12 ms·

New York governor approves short-term apartment rental ban in NYC

96 points by kvs 16y ago

jrockway 16y ago
Wow, a law! This will stop the "problem" just like the drug laws solved the drug problem. Nobody wants drugs anymore, and even if they did, it would be impossible to obtain them. Same for short-term rentals, thanks to this!
- fmora 16y ago
  It will make Airbnb business more difficult in NYC. Sure, it hasn't stopped the drug Mafias but it sure makes their job harder and brings the price of drugs up (they love this though). This will probably bring the price of short term rentals up. Enough perhaps to satisfy the hotels. Which maybe is all they want.
vox 16y ago
I think this law cuts into our freedom as house/apartment owners. I don't think the government should have the right to dictate our lives at such a low-level.
- _delirium 16y ago
  I can't answer the philosophical/ethical question, but on the legal side, if this is considered a kind of "zoning" (prohibiting commercial use of residentially-zoned property), it's long established that that's a permitted kind of regulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_v._Ambler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_v._Ambler
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    You would also need a permit for your home-based startup, since you are using a portion of your residential space for business purposes.
helveticaman 16y ago
Does Airbnb have a lobbying budget?
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  I think the passage of this legislation is enough to answer your question.
- plusbryan 16y ago
  They definitely did a bit of grassroots lobbying with petitions (http://savenysublets.tumblr.com/ http://savenysublets.tumblr.com/) and I heard the founders spent some time in NYC. But nothing compared to what I bet the Hilton's of the world put into it.
makmanalp 16y ago
Related (might be vetoed): http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/dispatches/post/2010/07/new-york-short-term-vacation-apartment-rentals-tripadvisor-ban/100935/1 http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/dispatches/post/2010...
- rhymeswithcycle 16y ago
  Nope, the governor signed the bill and said he wouldn't veto it.
jim_h 16y ago
That's one way to make NYC even less affordable and friendly to tourists on a budget. I've met some very interesting and friendly people in 'short-term apartments'. Mostly foreign students/travelers on vacation, people moving to NYC for work and using it as temporary housing until they find a real place, or just regular Americans visiting another city on a budget. They make it seem like these places are unclean or unsafe, but they're not any more dirty or dangerous than any other apartment.
- rdtsc 16y ago
  > That's one way to make NYC even less affordable and friendly to tourists on a budget. But that is a valid concern I suppose -- does NYC benefit from tourists on a budget? If it doesn't then it might make sense to keep them out so tourists "not on a budget" can have more space, visit more often, and consequently spend more money. I can see how tourists on a budget would not be welcome in many cities. Some places rely on selling overpriced services and items to tourists and rely on tourists coming in and just throwing money around. So making legislation to accommodate certain visitors, but discourage others, kind of makes sense.
  - ccamrobertson 16y ago
    does NYC benefit from tourists on a budget Any tourists will bring tax revenues into the city by eating at restaurants, visiting museums and events and generally purchasing goods and services. "not on a budget" can have more space, visit more often, and consequently spend more money. If any place in the world operated purely under this assumption, then you would never have urban centers like New York to begin with. Consider that if the demand for hotels was so high that there was no longer enough rooms for tourists that more hotels would be built. Some places rely on selling overpriced services and items to tourists and rely on tourists coming in and just throwing money around. So making legislation to accommodate certain visitors, but discourage others, kind of makes sense. It really makes sense for hotel firms, who are likely the ones behind the vast lobbying efforts that helped to implement this law in the first place. They are the ones who stand to garner the extra revenues to be had from tourists who no longer have the option to AirBnB and must instead pay for high priced hotels. The only way in which this should improve New York's revenues as a government entity is through the room taxes assessed on hotels as opposed to AirBnB-style operations. This problem, however, could have been remedied without outright outlawing of the practice which seems to infringe on the rights of many property owners who AirBnB in a reasonable fashion (i.e. not purpose built illegal hotels).
samratjp 16y ago
Wait, does this mean this stops businesses like Airbnb from operating in NYC? Regardless, the whole thing is b.s.
thinker 16y ago
Wow. This is a direct swipe at airbnb.com no doubt (a YC startup). New York must be the largest market for short-term rentals.
gruseom 16y ago
Yet another illustration of how those with political power are not subject to the discipline of the market.
- zupatol 16y ago
  The market is created by laws, laws are created by politicians, politicians are elected. That's how a democracy should work, anyway. City planning is something complicated where I'm not so sure a pure market-driven solution would be optimal. Markets only allocate resources well when there are no externalities. They do nothing towards a fair distribution of wealth. A good example of poor city planning caused by the market is the housing bubble. I don't know the situation in New York, but if hotels were in fact crowding out the poor from the city, it would be perfectly legitimate to ask if this is desirable.
  - w00pla 16y ago
    > They do nothing towards a fair distribution of wealth. What is the "fair distribution of wealth"? I personally believe that you are only entitled to the wealth you yourself created (or which someone voluntary gave you). Isn't that a fair distribution of wealth? Or what other metrics do you use?
