18 ms·

Easy to blame lack of affordable housing on AirBnB and not, say, rent control laws or the difficulty of building new housing stock in the city. I get not throw

Easy to blame lack of affordable housing on AirBnB and not, say, rent control laws or the difficulty of building new housing stock in the city. I get not throwing grandma out of the $250/month 4BR she’s been living in for 50 years, but it means something like 200,000 rent-controlled/rent-stabilized units are also raising everyone else’s rent by decreasing inventory. The endless red tape in new construction makes non-luxury bulidings unprofitable. Want cheaper rents? Fast-track approval for new apt buildings.

teh_klev 9y ago
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. AirBNB is a blight on rural areas (I can speak to this because I reside in rural Scotland) where affordable rental properties are simply disappearing from the market. These properties are barely fully booked during the summer months or holiday/peak seasons, and are empty for weeks at a time in the winter and off-seasons. This is such a waste and hugely frustrating for folks who live and work in these communities trying to find accomodation.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I want to point out that expensive rent in a rural area is different than expensive rent in an urban one. In a rural area, if it really comes down to it, people buy or rent a plot of land and throw a prefab home or trailer on it. In an urban area, you don't have a lot of options when rent goes up other than moving to a dangerous neighborhood or commuting from an inhumane distance.
  - teh_klev 9y ago
    > expensive rent in a rural area is different than expensive rent in an urban one I fail to see the difference, maybe you could expand? > In a rural area, if it really comes down to it, people buy Folks are seeking affordable rents because affordable (and habitable) property to buy is pretty much non-existent. > or rent a plot of land and throw a prefab home or trailer on it. Perhaps in your country, good luck with getting away with that in the UK. We've got some fairly strict planning rules that make that kinda thing more or less impossible. Also "renting a plot of land" for this type of use isn't really a thing here.
    - matte_black 9y ago
      Bah, UK is so small it’s easy to see how it can be a problem. America has so much land available out there, some of it is incredibly cheap the farther you are from civilization, even almost free. I think I could buy several rolling acres of land for a couple thousand bucks right now.
      - teh_klev 9y ago
        I can really only speak with experience with regards to Scotland here. The problem isn't that we don't have enough land to build on. The problem is that there are vast tracts of land owned by a few large estates (many of them owned by off-shored companies in the usual Caribbean tax havens) that will never normally be available for sale. The land is wasted and misused for the benefit of a few very rich folks who want to turn up and blow away pheasants and grouse with their shotguns. The remaining available/eligible land is held by large house builders in their "land banks". Some of these tracts of land have been off the market for years and years, yet nothing ever gets built on them until the house builder decides the time is right to screw the maximum price out of buyers. I'm kinda hoping that when Scotland does finally become independent we will solve these problems with radical land ownership reform.
        beegeezuz 9y ago
        Waiting for independence is like waiting for Monday or New Year or whatever else. Problems need to be tackled now, otherwise they won't go away regardless if you become an independent country or not.
        ajmurmann 9y ago
        Sounds like the situation is similar than to what a poster here is describing about NYC: AirBnB is taking away a tiny portion of housing, it matters a lot though because the government is making it hard to build because of zoning or similar constraints. We conclude it's easier to get rid of Airbnb than change what the government is doing although it's supposed to reorder us the people.
        9y ago
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    Nooo. Trailers are the country ghetto. Unlike houses they are depreciating assets. So if you are fortunate enough to own your land and dwelling, unlike a home the value curve trends towards zero. The land value is the only asset, and doesn’t build much wealth. Expensive rent in a rural area means people get pushed further away. In the medical practice that my mom worked at, employees commuted as far as 100 miles.
    - phil21 9y ago
      Housing structures don't (rarely) appreciate. In fact the opposite is true, as witnessed by my tax return each year. The land as you state is a different story. I love the idea of a disposable trailer home I could replace every 20-30 years with new technology, unfortunately due to social attitudes prefab homes are almost exclusively marketed and built for lower incomes.
