18 ms·

Airbnb's response: "A majority of New Yorkers have embraced home sharing, and we will continue to fight for a smart policy solution that works for the the peopl

• chimeracoder 10y ago
  > I'd be more interested in knowing how New Yorkers feel about regulating short term apartment rentals than how they feel about sharing. Around the time when AG Schneiderman first subpoenaed Airbnb's records, Airbnb had a very aggressive advertising campaign in the NYC subway stations. Certain high-traffic stations were plastered with ads proclaiming how "New Yorkers Love Airbnb" and showing "regular New Yorkers" who were using Airbnb. On my commute each morning, it was interesting to see how those ads would get defaced with graffiti... not just once, but every single day, with new messages in different handwriting. The messages weren't saying anything you wouldn't expect - mostly they were complaints from angry neighbors of people who rented out on Airbnb full-time, or people who had to move because their landlords had decided to turn their apartments into full-time Airbnb rentals[0]. But it was quite amazing to see how persistent the rancor towards Airbnb was. I took some pictures of them, though I wish I'd gotten a true time-lapse of those over the span of the weeks (months?) that the ads were up. For contrast, advertising campaigns in NYC subways commonly get defaced, but usually over a much longer period of time. And it's rare for it to be in retaliation towards the advertising company - usually it's people drawing beards on women or making off-brand remarks. [0] Yes, no matter how much Airbnb tries to deny it, this does happen.
  • untog 10y ago
    Not sure why this is being downvoted. I can back up the sentiments - I saw AirBnB posters graffiti-d regularly.
  • TeMPOraL 10y ago
    > I took some pictures of them Could you post them somewhere? I'd be interested to see those graffitis.
• aikah 10y ago
  > we will continue to fight for a smart policy solution that works for the the people, not the powerful. lol, they talk like they are a grass root movement, they fight for nothing but their own bottom line, I hate this insulting "disruptive" marketing speech. There are laws, just because you're an "app" doesn't give you the right to violate them.
  • amyjess 10y ago
    I know, right? It's one of the reasons why the culture of the SV tech industry turns me off so much, and it's a part of why I'm glad I don't live in SV or work for an SV company.
    • WalterSear 10y ago
      Doesn't sound like you're in the best position to pass judgement on it, then.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • TAForObvReasons 10y ago
    As the great saying goes, "Move fast and break things". Laws are things, right?
    • johnchristopher 10y ago
      Nope, you missed the point: > "Move fast and break things" is a saying common in science and engineering industries. In that context, it means that making mistakes is a natural consequence of innovation in a highly competitive and complex environment. In particular, it was adopted by Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook (who even went as far as to say that 'breaking things' is a necessary feature of moving 'fast enough'). Breaking the law is a mistake (and a serious one for any business caught). Move fast and break things is more about breaking your own things, not someone else's things :) What's next ? Breaking your node shop competitors' legs :) ? Move fast and break things != One can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.
• busterarm 10y ago
  There are a shocking amount of units in NYC that are full-time Airbnbs. As a New Yorker, I am in favor of legislation that tries to ensure that New York's rental units are occupied by actual residents.
  • sbarre 10y ago
    I read somewhere that Amsterdam has a rule that states you can only use your lodging for short-term rental for up to 60 days a year. This seems like it maintains the sharing spirit of something like AirBnB (rent your place out occasionally when you're away) while preventing the problems that come from people essentially running unregulated hotels..
    • bradleyjg 10y ago
      The problem is enforcement. As it is this law is all about tractability of enforcement, it doesn't change what apartments are or are not allowed to be let/sublet but rather adds a provision that makes it illegal to advertise an illegal unit. This is because the existing law is very difficult to enforce and AirBnB moguls are blatantly flaunting it. This is the same problem with those that suggest that we don't need state laws because condos and co-ops can just enforce their contractual rules. (Also, that argument neglects rental buildings.) Relaxing the law in the manner you suggest would make it even more difficult to enforce than the law as it stood prior to this addition.
