4 ms·

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 t

by 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.
fmora 16y ago
I also see this as a problem though. Most likely the person doing this is not the owner of the apartment. I wonder how the original landlords feel about this. Maybe they just don't care, who knows. Seems wrong to be using their apartment for this when they never agreed to it.
- jim_h 16y ago
  The landlord can probably kick them out for having extra people living there that's not on the lease or for breaking something in the lease. (My parents are also landlords, though not in NYC.) Of the places I've been in, the landlord knew about it and didn't care (not noisy or dirty), or it wasn't active enough to cause anybody to notice.
- dctoedt 16y ago
  Up-voted to offset whoever down-voted you to zero -- I don't necessarily agree with your comment but it's certainly not offensive in any way.
  - dctoedt 16y ago
    I see my comment above has collected two down-votes of its own. Res ipsa loquitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur#Latin_phrase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur#Latin_phrase).
- qq66 16y ago
  I would consider the landlord's involvement in this decision to be an "abstraction violation." When I lease the apartment, I make a guarantee to return the apartment to you in the same condition that I received it (with a fine to be paid if I do not). It should be my choice whether to assume the risks of a subletter, temporary or long-term.
  - lsc 16y ago
    more to the point, nearly all residential leases explicitly prohibit subletting already, so regardless of city law, you are violating your lease by renting out an apartment on the short term without the landlord's permission.
MikeMacMan 16y ago
Assemblyman Richard Gottfried states in this interview that the law is designed to eliminate 'illegal hotels', where real estate companies or building owners rent out many units in a building. He says that they have never gone after people renting out their rooms, and doesn't expect that to change: http://beta.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2010/jul/08/illegal-hotel-crackdown/ http://beta.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2010/jul/08/illegal-hotel-crac...
- mattmillr 16y ago
  "Yeah, I know we just made the thing you're doing illegal, but no worries, we're not going to enforce it." doesn't reassure me much. Read the economist article posted yesterday about all the people in prison for pretty similar stuff.
zavulon 16y ago
You'll be surprised.. I've seen 3 people per room, 9 people per apartment, many times. NYC is a strange place.

by shykes 16y ago

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.

fmora 16y ago

I also see this as a problem though. Most likely the person doing this is not the owner of the apartment. I wonder how the original landlords feel about this. Maybe they just don't care, who knows. Seems wrong to be using their apartment for this when they never agreed to it.

jim_h 16y ago
The landlord can probably kick them out for having extra people living there that's not on the lease or for breaking something in the lease. (My parents are also landlords, though not in NYC.) Of the places I've been in, the landlord knew about it and didn't care (not noisy or dirty), or it wasn't active enough to cause anybody to notice.
dctoedt 16y ago
Up-voted to offset whoever down-voted you to zero -- I don't necessarily agree with your comment but it's certainly not offensive in any way.
- dctoedt 16y ago
  I see my comment above has collected two down-votes of its own. Res ipsa loquitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur#Latin_phrase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur#Latin_phrase).
qq66 16y ago
I would consider the landlord's involvement in this decision to be an "abstraction violation." When I lease the apartment, I make a guarantee to return the apartment to you in the same condition that I received it (with a fine to be paid if I do not). It should be my choice whether to assume the risks of a subletter, temporary or long-term.
- lsc 16y ago
  more to the point, nearly all residential leases explicitly prohibit subletting already, so regardless of city law, you are violating your lease by renting out an apartment on the short term without the landlord's permission.

MikeMacMan 16y ago

Assemblyman Richard Gottfried states in this interview that the law is designed to eliminate 'illegal hotels', where real estate companies or building owners rent out many units in a building. He says that they have never gone after people renting out their rooms, and doesn't expect that to change: http://beta.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2010/jul/08/illegal-hotel-crackdown/ http://beta.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2010/jul/08/illegal-hotel-crac...

mattmillr 16y ago
"Yeah, I know we just made the thing you're doing illegal, but no worries, we're not going to enforce it." doesn't reassure me much. Read the economist article posted yesterday about all the people in prison for pretty similar stuff.

zavulon 16y ago

You'll be surprised.. I've seen 3 people per room, 9 people per apartment, many times. NYC is a strange place.