      - sevensor 9y ago
        Isn't that the idea behind the tiny house? Upscale trailers?
      - Spooky23 9y ago
        Houses appreciate. Trailers do not. Trailers are like cars. Sorry my comment was ambiguous
        srtjstjsj 9y ago
        Houses depreciate. Land appreciates
        phil21 9y ago
        Houses never (read: rarely - exceptional cases exist) appreciate. Period. Full stop. The land itself does.
    - randomdata 9y ago
      There are always exceptions, but houses generally do not appreciate. Much like a car, they become outdated and wear out. With enough time and use, they even become completely uninhabitable. Each passing day sees less and less value in the home as it requires more and more cost to bring back up to pristine condition and costs start to compete with the value of a brand new home. Of course, if you keep your home in good repair and updated to modern standards, that will help retain value. But you're effectively selling a new home at that point, and the costs you have sunk into keeping in that way extend well beyond the original value. Land value is where you normally find the appreciation. The trouble with trailers in a trailer park is that you do not own the land, so what you bear is entirely structure depreciation.
- branchless 9y ago
  Agreed. And let's not forget that Airbnb isn't"the sharing economy", it's a website with images and text on it for landlords. No innovation, just exploitation. Silicon valley.
- lmm 9y ago
  If the price has gone up so much, there's a financial incentive to build more until supply matches demand and prices drop to previous levels. > These properties are barely fully booked during the summer months or holiday/peak seasons, and are empty for weeks at a time in the winter and off-seasons. > This is such a waste and hugely frustrating for folks who live and work in these communities trying to find accomodation. A lot of people get a lot of joy out of holidaying somewhere like Scotland in the summer. When there are limited houses and a lot of people who want to use them, there will always be winners and losers. Is it really so implausible that for a house in a scenic rural area, a succession of people renting it for a week or two each over the summer might end up getting more out of it (between them) than someone wanting to live and work in it for a whole year?
  - guelo 9y ago
    The end state of your efficient market fetish is that the lower classes will only be able to live in the least desirable areas, everywhere else will be reserved for the use of the richer classes.
  - teh_klev 9y ago
    > Is it really so implausible that for a house in a scenic rural area, a succession of people renting it for a week or two each over the summer might end up getting more out of it (between them) than someone wanting to live and work in it for a whole year? Are you really suggesting that just because you live and work in your local (scenic) rural community you couldn't possibly enjoy the surroundings just as much, if not more, than as a few fleeting transient warm bodies with suitcases could? As residents, we're quite proud of our village and surrounding rural lot and deeply care about and appreciate what we have. Also, and ultimately, it's the local permanent residents that sustain, year round, the two pub/restaurants, the village shop and the assortment of plumber, electrician, carpenters (all of which also provide substantial local employment), not infrequent visitors occupying holiday homes that lie empty for 50% or more of the year.
    - lmm 9y ago
      > Are you really suggesting that just because you live and work in your local (scenic) rural community you couldn't possibly enjoy the surroundings just as much, if not more, than as a few fleeting transient warm bodies with suitcases could? There's got to be diminishing returns on beautiful surroundings, surely - seeing a mountain for the hundredth or thousandth time can't compete with seeing it for the first time. So better to give dozens of people a chance to see it once than have a few people see it over and over again. (Or if someone really does want to see it over and over again, they can pay what it costs). > Also, and ultimately, it's the local permanent residents that sustain, year round, the two pub/restaurants, the village shop and the assortment of plumber, electrician, carpenters (all of which also provide substantial local employment), not infrequent visitors occupying holiday homes that lie empty for 50% or more of the year. Well if tourists are able to pay more for housing than permanent residents then they're probably also going to be spending more on meals out, more likely to want upgraded plumbing or electrics (or damage those in an unfamiliar house).... But assuming you're right, employment is a means to an end, not a goal in itself. If someone has their heart set on a career as a chef or shopkeeper or plumber or electrician or carpenter, good for them, but that doesn't mean they're entitled to do that job in a particularly picturesque place.