    - cromulent 16y ago
      One example might be parks. Do you feel entitled to use Central Park, even though you didn't create it? Whoever planned that part of NYC did a pretty good job of fair distribution, I think. Some for everyone to enjoy, some taxes taken for upkeep, everyone's a winner. I don't think the market would do a good job of allocating that resource.
    - ugh 16y ago
      If only the world were as simple as that. Location and family play a huge role in whether you can create (as much) wealth.
      - 16y ago
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
uuilly 16y ago
Economics: The study of the distribution of scarce resources with alternative uses. It would be great if more people knew that.
- ataggart 16y ago
  "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
  - uuilly 16y ago
    Love it. I've been reading a bunch of Thomas Sowell recently. That seems like it could be straight out of "A Conflict of Visions."
    - patrickgzill 16y ago
      Hayek.
      - uuilly 16y ago
        Sowell quotes him heavily.
fmora 16y ago
The first time I read about something like this I was outraged. "How dare they, the government is blocking people's ability to do business". Then, after some careful thought I started to agree with this ban. Basically I put myself in the shoes of a resident next to a building being used as an illegal hotel. The people do not have the proper permits. Obviously they are not licensed. The fact that there is always new people coming and going in what is supposed to be a residential area can cause problems. And I say this as a resident of NYC. Living here I never realized that it was so expensive to visit NYC. Sorry to be cynical but I guess it sucks to be you if you want to visit NYC and are broke. Notice that the person doing this illegal business is the only one benefiting from it. The community will not get any of the taxes that it is supposed to get which are in turn used to maintain the streets, pick the trash, pay police officers patrolling the area, etc. etc. Essentially, the community is paying for an illegal business.
- nphase 16y ago
  I have no idea what the breakdown of tax allocation looks like in NYC/NY state, but I'm not sure your last statement is correct. I assume the person doing this illegal business is still paying property tax and state income tax? If not, then that's a problem with the IRS, not a housing authority.
  - fmora 16y ago
    The tax for a residential building and for a hotel are not the same.
    - nphase 16y ago
      I realize that, but it's still extra income that gets taxed back to the government
  - whakojacko 16y ago
    I highly doubt they are paying state income tax on income received from renting. Or occupancy tax, for that matter.
whakojacko 16y ago
Lots of people seem to be thinking that all the big hotel chains are being evil by lobbing this kind of anti-competitive legislature out to kill airbnb and the like. And while that maybe be true, you also have to realize that governments would much rather prefer people stay in real hotels regardless of what the hotel industry thinks. Local governments get a lot of money off of occupancy taxes, as well as tax off of the employment of those in the service industries. How many airbnb hosts in NYC are paying occupancy taxes? What about reporting income? My guess: not too many. And this is completely ignoring zoning regulations that these self-serve hotels trample upon. Im going to guess that these laws will become more prevalent soon unless airbnb & co start become proactive about keeping track of all the relevant taxation.
- jim_h 16y ago
  What about home owners convert their N family house into N+1 (or N+2) family houses and rent out the floor(s)? In fact I'm pretty sure it's very common to do. I've even seen houses with 2 floors, but 5 mailboxes. I'm sure the government would also get taxes from the increased property taxes and reported income of people doing that. The hotel chains aren't evil, but they have their interests and I don't doubt they're giving the extra push for this to go through.
nphase 16y ago
I was in NYC with my team this past Jan, trying to raise money with a few angels in the area. The three of us decided to rent a furnished apartment to save money. I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of space this decision afforded. There was plenty of desk space in the unit and while there weren't enough beds for each of us the couches made due just fine. The landlord explained that they were having trouble leasing the apartment, and that they were falling back on relying on this sort of rental to help cover the cost of the space. It's a shame this won't be an option in the future, both for poor entrepreneurs and landlords.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- mattmillr 16y ago
  Another anecdote: I moved to the city in late March. Since then, I've been in five sublets while I looked for a suitable permanent place to live. (Moving in tomorrow!) One of those sublets would have been legal under this new law. The first was a vacation rental business, very well run by the owner of the building. I stayed there two months, so it wouldn't fall under this rule, but I was the exception: most of his business would. Another was a young professional who rented out her tiny one-bedroom in the East Village to help pay for her vacation. A third was a friend of mine who was out of the country for a few weeks. A win-win situation, I paid her rent and got a place to live. The fourth was a room in a shared loft with three roommates. The guy renting the room was a photographer who spent the two weeks in Haiti documenting the recovery. The rent money helped fund his trip. The fifth, the one I'm in right now, was another friend's place. She moved out at the first of the month (due to the availability of her new apartment and her new roommates' schedules) but was obligated to pay the rent through the end of the month. Again, win-win. I help with her rent and have a place to live. Tomorrow, I move into an apartment of my own. There is a specific no-subletting clause in the contract, and I'll honor that. But I wouldn't have made it moving to the city if this law had been in effect four months ago.
