5 ms·

Trying to find the original study. It was paid for by housing advocacy groups who generally oppose Airbnb, so I want to understand their methodology since they

Trying to find the original study. It was paid for by housing advocacy groups who generally oppose Airbnb, so I want to understand their methodology since they certainly have a bias. Edit: This looks like it: http://www.hcc-nyc.org/documents/ShortchangingNYC2016FINALprotected_000.pdf http://www.hcc-nyc.org/documents/ShortchangingNYC2016FINALpr... Here's their underlying logic: "If the 8,058 units defined as Impact Listings were made available on the rental market, the number of vacant rental units citywide would increase by 10 percent and the vacancy rate would rise to 4.0 percent" So, in other words, if all of the full-time "entire apartment" listings were to hit the market as vacant units immediately, the vacancy rate would increase by 10%. This is not the same thing as Airbnb reducing housing stock by 10%. This is actually probably more interesting: "53 percent of all Airbnb listings are located in one of the following five “macro-neighborhoods” - East Village/Lower East Side (LES), Chelsea/Hell’s Kitchen, West Village/Greenwich Village/SoHo, Williamsburg/Greenpoint/Bushwick, and Bedford Stuyvesant/Crown Heights." Something I think a lot of people don't appreciate about Airbnb's potential impact on the housing market is that a lot of the listings are concentrated in a few areas, so while Airbnb might not impact the housing market that much overall for a particular city, it can have a pretty significant impact on individual neighborhoods.

gshulegaard 10y ago
So basically, their conclusions and methodology are deliberately narrow.
kenferry 10y ago
Thanks for tracking that down. I had the same questions. I would be very interested to see followup interviews with a representative sample to investigate the percentage of units that would actually be on the market if not for airbnb.
- pyrophane 10y ago
  It appears that they have done a decent job of identifying full-time Airbnb operations, so it wouldn't be a big leap to think that the 8,058 units they identified as "impact listings" are not on the market because of Airbnb and that they would be if Airbnb were suddenly no longer an option.
- themartorana 10y ago
  I'm genuinely conflicted about this. On the one hand, I'm all for more housing. It can drive prices down (although not a lot I've seen has ever driven prices down in Manhattan) but at the same time, were I a property owner, I'd want to be able to do with that property as I wish. They're obviously income properties, so why are we mad about them making income in this way? I guess I'm asking whether or not income properties either a) are already regulated as such (and laws are being flaunted) or b) the desire here is to create laws that tightly scope what a property owner can do with their non-primary residentially-zoned property? I can't seem to form an opinion yet, so I'm mostly asking for yours, I guess. I suppose I need a bit more education on the debate. Edit: this isn't where I meant to put this reply. But it's here now, so, if it's slightly out-of-thread, apologies. Edit 2: if it's easier, can someone point me to a cogent and not-lopsided explanation of the debate?
  - mancerayder 10y ago
    I'm a property owner in one of the identified areas, for what it's worth, and I can give a summarized piece of the debate and some additional information not everyone knows. One pro-AirBnB argument has to do with property rights, and doesn't have to be rehashed as you implied it ('doing as you wish'). Another has to do with the idea that housing is so expensive, that a renter can help pay his/her high rent by supplementing the income. <- this latter argument is obviously not part of the 'landlords are renting out entire apartment' complaint. One anti-AirBnB argument has to do with some of the target areas being gentrifying neighborhoods (Bushwick, Bed Stuy, others; we're not talking about Tribeca here). In these, further increasing the scarcity of housing by taking the apartments out of the long-term rental market increases rent and displaces long-time, mostly poorer residents. This argument is given more by progressives. Another anti-AirBnB argument, this time by the hotel lobby, is that hotels have to pay different taxes, and abide by different standards of code and safety [ similar to the anti-Uber arguments, I guess ] and that it's not fair. In 2010 a law was passed which made it illegal to rent the entire apartment for less than 30 days. So if you're a renter, for example, you can rent out a room. One item of note is that in the State of New York, occupying a unit for 30 days or more grants one to certain rights as a tenant, meaning the landlord has significant hurdles in pursuing an eviction. I believe this set of laws [ edit: <30 days, not the tenants rights], which I believe went into effect in 2011, is referred to as the illegal hotel law. One often overlooked fact is that the law here excludes 2 and 3 family homes from the illegal hotel law. The punchline I'll add is that, in the gentrifying areas I mentioned above, a large piece of the housing stock is 2 and 3 family (especially 3 family) homes.
mancerayder 10y ago
Clarifications of data and interpretations of studies like this which have political ramifications, this takes time. It takes time to track down and read original studies to compare the conclusions (and sometimes worse, the headline) of the journalist. This is why I read HN's political content. Thank you!