- mylons 9y ago
  I spent a winter in Tahoma, CA. I was one of about 10 people in town for months.
chrisseaton 9y ago
$250 a month must be getting to the point where the landlord is actively losing money through maintenance costs. How do they cope with that?
- ordinaryperson 9y ago
  By trying to force them out any way possible: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/opinion/sunday/how-to-force-out-rent-controlled-tenants.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/opinion/sunday/how-to-for...
  - ohgodmorecow 9y ago
    "upon completing the work, rented the place out for $2,900/month." Oh my god, how is it possible for anyone to pay that much? 2800$ is about the general income / month here.
    - lr4444lr 9y ago
      Roommates. Very few single NYers in market apartments live by themselves. It's a status symbol, of sorts.
    - nemo44x 9y ago
      To be fair the potential to earn a high salary is much higher in NYC than many other places. All those huge towers are full of executives, VP's and highly skilled workers. There are many hundreds of thousands of people making 6-figure salaries here and tens of thousands making over a million. However, many people in NYC do not make big money and it comes down to living further away from Manhattan and having roommates. Depending on the industry you're in you can have a huge range in salaries based on experience, your reputation and simple luck.
      - busterarm 9y ago
        Actually, a pretty significant portion of the luxury development is purchased by non-residents as a place to park their money. This makes up a high percentage of AirBNBs here.
freddie_mercury 9y ago
> Easy to blame lack of affordable housing on AirBnB and not, say, rent control laws or the difficulty of building new housing stock in the city. None of this seems relevant to the article. Did you read it before posting? These are the topics the article covers: - what percentage of AirBNB hosts are commercial operators that are likely breaking the NYC laws? (12%) - how is renting income distributed? 10% of hosts account for 50% of rentals & revenue. - where are AirBNBs contributed? - how many "ghost hotels" are there in NYC? I don't think there was a single sentence in the article about affordable housing. There were maybe three or four sentences on rent and each time they reiterated that rents were only up 1.4% due to AirBNB.
- ordinaryperson 9y ago
  > I don't think there was a single sentence in the article about affordable housing. I'm guessing you missed the entire section on "The gentrification factor". The study, and others, claim AirBnB pushes out poor black people from neighborhoods because white owners decrease housing stock by renting out to AirBnb instead of locals. E.g. "Wachsmuth and his team estimate that the platform raised rents by 1.42 percent in north-central Brooklyn neighborhoods such as Bed-Stuy and Crown Heights." In other words, rents are going up in black neighborhoods. Another quote: "According to the Cox report, black New Yorkers are also the most likely to face housing loss due to Airbnb." As I said, it's easy to blame AirBnB for this problem and not look at how crazy rent laws distort the market. I don't want to see low-income renters forced out of their homes but AirBnB is only one factor. Rent control/stabilization laws also remove units from the market, and building new units for anything other than rich people is prohibitively expensive because of red tape, bureaucracy and overpriced cost of NYC-area construction. So yes, I've read the article. The question is: have you?
tootie 9y ago
There's very, very few rent-controlled apartments left.
- ordinaryperson 9y ago
  Rent control yes but rent stabilized no. Something like 1 million units are rent stabilized: https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/13/15264890/nyc-apartments-guide-tips-new-york https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/13/15264890/nyc-apartments-guid...
  - JBReefer 9y ago
    As someone that had a good one, you do anything you can to hold onto them. 1% yearly increases in a gentrifying neighborhood is awesome
    - nugi 9y ago
      And pushing up prices for the rest of the neighborhood. You have a good deal, but you are exactly the problem. Not sure you can complain about what you are bragging about contributing to.
      - JBReefer 9y ago
        I'm saying that it's something you don't give up if you don't have to - I own my apartment now. Thanks for assuming, though.
kadenshep 9y ago
Ah yes, the "remove standards and everything will be better" mind set has always worked out in the past.