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    But how many neighbors did you piss off?
wrs 16y ago
Paris has a similar law, except the limit is a year, not 30 days. Now they say they're going to enforce it. (We'll see...it's France.) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/business/global/07rent.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/business/global/07rent.htm...
rdl 16y ago
I wonder how much this lowers the price of 30 day rentals in April 2011 vs. 3 x 10 day rentals today. I was going to AirBnB a few separate places in different parts of NYC for a month or so, but now it looks like I should do just one. If all of the daily-rentals have to convert to 30+ day rentals, it should increase supply by a lot more than the number of people willing to switch from short stays to longer stays.
diziet 16y ago
A startup like AirBnB worked to increase ease of entry into the market. Outlawing it is simply protectionism of an industry that simply isn't staying as competitive as many smaller entities organized by a technology. Let's pass a law limiting holding time of tbonds to at least 30 days, shall we?
- earl 16y ago
  Or people who live in the most dense housing in the US deciding they don't want randoms, particularly people from out of the city who often aren't aware of just how loud they are, frequently moving in and out as neighbors. As a former and future resident of NYC and current resident of SF, I'd hate to live next to such a place. I did until recently in SF and it sucked.
  - jgoewert 16y ago
    > randoms, particularly people from out of the city who often aren't aware of just how loud they are Doesn't stop anyone from in-town either. I lived for a year in a place that the upstairs neighbor stomped everywhere as he was morbidly obese and had to use the toilet frequently. The neighbor on the right played rap and hip-hop at max blast from midnight til 6 am, often leaving it on all day when he left to work. And the couple on the other side had rough sex nightly. And even more interesting is that this place was in a decent part of town, not some slumhole. > frequently moving in and out as neighbors You mean, like a hotel? There is one two blocks away from my house. Never been a problem. Or, are you more refering to something like transients? My subdivision has a lot of them, Bosnian families moving in extended family, finally getting their gov't grant, and moving out. Hasn't been a problem either... well, except for this one guy, but that was resolved and he wasn't a transient, he owned the home. Is your stance from a fear of strangers and foreigners? I don't see your arguemenst fit into the equation at all.
    - earl 16y ago
      Neighbors two blocks away are simply nothing like neighbors 2 inches of pressboard and a couple two-by-fours away. As for permanent neighbors, call the board or your landlord. Either should happily fix that problem for you.
toxicflavor 16y ago
Whether they can actually enforce it is the question. Many leases already have provisions against subletting and landlords have had a hard time doing anything about violators.
buro9 16y ago
Is the wording of the legislation specifically against "vacation" short-lets? As in... does it block business related short-lets? In which case, what's to stop AirBNB from adding a "trip purpose" selector to their site which would default to "business" when a property in NYC is selected. And if it does stop business short-lets, why isn't that industry up in arms about this?
yason 16y ago
They could ban renting apartments but anyone should be able to rent a spare room, provided you live there yourself. That would rule out the wannabe hotel keepers and make it easier for people to rent their own space, which I believe is the original point of couch crashing.
ryanb 16y ago
I wonder if apartments on the Jersey side of the Hudson (Hoboken, Jersey City, Weehawken) are now going to jump in price on airbnb.
ryanwanger 16y ago
All the NYC BnB rentals will start listing their terns as: "You must intend to stay 31 days or longer."
jawngee 16y ago
I live in NYC, and while I think AirBnB is decent idea, I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a building where the landlord - or another tenet - were renting out their spot like a hotel or hostel. At the point you are doing that with any sort of regularity you should be subject to licensing, insurance, etc.
- jawngee 16y ago
  This is exactly why I'm growing tired of social news sites too. Instead of responding in disagreement, you get downvoted. The whole thing is cowardly and/or lazy. Whomever downvoted me, you are telling me that you wouldn't mind a constant rotation of complete strangers taking residence in the apartment across the hall from you with no recourse for liability?
  - kiba 16y ago
    There's no reason to license and regulate if you can fine people with noise pollution and other negative externalities that come out of their property. If you disrupt the neighbors with loud musics, wild partying, etc, you will pay a fine. All the neighbors have to do is sue you in court and it should be easy to prove it so. That will kill many birds with one stone and eliminate vectors that allows people to choose winner and losers for political reasons.
    - kgrin 16y ago
      "All the neighbors have to do is sue you in court..." Even for small claims court, it's a pretty big burden to file suit. This regulation may not be the best answer, but let's not pretend that short-term rentals don't engender problems for the neighbors, or that all those problems can be ameliorated with more lawsuits.
      - chopsueyar 16y ago
        I am quite certain this legislation was not passed because bands of 'neighbors' grouped together to stop the problems engendered by short-term renters. Also, why is this problem engendered by only short-term renters? Can long-term renters, and even property owners be rude, loud, or obnoxious? This law will do nothing to protect you from 'those' types. You support increased government regulation, when there exists an existing legal process to handle such "problems". A pretty big burden? It is small claims court for a reason. If you are intelligent enought to post and read HN, you should not be burdened by filing a small claims lawsuit. At least now there is a process in place to deal with the owner of the property. Wait until the owner loses the property and vagrant squatters take residence. Begin the burden, here: http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/smallclaims/startingcase.shtml http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/smallclaims/startingcase....