gshulegaard 10y ago

So basically, their conclusions and methodology are deliberately narrow.

kenferry 10y ago

Thanks for tracking that down. I had the same questions. I would be very interested to see followup interviews with a representative sample to investigate the percentage of units that would actually be on the market if not for airbnb.

pyrophane 10y ago
It appears that they have done a decent job of identifying full-time Airbnb operations, so it wouldn't be a big leap to think that the 8,058 units they identified as "impact listings" are not on the market because of Airbnb and that they would be if Airbnb were suddenly no longer an option.
themartorana 10y ago
I'm genuinely conflicted about this. On the one hand, I'm all for more housing. It can drive prices down (although not a lot I've seen has ever driven prices down in Manhattan) but at the same time, were I a property owner, I'd want to be able to do with that property as I wish. They're obviously income properties, so why are we mad about them making income in this way? I guess I'm asking whether or not income properties either a) are already regulated as such (and laws are being flaunted) or b) the desire here is to create laws that tightly scope what a property owner can do with their non-primary residentially-zoned property? I can't seem to form an opinion yet, so I'm mostly asking for yours, I guess. I suppose I need a bit more education on the debate. Edit: this isn't where I meant to put this reply. But it's here now, so, if it's slightly out-of-thread, apologies. Edit 2: if it's easier, can someone point me to a cogent and not-lopsided explanation of the debate?
- mancerayder 10y ago
  I'm a property owner in one of the identified areas, for what it's worth, and I can give a summarized piece of the debate and some additional information not everyone knows. One pro-AirBnB argument has to do with property rights, and doesn't have to be rehashed as you implied it ('doing as you wish'). Another has to do with the idea that housing is so expensive, that a renter can help pay his/her high rent by supplementing the income. <- this latter argument is obviously not part of the 'landlords are renting out entire apartment' complaint. One anti-AirBnB argument has to do with some of the target areas being gentrifying neighborhoods (Bushwick, Bed Stuy, others; we're not talking about Tribeca here). In these, further increasing the scarcity of housing by taking the apartments out of the long-term rental market increases rent and displaces long-time, mostly poorer residents. This argument is given more by progressives. Another anti-AirBnB argument, this time by the hotel lobby, is that hotels have to pay different taxes, and abide by different standards of code and safety [ similar to the anti-Uber arguments, I guess ] and that it's not fair. In 2010 a law was passed which made it illegal to rent the entire apartment for less than 30 days. So if you're a renter, for example, you can rent out a room. One item of note is that in the State of New York, occupying a unit for 30 days or more grants one to certain rights as a tenant, meaning the landlord has significant hurdles in pursuing an eviction. I believe this set of laws [ edit: <30 days, not the tenants rights], which I believe went into effect in 2011, is referred to as the illegal hotel law. One often overlooked fact is that the law here excludes 2 and 3 family homes from the illegal hotel law. The punchline I'll add is that, in the gentrifying areas I mentioned above, a large piece of the housing stock is 2 and 3 family (especially 3 family) homes.

mancerayder 10y ago

Clarifications of data and interpretations of studies like this which have political ramifications, this takes time. It takes time to track down and read original studies to compare the conclusions (and sometimes worse, the headline) of the journalist. This is why I read HN's political content. Thank you!