- ordinaryperson 9y ago
  I didn’t say there should be no laws, just better ones. Again I don’t think we should evict granny but there are 1 million rent stabilized units in the city. Great deal...unless you’re looking to rent.
- dantheman 9y ago
  40% of buildings in manhattan couldn't be built today. Seems like the standards could be lowered. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-percent-of-manhattans-buildings-could-not-be-built-today.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-...
  - shados 9y ago
    This is always such a stupid argument. Zoning and regulations are not about what is there, its about what you WANT to be there. If you had supply issue in an area full of flats, and you said "all buildings from now on have to be at least 2 stories high", 100% of buildings could not be built today. But you're trying to make things better. (I realize that's not the point of the article you linked, and that it's usually the other way around, but the "X% of buildings could not be built today" on its own is just stupid). I live in a condo that could not be built again under current zoning laws and regulations. And you wouldn't want it to: its not safe anymore (thus new code) and the current sewer is at capacity (until there's a major overhaul there, you can't build anything else). Sometimes its not as simple as "build whatever!!!". We should be allowed to learn from our mistake and make things better.
    - lmm 9y ago
      > This is always such a stupid argument. Zoning and regulations are not about what is there, its about what you WANT to be there. If you had supply issue in an area full of flats, and you said "all buildings from now on have to be at least 2 stories high", 100% of buildings could not be built today. But you're trying to make things better. If what you have now is worse than you think it should be then the argument isn't valid, agreed. But if you think the way the place is now is pretty good - if the things that are now illegal are the same things that set this place apart from other cities - then the argument makes sense.
svantana 9y ago
The density of NY is the cause of the high costs of living, making it even denser is unlikely to bring costs down long term. It would make more sense just to accept that living centrally is a luxury not everyone can afford, and instead channel the revenue away from the rent-seekers and into the hands of the public (i.e. by increasing property taxes).
- ordinaryperson 9y ago
  From Crown Heights and Bed Stuy (two of the neighborhoods singled out in the article) it's about a 45-60 minute commute into Manhattan via the subway -- not exactly "living centrally." Are people supposed to live 2 hours out? > instead channel the revenue away from the rent-seekers and into the hands of the public (i.e. by increasing property taxes) Good luck getting that passed. And while I'm in favor of higher taxes on the land-owning elite almost half of NYC's income tax revenue is made up from 1% of its residents (https://nypost.com/2014/04/15/citys-one-percent-pay-larger-income-tax-share-than-rest-of-us/ https://nypost.com/2014/04/15/citys-one-percent-pay-larger-i...), about 35K people making > 600K. And income tax is about 2/3 of how NYS collects revenue (https://www.tax.ny.gov/research/collections/fy_collections_stat_report/2016_2017_annual_statistical_report_of_ny_state_tax_collections.htm https://www.tax.ny.gov/research/collections/fy_collections_s...). Raise taxes on them enough and they move to NJ or CT and it's actually a net loss for the city.
  - svantana 9y ago
    > Raise taxes on them enough and they move to NJ or CT and it's actually a net loss for the city. Theoretically, increased taxes shouldn't affect the cost of living, because the supply is fixed, and the market price is way above maintenance costs. The revenue will simply shift from the banks and landowners to the public. At least that's the theory, but it should work for a gradual tax increase.
    - ordinaryperson 9y ago
      Money for schools, roads, subways, police etc has to come from somewhere, and if high-income earners flee (because of being overtaxed) to nearby low-tax areas then taxes go up on everyone else to cover the shortfall, or services are cut. I favor a tax increase on the wealthy but I'm just saying implementing such a policy is more difficult than it sounds, especially because NJ and CT are so close by.