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Interesting startup lesson here. NYC -- famous for high cost-of-living. So folks start micro-leasing as a way to recoup costs. Several startups are created as a way to coordinate these micro-leases. Response? Government steps in and shuts it down. The reason social problems, like housing shortages and the political responses, are important to talk about on HN is that big companies solve big problems, and nothing happens in a vacuum. Sometimes your biggest competitor can be the political status quo. I find the governor's remarks true, yet unconvincing. Kind of like a lot of politician-speak. Politicians (of all stripes) learn from the legal, public relations, and polling professions how to take any position on any side of an argument and make it sound somewhat plausible and reasonable for Joe Six Pack giving the entire matter 5 minutes thought. In the absence of public uproar, this was done for commercial reasons. Dig deep enough and you'll find somebody with a checkbook.
- jawngee 16y ago
  No, what I think you will find are people who believe that operating a commercial enterprise, which is what micro-leasing is, needing to be subject to regulation, licensing, insurance and liability - which they are currently aren't. I also believe you'll find people concerned about the possibility of renters being taken advantage of with no legal recourse. It's pretty simple.
  - patrickgzill 16y ago
    Because having regulations, licenses, insurance and liability, is just absolutely necessary - as it has been for innkeepers during medieval times, the Victorian era, etc... Your worship of government is misguided.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    I was going to use a bit of napkin logic to explore what you've said, but on further inspection your logic is circular, so needs no further exploration. If these things should be regulated because they are of a type of thing to be regulated? Then we haven't really advanced the discussion much, have we? Maybe you want to have a "big government" argument, but forget all of that. I'll assume you are correct. This is a type of thing that of necessity needs regulation. There are other enterprises just like this one who were not regulated. So why now? Why this? Certainly you don't feel like the actions were just random -- somebody rolls a dice and picks these guys out. I mean, as good and as wonderful and as healthy as all these restrictions are, they have to come from somewhere, right? Pick your favorite thing you wanted the government to do or not do over the last 20 years that never happened. Why did the government do some things and not others? Is there some secret logic or calculus that is used to determine which things to fix and which not to fix? Or is it just votes? I mean, you understand the reason for political parties, right? The use of force to protect interests. The speeches are all about bunnies and apple pie and protecting orphans, but bunnies and apple pies and orphans don't vote or make campaign contributions, do they? Sorry about the cynicism, but there's a very interesting economic lesson going on here that has to do with startups, so I thought it worthwhile to point out. Not trying to get in an argument, although I have no doubt that I've gotten into one. So I'm done here.
petercooper 16y ago
Meanwhile, there are people of privilege or wealth who are renting places for $500 a month next to Central Park. What a world.
- fmora 16y ago
  Source?
  - petercooper 16y ago
    It's a known problem, but.. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Theres+nothing+liberal+about+rent+control-a04262000 http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Theres+nothing+liberal+about+r... http://www.nber.org/~luttmer/rentcontrol.pdf http://www.nber.org/~luttmer/rentcontrol.pdf Search http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/02/10/nycs-rent-stabilized-parking-a-hidden-subsidy-to-drive/ http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/02/10/nycs-rent-stabilized-p... for "rent control"
swah 16y ago
How well does this apply in practice? "You're going to receive some friends in your house while you're away."
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mikecane 16y ago
I don't know how many of you here are native NYers. And I stress the native, because anyone who hasn't lived here for decades won't have a deep understanding of how things work here. Going out to the Hamptons (or elsewhere) for two weeks or a month and renting out your place has been going on here for decades. This has never been something hidden from the government, The Village Voice would be filled with Short-Term Sublet ads just for this purpose. Now that this has risen to the level of a nascent Internet business that can centralize, organize, and capitalize on this practice, Patterson -- faced with a crushing deficit -- slams the lid on it. Every day I wake up to find local, state, and national government tightening the noose around our necks more and more. All of you talking about liability -- hey, one of these budding Net businesses involved in this could also sell short-term insurance for such liabilities.
- fmora 16y ago
  I'm a native. Never heard of this. We must be on different economic classes. I come from a working class and so does everybody I grew up with.
  - mikecane 16y ago
    Did you never have to look for an apartment in The Village Voice?
    - fmora 16y ago
      Village Voice? That is so las decade.
      - mikecane 16y ago
        Yes, but that was my entire point of citing native NYer. From the 1970s on, the Voice was a go-to place for apartments for young people, which also included tons of Short-Term Rental ads. And the Times had such ads too for the monied set.
        16y ago
plusbryan 16y ago
I wonder how the governor will feel now when NYC foreclosures skyrocket.
chopsueyar 16y ago
New startup idea: Combine AirBnB w/ Zipcar, but for RVs.

