18 ms·

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 ca

by 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.
  - jodrellblank 16y ago
    You can't reasonably argue on something you 'highly doubt'. I think they surely are paying it. There, it's even again now.
    - Psyonic 16y ago
      You really think all these people are going to add this to their taxes? As self-employment? And deal with the additional paper-work required? Let me guess, you think people pay the required state tax at the end of the year for all the tax-free purchases they made on the internet as well?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
shykes 16y ago
You are missing one important point: most people affected by this ban are individuals, renting out one room at a time, maybe two. I have a hard time believing this generates any kind of noticeable "coming and going". In fact, tolerating the rental of a single room per household strikes me as a good way of separating the wheat from the chaff. Ironically, even Cuba has such an exception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_particular
- shykes 16y ago
  One more thought: the state expects this to plug a leak in tax revenue. I think they are vastly underestimating the relief these rentals represented: losing that extra income might mean foreclosure for a lot of people. Plugging a leak, really? I call it shooting the life raft.
  - sprout 16y ago
    We're still living in a world with artificially inflated housing prices. While yes, people will be foreclosed on, this is a necessity to bring the market back to reasonable levels. If hosting tourists becomes standard practice, this will be reflected in the price of housing, and even more people will be unable to afford homes in the long run as a result. Especially when you look at vacant spots in hotels, which were zoned and set aside for that very purpose, this creates a significant inefficiency with a lot of unoccupied (and probably mis-priced by an illusory abundance of) space in the city.
    - plusbryan 16y ago
      @sprout: I disagree that airbnb and ilk would increase inefficiency. In fact, it seems to me that it's hotels that bring the inefficiency into the market. They are proxies for short-term housing needs created at a time when it was difficult to arrange short-term housing in unused space in residential zones. Imagine a world where sublets were completely unrestricted on both a governmental and leasing level. If I go on vacation, I would rent out my place. Theoretically, because my place is used 100%, the demand for these massive, overpriced hotels taking up prime real estate in our nation's cities would dwindle - and the efficiency of the city would actually improve. Instead of locking up this prime real estate in hotels, which are seasonal and affected by economic hardship, we'd enable more people to live downtown full-time, close to their jobs - which would lower transportation costs, monthly housing costs, overnight rental costs, and in general bring efficiency to the market.
modeless 16y ago
This is a pet peeve of mine: when arguing about whether something should be legal, its current legality is irrelevant. Pointing out how illegal, unlicensed, etc these places are does not work as an argument against legalizing them, or as an argument for making them "more illegal". Stick to the factual arguments about crime, taxes, etc, because that's what the decision should be based on.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
donohoe 16y ago
In some cases yes but what about when my mother-in-law came to visit when my daughter was born? The nearest crappy legal hotel was 45 min away and cost $140 a night. She got a one-week sublet two blocks away (family on vacation) for a week for $500. Regardless of the savings in money, the big difference was the proximity. Now that will be illegal and she will either visit less often or not stay as long.
chopsueyar 16y ago
"Notice that the person doing this illegal business is the only one benefiting from it." The landlord/property owner is still paying property taxes, and their utility bills. Also, as a previous commenter mentioned (jim_h)... "A tourist who stays at a hotel ($100/night) might only have budgeted $50/day to spend outside of hotel costs." "A cheap tourist could budget $100/day, stay at a temp place and still get more out of NYC than someone who budgeted $150/day and stayed at a hotel." But, most importantly, mrtron says... "I would agree - the money spent on hotels probably doesn't stay as local as money spent on food and entertainment." Also, you mentioned "what is supposed to be a residential area" - but most of NYC seems to be mixed-use zoning, where you have a commercial entity attached to a multi-family residence, or even have commercial entities at the base of the building.

by fmora 16y ago

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.
- jodrellblank 16y ago
  You can't reasonably argue on something you 'highly doubt'. I think they surely are paying it. There, it's even again now.
  - Psyonic 16y ago
    You really think all these people are going to add this to their taxes? As self-employment? And deal with the additional paper-work required? Let me guess, you think people pay the required state tax at the end of the year for all the tax-free purchases they made on the internet as well?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

shykes 16y ago

You are missing one important point: most people affected by this ban are individuals, renting out one room at a time, maybe two. I have a hard time believing this generates any kind of noticeable "coming and going". In fact, tolerating the rental of a single room per household strikes me as a good way of separating the wheat from the chaff. Ironically, even Cuba has such an exception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_particular

shykes 16y ago
One more thought: the state expects this to plug a leak in tax revenue. I think they are vastly underestimating the relief these rentals represented: losing that extra income might mean foreclosure for a lot of people. Plugging a leak, really? I call it shooting the life raft.
- sprout 16y ago
  We're still living in a world with artificially inflated housing prices. While yes, people will be foreclosed on, this is a necessity to bring the market back to reasonable levels. If hosting tourists becomes standard practice, this will be reflected in the price of housing, and even more people will be unable to afford homes in the long run as a result. Especially when you look at vacant spots in hotels, which were zoned and set aside for that very purpose, this creates a significant inefficiency with a lot of unoccupied (and probably mis-priced by an illusory abundance of) space in the city.
  - plusbryan 16y ago
    @sprout: I disagree that airbnb and ilk would increase inefficiency. In fact, it seems to me that it's hotels that bring the inefficiency into the market. They are proxies for short-term housing needs created at a time when it was difficult to arrange short-term housing in unused space in residential zones. Imagine a world where sublets were completely unrestricted on both a governmental and leasing level. If I go on vacation, I would rent out my place. Theoretically, because my place is used 100%, the demand for these massive, overpriced hotels taking up prime real estate in our nation's cities would dwindle - and the efficiency of the city would actually improve. Instead of locking up this prime real estate in hotels, which are seasonal and affected by economic hardship, we'd enable more people to live downtown full-time, close to their jobs - which would lower transportation costs, monthly housing costs, overnight rental costs, and in general bring efficiency to the market.

modeless 16y ago

This is a pet peeve of mine: when arguing about whether something should be legal, its current legality is irrelevant. Pointing out how illegal, unlicensed, etc these places are does not work as an argument against legalizing them, or as an argument for making them "more illegal". Stick to the factual arguments about crime, taxes, etc, because that's what the decision should be based on.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

donohoe 16y ago

In some cases yes but what about when my mother-in-law came to visit when my daughter was born? The nearest crappy legal hotel was 45 min away and cost $140 a night. She got a one-week sublet two blocks away (family on vacation) for a week for $500. Regardless of the savings in money, the big difference was the proximity. Now that will be illegal and she will either visit less often or not stay as long.

chopsueyar 16y ago

"Notice that the person doing this illegal business is the only one benefiting from it." The landlord/property owner is still paying property taxes, and their utility bills. Also, as a previous commenter mentioned (jim_h)... "A tourist who stays at a hotel ($100/night) might only have budgeted $50/day to spend outside of hotel costs." "A cheap tourist could budget $100/day, stay at a temp place and still get more out of NYC than someone who budgeted $150/day and stayed at a hotel." But, most importantly, mrtron says... "I would agree - the money spent on hotels probably doesn't stay as local as money spent on food and entertainment." Also, you mentioned "what is supposed to be a residential area" - but most of NYC seems to be mixed-use zoning, where you have a commercial entity attached to a multi-family residence, or even have commercial entities at the base of the building.