Spooky23 9y ago
NYC != Manhattan. By taking residential units out of the market, affects of short term rentals are affecting rents in other boroughs as well. NYC isn’t San Francisco. Rent control is a known quantity that has been around forever, as has been the lack of space in the NY Metro area. AirBnb and similar services bend the supply curve, hurting hotels and renters alike. Short term rental growth didn’t create all problems, but it makes many worse.
lr4444lr 9y ago
Yes, but AirBnB poses a completely different kind of threat. If it's allowed to operate with impunity and turn the entire residential housing market into de-facto hotels, then landlords are going to start to ask why they should put up with tenants acting as their middlemen who reap all of the profit, tenants who are protected by strict and very generous regulations that make eviction and raising the rent difficult in the first place, not to mention the need for people to handle the paperwork, constant maintenance complaints, etc. Let's say a one bedroom apartment in Manhattan can be found for as little as $2500 (likely very low), and that AirBnB going rate is $200/night for that same apartment (likely quite a bit higher in reality). They only need to rent the place for 12 nights a month to break even, and they're then free of the hassle of tenant law.
- ordinaryperson 9y ago
  You're right, it does pose a new kind of threat. And it shouldn't be able to operate with impunity. Renters can't sublet their place on AirBnB, only owners can. And you'd select long-term tenants over short-term AirBnB'ers b/c it's less work (or should be). But your point is still valid: the presence of AirBnB can disincentivize a slice of owners to rent to locals. I'm just saying any study on the negative effects of AirBnB on housing is myopic if it doesn't include arcane rent stabilization/control laws and the obscene price of new construction.
  - RestlessMind 9y ago
    Operating AirBnB in a place like NYC is far more profitable than renting out long term for multiple reasons. For one, AirBnB charges have to only beat hotel prices to be an attractive alternative and that is easy because hotels are subjected to various extra fees, taxes and regulations. Also, one has higher budget while traveling for per-night accommodation compared to monthly rents (compare 150$ hotel room vs 4500$ monthly rental apartment). Third, you have to "tolerate" even the worst of AirBnB guests only for a few days and AirBnB covers insurance for truly worst cases, whereas once you are locked into a tenant in a tenant-friendly city like NYC (or SF), you are screwed for longer term.
- brooklyn_ashey 9y ago
lsadam0 9y ago
Rent control and difficulty of new development are problems that need to be addressed. However, AirBnB is absolutely part of the problem. The existence of multiple causes is no reason to dismiss an individual cause.
pc86 9y ago
> I get not throwing grandma out of the $250/month 4BR she’s been living in for 50 years Sorry, but not when the 2BR across the hall is renting for $4,000/mo and is on the market for 4 hours before someone gets it. Grandma doesn't have a right to live in the exact same apartment for the rest of her life at the expense of everyone else.
- ordinaryperson 9y ago
  The economist in me agrees with you but where is she going to live? Just going to ship her out to West Virginia? I'd be OK w/it if you have a humane way to implement it but I doubt voters in the city would ever sign off on it.
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    Well, that's kind of the point - if the possibility to live in a particular place is scarce and so desirable that it costs $4000/month, then you either can afford that or don't live in that place - and this mechanism is useful; it allows people who really value living in that particular spot to pay the premium and do so; and the money flowing in provides a strong incentive to increase supply.
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    Part of the problem with talking about some policies is differing visibilities of suffering. Yes, the old grandma who has lived in the same apartment for 50 years has very visible suffering if you make her apartment market rate. However, what about the people who were never able to move to NY to start their career and family because of the policy? Or a family that had to leave the city and everyone they knew because they couldn't afford it, and the grandma monopolized all of the 'affordable housing' benefit?