96 points by kvs 16y ago

Wow, a law! This will stop the "problem" just like the drug laws solved the drug problem. Nobody wants drugs anymore, and even if they did, it would be impossible to obtain them. Same for short-term rentals, thanks to this!

fmora 16y ago
It will make Airbnb business more difficult in NYC. Sure, it hasn't stopped the drug Mafias but it sure makes their job harder and brings the price of drugs up (they love this though). This will probably bring the price of short term rentals up. Enough perhaps to satisfy the hotels. Which maybe is all they want.

vox 16y ago

I think this law cuts into our freedom as house/apartment owners. I don't think the government should have the right to dictate our lives at such a low-level.

_delirium 16y ago
I can't answer the philosophical/ethical question, but on the legal side, if this is considered a kind of "zoning" (prohibiting commercial use of residentially-zoned property), it's long established that that's a permitted kind of regulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_v._Ambler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_v._Ambler
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  You would also need a permit for your home-based startup, since you are using a portion of your residential space for business purposes.

helveticaman 16y ago

Does Airbnb have a lobbying budget?

chopsueyar 16y ago
I think the passage of this legislation is enough to answer your question.
plusbryan 16y ago
They definitely did a bit of grassroots lobbying with petitions (http://savenysublets.tumblr.com/ http://savenysublets.tumblr.com/) and I heard the founders spent some time in NYC. But nothing compared to what I bet the Hilton's of the world put into it.

makmanalp 16y ago

Related (might be vetoed): http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/dispatches/post/2010/07/new-york-short-term-vacation-apartment-rentals-tripadvisor-ban/100935/1 http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/dispatches/post/2010...

rhymeswithcycle 16y ago
Nope, the governor signed the bill and said he wouldn't veto it.

jim_h 16y ago

That's one way to make NYC even less affordable and friendly to tourists on a budget. I've met some very interesting and friendly people in 'short-term apartments'. Mostly foreign students/travelers on vacation, people moving to NYC for work and using it as temporary housing until they find a real place, or just regular Americans visiting another city on a budget. They make it seem like these places are unclean or unsafe, but they're not any more dirty or dangerous than any other apartment.

rdtsc 16y ago
> That's one way to make NYC even less affordable and friendly to tourists on a budget. But that is a valid concern I suppose -- does NYC benefit from tourists on a budget? If it doesn't then it might make sense to keep them out so tourists "not on a budget" can have more space, visit more often, and consequently spend more money. I can see how tourists on a budget would not be welcome in many cities. Some places rely on selling overpriced services and items to tourists and rely on tourists coming in and just throwing money around. So making legislation to accommodate certain visitors, but discourage others, kind of makes sense.
- ccamrobertson 16y ago
  does NYC benefit from tourists on a budget Any tourists will bring tax revenues into the city by eating at restaurants, visiting museums and events and generally purchasing goods and services. "not on a budget" can have more space, visit more often, and consequently spend more money. If any place in the world operated purely under this assumption, then you would never have urban centers like New York to begin with. Consider that if the demand for hotels was so high that there was no longer enough rooms for tourists that more hotels would be built. Some places rely on selling overpriced services and items to tourists and rely on tourists coming in and just throwing money around. So making legislation to accommodate certain visitors, but discourage others, kind of makes sense. It really makes sense for hotel firms, who are likely the ones behind the vast lobbying efforts that helped to implement this law in the first place. They are the ones who stand to garner the extra revenues to be had from tourists who no longer have the option to AirBnB and must instead pay for high priced hotels. The only way in which this should improve New York's revenues as a government entity is through the room taxes assessed on hotels as opposed to AirBnB-style operations. This problem, however, could have been remedied without outright outlawing of the practice which seems to infringe on the rights of many property owners who AirBnB in a reasonable fashion (i.e. not purpose built illegal hotels).

samratjp 16y ago

Wait, does this mean this stops businesses like Airbnb from operating in NYC? Regardless, the whole thing is b.s.

thinker 16y ago

Wow. This is a direct swipe at airbnb.com no doubt (a YC startup). New York must be the largest market for short-term rentals.

gruseom 16y ago

Yet another illustration of how those with political power are not subject to the discipline of the market.

zupatol 16y ago
The market is created by laws, laws are created by politicians, politicians are elected. That's how a democracy should work, anyway. City planning is something complicated where I'm not so sure a pure market-driven solution would be optimal. Markets only allocate resources well when there are no externalities. They do nothing towards a fair distribution of wealth. A good example of poor city planning caused by the market is the housing bubble. I don't know the situation in New York, but if hotels were in fact crowding out the poor from the city, it would be perfectly legitimate to ask if this is desirable.
- w00pla 16y ago
  > They do nothing towards a fair distribution of wealth. What is the "fair distribution of wealth"? I personally believe that you are only entitled to the wealth you yourself created (or which someone voluntary gave you). Isn't that a fair distribution of wealth? Or what other metrics do you use?
  - cromulent 16y ago
    One example might be parks. Do you feel entitled to use Central Park, even though you didn't create it? Whoever planned that part of NYC did a pretty good job of fair distribution, I think. Some for everyone to enjoy, some taxes taken for upkeep, everyone's a winner. I don't think the market would do a good job of allocating that resource.
  - ugh 16y ago
    If only the world were as simple as that. Location and family play a huge role in whether you can create (as much) wealth.
    - 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

uuilly 16y ago

Economics: The study of the distribution of scarce resources with alternative uses. It would be great if more people knew that.