      • threeseed 10y ago
        Enforcement could be simple. Just like governments demand companies hand over financial information they could demand that AirBnb hands over the list of users and the total stay length.
        • jonknee 10y ago
          But you have to do that for every similar service and try and match up records. It would be a nightmare. Landlords would also create different companies/accounts to rent out the max nights per year. It's just not enforceable.
• dmichulke 10y ago
  You're arguing that it's against the law but the higher standard is here (and it should be in every similar discussion) whether it's just: Can a proprietor rent out his property to someone else, and possibly so against the will of the state? I do think yes, if the state has a say then it's not really the proprietor's property.
  • geofft 10y ago
    There are two reasons it's not as simple as that. The first is that there are a ton of rules about owning property, and (for the most part) nobody thinks that any of those other rules mean that it's not really the owner's property. There are zoning laws, for instance: if I own a house, I can't run a business there. If I own an office building, I can't live there. If I own a three-story building, I probably can't knock it down and replace it with a forty-story building. There's the rule of law: if I run a suspected meth lab in my basement, or harbor a suspected criminal in a spare bedroom, the state gets to barge in. There's taxes: if I don't give the state money merely for the privilege of owning property, it gets to take the property back. There are rent control/stabilization laws: depending on what my property is, I can't charge more than a certain amount to rent it out, even if the tenant is willing to pay. There are certainly political theories under which all of those mean that I don't really own the property, but those aren't the theories we live under. Airbnb shouldn't get an excuse just because we want to start theorizing at that particular point. The second is that, for most rental property in New York, the state is already involved. There are tax exemption programs, subsidies, city services and infrastructure, and all sorts of things without which the building would not have existed in the first place. The state is more than free to set conditions on buildings where it helped with the construction, even if that condition is "We get to set rules arbitrarily forevermore" - if an owner doesn't want to agree, they're welcome to try building without the state's help.
  • apaprocki 10y ago
    There are many different types of properties. Condominiums and co-ops work very differently. If you are a condo owner and you give someone else your keys for 2 nights, you are violating the contractual rights of everyone else that owns property in the building and putting them at financial risk. The proprietor and state are the not the only parties involved.
• nostromo 10y ago
  I think you're hung up on the kindergarden meaning of "sharing." The word doesn't mean "free" -- it only means to subdivide something amongst multiple people. We use the word "share" in commerce all the time. Time share, shares in a company, profit sharing, etc.
  • geebee 10y ago
    People at pro-airbnb rallies have chanted "sharing is caring". The reason airbnb so assiduously works to keep the word "sharing" in there is precisely because of the kindergarten meaning.
• jjordan 10y ago
  This highlights a flaw in the law more than anything else. Who owns your home? If government can tell you who can stay with you, regardless of any private transactions or agreements you make with that person, then government has more authority over your living space than you do.
  • JonFish85 10y ago
    Is it a flaw or a feature? This might be more akin to the local government saying that you can't run a business in a residential area (i.e. zoning laws) than it is to squashing "private transactions or agreements".
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  • daodedickinson 10y ago
    Well, do you not own your home if an association can force you not to paint an icon on your roof or put certain statues in your yard? I would say so. I have always seen homeowners associations as a grevious affront to the First Amendment. But apparently I am missing something vital or I am insane.
    • gradys 10y ago
      You are missing something vital. The First Amendment guarantees that the government cannot restrict speech, free association, etc. Homeowners associations are not the government. They are private organizations. You generally agree to follow their rules as part of the contract you sign when purchasing the property.
      • adrusi 10y ago
        But why do you have to sign that contract? Why does this private organization have the power to force you to sign a contract before purchasing property? Because the munucipal government has granted them that power. The way the bill of rights is applied to municipal governments isn't clear, but in my opinion this is an overreach.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• garrettgrimsley 10y ago
  >It is commerce. It is unambiguously commerce, it is a pure quid pro quo money for services transaction. This is the same case for companies like Uber and Lyft. You're paying someone to drive you from Point A to Point B. You aren't sharing a ride, it's just a taxi.
  • TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Indeed. Ride sharing is BlaBlaCar, and countless other services that existed locally years (even a decade) before, that facilitated carpooling for work commute. In such a service, the driver advertises that they'll be going from Point A to Point B, and is willing to take passengers (in exchange for fuel money). Any additional money that goes to the service itself is payment for matching drivers and passengers. Uber and Lyft are not sharing economy, they're taxis. AirBnB is not sharing economy, it's Booking.com meets Craigslist.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• eternalban 10y ago
  > "smart policy solution that works for the the people, not the powerful" This is so duplicitous. AirBnB is a for profit company. They have zero skin in the game in terms of exposure to and responsibility for lowered quality of life, apartment hoarding, rental increase, etc. disclosure: a "New Yorker" since 1989.
  • braveo 10y ago
    In this case "the powerful" means the hotel industry, and I don't think anyone would deny they have a vested interest in fighting airbnb.
    • eternalban 10y ago
      The hotel industry works within the legal framework of my city. And as far as "power" goes, I'm pretty sure the $30B company playing the role of advocate for the weak and people is pretty powerful in its own right. [& p.s. the hotel industry, afaik, has a pretty small footprint in terms of side effects on the average resident. Further, it provides a natural cap on the tourist flux in the city, which is a certain plus in my opinion.]
      • braveo 10y ago
        And yet, despite all of that, they were still referring to the hotel industry when they used the term "the powerful".
        • eternalban 10y ago
          That was acknowledged in prior response. Do you have anything substantial to add to this conversation, green account?
          • braveo 10y ago
            The poster was arguing against something that was never said, I was clarifying. Despite what anyone may think about whether or not the hotel industry is "powerful", the article was describing the hotel industry. That doesn't change because someone lands on a specific side of the argument and feels they have to make an argument about whether or not the hotel industry is actually powerful. None of that is required in order to understand what the article was saying. And indeed, it actively takes away from it by doing shit like spawning this particular tangent.
• blfr 10y ago
  "you may rent my apartment out for a week if and only if you pay me $1,000" isn't anywhere close to this zone of ambiguity Isn't that exactly how the word has always been used? For example, in timeshare which, while not a flattering comparison, definitely predates Airbnb. EDIT: Oh, I see a similar comment has been stomped into the ground for some reason already.
  • apendleton 10y ago
    No, I don't think "timeshare" is the same. In a timeshare, there's no exchange of funds between you and the people with whom you're sharing; you and your co-sharers are collectively purchasing a thing from a third party and sharing it (in this case, a rental property). It's like if I said I was "sharing a cab": you would assume I meant some other person or people and I all got in a cab and split the fare. The other passengers and I would be the ones doing the sharing, with each other. The driver is not sharing with us, and I would never use the word "share" to describe taking a cab alone.
• unethical_ban 10y ago
  I think you're really downplaying the impact the Internet and the acceptance of this market in the minds of consumers has. It's a big deal, and it IS disruptive, and I doubt Cuomo is signing this because he cares about noise complaints in apartment complexes.
• jgalt212 10y ago
  > A majority of New Yorkers have embraced home sharing I live in NY, and I'd say a majority of New Yorkers feel the exact opposite. Nice truthyness, there.
• davidf18 10y ago
  New Yorkers don't want AirBnB. We don't want transients in our buildings. There are elderly, there are children, there are women. Vulnerable populations. We have doormen. We pay a lot for our apartments.
• countingteeth 10y ago
  Yup. Not to mention, Couchsurfing, an actual home sharing site, predates Airbnb by five years.
• Certhas 10y ago
  Many European cities simp.y treat it as such: You can rent out AirBnBs if you have a license.