  - razorunreal 9y ago
    If Grandma needs subsidized housing, that is something that should be separately agreed upon and implemented, presumably from tax revenue. The idea of forcing landlords to pay that subsidy basically at random seems ridiculous to me, the kind of thing that results in discrimination and legal fights.
busterarm 9y ago
I love this lie that everyone believes about rent control in NY where everyone is getting huge posh apartments for cheap. Almost all "rent stabilized" apartments in Manhattan are within spitting distance or throwing distance of market rate. Once a significant number of them cross the $2700/mo threshold in a building, the rent destabilizes. "Rent controlled" units account for less than 30,000 units in all of NYC. That number is never going up and that number is half of what it was 15 years ago. They are not 4BR apartments for $250 a month. This is a wonderful lie that middle class people believe because they don't actually know anyone with a rent controlled apartment -- they're kind of unicorns in the city. The rent control board in NYC has approved the maximum increase after every single 2 year freeze since about 1990. Then landlords do improvements to get MCI increases as well. The median rent controlled unit in NYC rents for $1040 and is a studio. The rent controlled 1BR that I live in has not ever been $250/mo and hasn't been under $1000/mo since maybe 1992.
- wilde 9y ago
  It’s nice that you’re benefiting, but rent control is relatively well studied and it doesn’t achieve its aims. https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-19 https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/e...
  - untog 9y ago
    You're ignoring the OPs point. Rent controlled apartments are a rounding error in the grand scheme of making NYC apartments affordable. It's also been around for a very long time, so its effects are well known. As the article outlines, Airbnb is something new.
    - ordinaryperson 9y ago
      Rent controlled and rent stabilized two very different things but both decrease housing inventory. According to this there are 1 million rent stabilized (not controlled) units in NYC: https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/13/15264890/nyc-apartments-guide-tips-new-york https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/13/15264890/nyc-apartments-guid... If that's accurate, it's a little bit more than a rounding error. Ultimately there has to be a balance. Throwing out long-time renters isn't a great idea but nor is capping prices to decrease inventory. Personally I favor construction reform -- I mean, look how expensive that 1 mile of the 2nd Ave subway was. It shouldn't be that expensive to build in NYC.
bogomipz 9y ago
>"... or the difficulty of building new housing stock in the city." What difficulty? I'm guessing you haven't visited NYC in quite some tie. New York City has experienced an almost continuous building boom for the last 20 years. See the NYC Construction Dashboard: http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/html/dob-development-report.html http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/html/dob-development-re... Note the the graph for "NYC Employment: Construction of Buildings (2000 - 2016)" >"The endless red tape in new construction makes non-luxury bulidings unprofitable." "Luxury" has become little more than a cliche marketing term used in promotional material. Almost all new construction has things like a roof deck or Amazon lockers and so is termed as "luxury." Please provide a citation or any evidence that demonstrates the existence of "endless red tape" in NYC as a barrier to new construction.
- ordinaryperson 9y ago
  I've lived here in NYC for decades. Most of the new buildings that go up are luxury condos, out of reach for mere mortals like myself. I actually purchased a condo in a new building in one of the neighborhoods this article mentioned about a decade ago but I was never able to move in, even after signing the contract, because the city wouldn't grant a certificate of housing occupancy to the builder (long story). But yes, I've personally lived the red tape issue. It's not exactly parallel but check out this NYT article from December about why the 2nd Ave Subway was so outrageously over-priced -- while most people aren't tunnelling under Manhattan the issue of overpriced construction applies to all 5 boros: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    Why would you expect that apartments in NYC will be available for mere mortals? There's 7 bln people on the planet and let's say 1% of them would move in if prices were affordable. It's an alpha plus plus city, only two of these, both biting expensive.