ataggart 16y ago
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
- uuilly 16y ago
  Love it. I've been reading a bunch of Thomas Sowell recently. That seems like it could be straight out of "A Conflict of Visions."
  - patrickgzill 16y ago
    Hayek.
    - uuilly 16y ago
      Sowell quotes him heavily.

fmora 16y ago

The first time I read about something like this I was outraged. "How dare they, the government is blocking people's ability to do business". Then, after some careful thought I started to agree with this ban. Basically I put myself in the shoes of a resident next to a building being used as an illegal hotel. The people do not have the proper permits. Obviously they are not licensed. The fact that there is always new people coming and going in what is supposed to be a residential area can cause problems. And I say this as a resident of NYC. Living here I never realized that it was so expensive to visit NYC. Sorry to be cynical but I guess it sucks to be you if you want to visit NYC and are broke. Notice that the person doing this illegal business is the only one benefiting from it. The community will not get any of the taxes that it is supposed to get which are in turn used to maintain the streets, pick the trash, pay police officers patrolling the area, etc. etc. Essentially, the community is paying for an illegal business.

nphase 16y ago
I have no idea what the breakdown of tax allocation looks like in NYC/NY state, but I'm not sure your last statement is correct. I assume the person doing this illegal business is still paying property tax and state income tax? If not, then that's a problem with the IRS, not a housing authority.
- fmora 16y ago
  The tax for a residential building and for a hotel are not the same.
  - nphase 16y ago
    I realize that, but it's still extra income that gets taxed back to the government
- whakojacko 16y ago
  I highly doubt they are paying state income tax on income received from renting. Or occupancy tax, for that matter.

whakojacko 16y ago

Lots of people seem to be thinking that all the big hotel chains are being evil by lobbing this kind of anti-competitive legislature out to kill airbnb and the like. And while that maybe be true, you also have to realize that governments would much rather prefer people stay in real hotels regardless of what the hotel industry thinks. Local governments get a lot of money off of occupancy taxes, as well as tax off of the employment of those in the service industries. How many airbnb hosts in NYC are paying occupancy taxes? What about reporting income? My guess: not too many. And this is completely ignoring zoning regulations that these self-serve hotels trample upon. Im going to guess that these laws will become more prevalent soon unless airbnb & co start become proactive about keeping track of all the relevant taxation.

jim_h 16y ago
What about home owners convert their N family house into N+1 (or N+2) family houses and rent out the floor(s)? In fact I'm pretty sure it's very common to do. I've even seen houses with 2 floors, but 5 mailboxes. I'm sure the government would also get taxes from the increased property taxes and reported income of people doing that. The hotel chains aren't evil, but they have their interests and I don't doubt they're giving the extra push for this to go through.

nphase 16y ago

I was in NYC with my team this past Jan, trying to raise money with a few angels in the area. The three of us decided to rent a furnished apartment to save money. I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of space this decision afforded. There was plenty of desk space in the unit and while there weren't enough beds for each of us the couches made due just fine. The landlord explained that they were having trouble leasing the apartment, and that they were falling back on relying on this sort of rental to help cover the cost of the space. It's a shame this won't be an option in the future, both for poor entrepreneurs and landlords.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mattmillr 16y ago
Another anecdote: I moved to the city in late March. Since then, I've been in five sublets while I looked for a suitable permanent place to live. (Moving in tomorrow!) One of those sublets would have been legal under this new law. The first was a vacation rental business, very well run by the owner of the building. I stayed there two months, so it wouldn't fall under this rule, but I was the exception: most of his business would. Another was a young professional who rented out her tiny one-bedroom in the East Village to help pay for her vacation. A third was a friend of mine who was out of the country for a few weeks. A win-win situation, I paid her rent and got a place to live. The fourth was a room in a shared loft with three roommates. The guy renting the room was a photographer who spent the two weeks in Haiti documenting the recovery. The rent money helped fund his trip. The fifth, the one I'm in right now, was another friend's place. She moved out at the first of the month (due to the availability of her new apartment and her new roommates' schedules) but was obligated to pay the rent through the end of the month. Again, win-win. I help with her rent and have a place to live. Tomorrow, I move into an apartment of my own. There is a specific no-subletting clause in the contract, and I'll honor that. But I wouldn't have made it moving to the city if this law had been in effect four months ago.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  But how many neighbors did you piss off?

