. Rent control has very visibly benefits (grandma gets to keep her apartment at close to the same rent as she has been paying for decades) but distorts the market in very subtle but destructive ways (landlords not paying for any maintenance and harassment and dehumanization of tenants paying below market rates). There are transaction costs to everything. You think a landlord wants to go through the process of finding a new tenant and moving him in, ideally with no difference between your move out day and the new tenants move in date? Also, the protections you receive are priced into the cost. Would you take a slightly lower rent if the landlord could kick you out at any time? > Putting down roots This is very sentimental but that argument can be used to justify many policies that are meant to favor the recipients of a current system. In America there has been a huge transfer of wealth from the young and relatively poor to the old and relatively wealthy. > Whether it is optimal, whether it is overapplied - since utility can't easily be quantified, that's something that everyone will have a different opinion on. Yes, that's why we have a market and people are willing to trade based on their own utility (e.g. I signed a two year lease at a higher net effective rent)

kamaal 11y ago

>>If Airbnb is trying to convince landlords to look the other way, I find that disgusting. When your area of comfort is being disrupted = Disgusting(Airbnb). When somebody else's area of comfort is being disrupted = Innovation(Uber).

nemo44x 11y ago
All Uber drivers in the NYC area are licensed livery drivers and Uber is no different than any other car service. Airbnb is trying to turn buildings zoned for residential living into commercial hotels, which is illegal.
- kamaal 11y ago
  livery drivers drive for Uber != All Uber drivers are livery drivers. Tenants who have landlord's permission to rent on Airbnb != All people who rent on Airbnb have landlord's permission. And yes disruption is always when it happens to others, when it happens to you, it looks 'unfair'.

digler999 11y ago

> As someone who rents > I don't want random people in my building

digler999 11y ago

> Will this be exploited by the 20% of affordable housing units in these buildings paying well below market rates? Well, why not ? when wealthy white people "exploit" legal loopholes and government subsidies for personal financial gain, it's called capitalism.

nemo44x 11y ago
Getting an apartment at a fraction of the market rate is not capitalism. It wouldn't be right for someone given this type of apartment to exploit it for profit considering there are thousands of other people who would qualify for these apartments and not take advantage of it. It has happened in Queens already and I believe the tenants have been evicted. Such a foolish choice considering the money they would have saved over the years. What do "white people" have to do with anything here?