wrs 16y ago

Paris has a similar law, except the limit is a year, not 30 days. Now they say they're going to enforce it. (We'll see...it's France.) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/business/global/07rent.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/business/global/07rent.htm...

rdl 16y ago

I wonder how much this lowers the price of 30 day rentals in April 2011 vs. 3 x 10 day rentals today. I was going to AirBnB a few separate places in different parts of NYC for a month or so, but now it looks like I should do just one. If all of the daily-rentals have to convert to 30+ day rentals, it should increase supply by a lot more than the number of people willing to switch from short stays to longer stays.

diziet 16y ago

A startup like AirBnB worked to increase ease of entry into the market. Outlawing it is simply protectionism of an industry that simply isn't staying as competitive as many smaller entities organized by a technology. Let's pass a law limiting holding time of tbonds to at least 30 days, shall we?

earl 16y ago
Or people who live in the most dense housing in the US deciding they don't want randoms, particularly people from out of the city who often aren't aware of just how loud they are, frequently moving in and out as neighbors. As a former and future resident of NYC and current resident of SF, I'd hate to live next to such a place. I did until recently in SF and it sucked.
- jgoewert 16y ago
  > randoms, particularly people from out of the city who often aren't aware of just how loud they are Doesn't stop anyone from in-town either. I lived for a year in a place that the upstairs neighbor stomped everywhere as he was morbidly obese and had to use the toilet frequently. The neighbor on the right played rap and hip-hop at max blast from midnight til 6 am, often leaving it on all day when he left to work. And the couple on the other side had rough sex nightly. And even more interesting is that this place was in a decent part of town, not some slumhole. > frequently moving in and out as neighbors You mean, like a hotel? There is one two blocks away from my house. Never been a problem. Or, are you more refering to something like transients? My subdivision has a lot of them, Bosnian families moving in extended family, finally getting their gov't grant, and moving out. Hasn't been a problem either... well, except for this one guy, but that was resolved and he wasn't a transient, he owned the home. Is your stance from a fear of strangers and foreigners? I don't see your arguemenst fit into the equation at all.
  - earl 16y ago
    Neighbors two blocks away are simply nothing like neighbors 2 inches of pressboard and a couple two-by-fours away. As for permanent neighbors, call the board or your landlord. Either should happily fix that problem for you.

toxicflavor 16y ago

Whether they can actually enforce it is the question. Many leases already have provisions against subletting and landlords have had a hard time doing anything about violators.

buro9 16y ago

Is the wording of the legislation specifically against "vacation" short-lets? As in... does it block business related short-lets? In which case, what's to stop AirBNB from adding a "trip purpose" selector to their site which would default to "business" when a property in NYC is selected. And if it does stop business short-lets, why isn't that industry up in arms about this?

yason 16y ago

They could ban renting apartments but anyone should be able to rent a spare room, provided you live there yourself. That would rule out the wannabe hotel keepers and make it easier for people to rent their own space, which I believe is the original point of couch crashing.

ryanb 16y ago

I wonder if apartments on the Jersey side of the Hudson (Hoboken, Jersey City, Weehawken) are now going to jump in price on airbnb.

ryanwanger 16y ago

All the NYC BnB rentals will start listing their terns as: "You must intend to stay 31 days or longer."

jawngee 16y ago

I live in NYC, and while I think AirBnB is decent idea, I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a building where the landlord - or another tenet - were renting out their spot like a hotel or hostel. At the point you are doing that with any sort of regularity you should be subject to licensing, insurance, etc.

jawngee 16y ago
This is exactly why I'm growing tired of social news sites too. Instead of responding in disagreement, you get downvoted. The whole thing is cowardly and/or lazy. Whomever downvoted me, you are telling me that you wouldn't mind a constant rotation of complete strangers taking residence in the apartment across the hall from you with no recourse for liability?
- kiba 16y ago
  There's no reason to license and regulate if you can fine people with noise pollution and other negative externalities that come out of their property. If you disrupt the neighbors with loud musics, wild partying, etc, you will pay a fine. All the neighbors have to do is sue you in court and it should be easy to prove it so. That will kill many birds with one stone and eliminate vectors that allows people to choose winner and losers for political reasons.
  - kgrin 16y ago
    "All the neighbors have to do is sue you in court..." Even for small claims court, it's a pretty big burden to file suit. This regulation may not be the best answer, but let's not pretend that short-term rentals don't engender problems for the neighbors, or that all those problems can be ameliorated with more lawsuits.
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      I am quite certain this legislation was not passed because bands of 'neighbors' grouped together to stop the problems engendered by short-term renters. Also, why is this problem engendered by only short-term renters? Can long-term renters, and even property owners be rude, loud, or obnoxious? This law will do nothing to protect you from 'those' types. You support increased government regulation, when there exists an existing legal process to handle such "problems". A pretty big burden? It is small claims court for a reason. If you are intelligent enought to post and read HN, you should not be burdened by filing a small claims lawsuit. At least now there is a process in place to deal with the owner of the property. Wait until the owner loses the property and vagrant squatters take residence. Begin the burden, here: http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/smallclaims/startingcase.shtml http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/smallclaims/startingcase....

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

Interesting startup lesson here. NYC -- famous for high cost-of-living. So folks start micro-leasing as a way to recoup costs. Several startups are created as a way to coordinate these micro-leases. Response? Government steps in and shuts it down. The reason social problems, like housing shortages and the political responses, are important to talk about on HN is that big companies solve big problems, and nothing happens in a vacuum. Sometimes your biggest competitor can be the political status quo. I find the governor's remarks true, yet unconvincing. Kind of like a lot of politician-speak. Politicians (of all stripes) learn from the legal, public relations, and polling professions how to take any position on any side of an argument and make it sound somewhat plausible and reasonable for Joe Six Pack giving the entire matter 5 minutes thought. In the absence of public uproar, this was done for commercial reasons. Dig deep enough and you'll find somebody with a checkbook.

jawngee 16y ago
No, what I think you will find are people who believe that operating a commercial enterprise, which is what micro-leasing is, needing to be subject to regulation, licensing, insurance and liability - which they are currently aren't. I also believe you'll find people concerned about the possibility of renters being taken advantage of with no legal recourse. It's pretty simple.
- patrickgzill 16y ago
  Because having regulations, licenses, insurance and liability, is just absolutely necessary - as it has been for innkeepers during medieval times, the Victorian era, etc... Your worship of government is misguided.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  I was going to use a bit of napkin logic to explore what you've said, but on further inspection your logic is circular, so needs no further exploration. If these things should be regulated because they are of a type of thing to be regulated? Then we haven't really advanced the discussion much, have we? Maybe you want to have a "big government" argument, but forget all of that. I'll assume you are correct. This is a type of thing that of necessity needs regulation. There are other enterprises just like this one who were not regulated. So why now? Why this? Certainly you don't feel like the actions were just random -- somebody rolls a dice and picks these guys out. I mean, as good and as wonderful and as healthy as all these restrictions are, they have to come from somewhere, right? Pick your favorite thing you wanted the government to do or not do over the last 20 years that never happened. Why did the government do some things and not others? Is there some secret logic or calculus that is used to determine which things to fix and which not to fix? Or is it just votes? I mean, you understand the reason for political parties, right? The use of force to protect interests. The speeches are all about bunnies and apple pie and protecting orphans, but bunnies and apple pies and orphans don't vote or make campaign contributions, do they? Sorry about the cynicism, but there's a very interesting economic lesson going on here that has to do with startups, so I thought it worthwhile to point out. Not trying to get in an argument, although I have no doubt that I've gotten into one. So I'm done here.

petercooper 16y ago

Meanwhile, there are people of privilege or wealth who are renting places for $500 a month next to Central Park. What a world.

fmora 16y ago
Source?
- petercooper 16y ago
  It's a known problem, but.. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Theres+nothing+liberal+about+rent+control-a04262000 http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Theres+nothing+liberal+about+r... http://www.nber.org/~luttmer/rentcontrol.pdf http://www.nber.org/~luttmer/rentcontrol.pdf Search http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/02/10/nycs-rent-stabilized-parking-a-hidden-subsidy-to-drive/ http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/02/10/nycs-rent-stabilized-p... for "rent control"

swah 16y ago

How well does this apply in practice? "You're going to receive some friends in your house while you're away."

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

mikecane 16y ago

I don't know how many of you here are native NYers. And I stress the native, because anyone who hasn't lived here for decades won't have a deep understanding of how things work here. Going out to the Hamptons (or elsewhere) for two weeks or a month and renting out your place has been going on here for decades. This has never been something hidden from the government, The Village Voice would be filled with Short-Term Sublet ads just for this purpose. Now that this has risen to the level of a nascent Internet business that can centralize, organize, and capitalize on this practice, Patterson -- faced with a crushing deficit -- slams the lid on it. Every day I wake up to find local, state, and national government tightening the noose around our necks more and more. All of you talking about liability -- hey, one of these budding Net businesses involved in this could also sell short-term insurance for such liabilities.

fmora 16y ago
I'm a native. Never heard of this. We must be on different economic classes. I come from a working class and so does everybody I grew up with.
- mikecane 16y ago
  Did you never have to look for an apartment in The Village Voice?
  - fmora 16y ago
    Village Voice? That is so las decade.
    - mikecane 16y ago
      Yes, but that was my entire point of citing native NYer. From the 1970s on, the Voice was a go-to place for apartments for young people, which also included tons of Short-Term Rental ads. And the Times had such ads too for the monied set.
      - 16y ago

plusbryan 16y ago

I wonder how the governor will feel now when NYC foreclosures skyrocket.

chopsueyar 16y ago

New startup idea: Combine AirBnB w/ Zipcar, but for RVs.