muse900 9y ago
Personal experience and this has nothing to do with New York City but I can understand the article POV. I recently moved to an island in Greece. The small town am living in, has the exact same issue that the article is describing, yet even worse. Everyone, literally EVERYONE, has their apartments/houses/properties that they don't live in, turned into Airbnb's. Doesn't matter if its in the town center or 30 miles out of the town center. Government only just now sort of regulated airbnb renting. (Average rent per month is 300 euros. During the busy period which starts at April and ends November someone can make 100euros a day from that apartment) Up to now the town I am living in and every single village in its radius, had a massive housing issue. You couldn't find anything to rent. I had an issue with renting as well, and I was well willing to pay way above the normal to get something as I do work for a foreign company that pays me the salary of a western country. I don't know how much of this applies to New York and if the article is going the right way with it, but I can most definitely reflect my own experience to that article. I think Airbnb and anything that is similar should get regulated. I think Airbnb came in at a time where laws/regulations weren't in place for such a thing, or were very light, and it made sense for people to rent out their 2nd homes for it. Although it has created a massive issue with finding a home. As I mentioned above someone can make 3 times or more the money that he'd be making in a year of rent from 3-4 months of renting to airbnb. Another massive issue that Airbnb and similar sites have also created in the area I live in is that the small hotel owners and family hotel owners are getting slowly out of business. That is happening because obviously the massive hotels can offer full packages and whatever and will always be profitable, but smaller ones still have to pay a lot of money on tax, licences and offer some sort of services that an airbnb owner didn't have to up until now in my area. Even now that its sort of regulated, airbnb owners are still going to have a better time than the small hotel owners. So yes all in all, airbnb and similar sites, create a massive issue and I feel like something should be done about it.
- empath75 9y ago
  >So yes all in all, airbnb and similar sites, create a massive issue and I feel like something should be done about it. It seems like the issue is a massive housing shortage and the solution is to build more housing.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kerkeslager 9y ago
> I get not throwing grandma out of the $250/month 4BR she’s been living in for 50 years, but it means something like 200,000 rent-controlled/rent-stabilized units are also raising everyone else’s rent by decreasing inventory. So you're saying that affordable housing is preventing housing from being affordable? LOL. > The endless red tape in new construction makes non-luxury bulidings unprofitable. Want cheaper rents? Fast-track approval for new apt buildings. Luxury buildings are more profitable because rooms are more spacious (literally requires less construction), you need to make fewer sales to make the same revenue (in a 10 story building you sell 40 condos instead of 80) and buyers are more financially stable (each sale is easier). Removing red tape has nothing to do with that. There's certainly lots of red tape in NYC construction, but I see zero evidence that there is more red tape with non-luxury construction. This is just a ridiculous HN meme at this point: every problem is caused by regulation and the only tool we're allowed to use to solve problems is incentives. I, for one, am deeply skeptical that making things cheaper for rich people is a good place to look for solutions to the problems of the poor. More to the point: none of what you've said means that AirBnB isn't to blame for the lack of affordable housing in NYC. NYC housing is a complex market, and a lack of affordable housing has more than one cause. The article presents its evidence why they think AirBnB caused the problem. Simply presenting alternate causes doesn't mean AirBnB isn't a cause, because I think we can agree there is more than one reason that housing prices are high in NYC.
- ordinaryperson 9y ago
  > So you're saying that affordable housing is preventing housing from being affordable? LOL. I think you're conflating 2 types of 'affordable housing.' People say 'affordable housing' when they mean 'government legally forcing landlords to underprice their units' versus what the term should actually mean, 'a reasonable price range of rents'. > there's certainly lots of red tape in NYC construction, but I see zero evidence that there is more red tape with non-luxury construction. There isn't necessarily more but there should be less to incentivize builders. No point in going through all the bureaucracy if your margins are going to be super low. > Simply presenting alternate causes doesn't mean AirBnB isn't a cause It's a factor, for sure. I'm not defending Airbnb as a nonentity, my point is that it's easy to blame Airbnb because they're a new player whereas academics and state politicians seem less enthused about taking a cold, hard look at housing laws, while well-intentioned at protecting low-income renters, probably play a far larger role in increasing housing costs.
guelo 9y ago
Easy to blame a detailed study with tons of data and not my ideological preconceived complaint that I haven't bothered to look up the data on.

teh_klev 9y ago

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. AirBNB is a blight on rural areas (I can speak to this because I reside in rural Scotland) where affordable rental properties are simply disappearing from the market. These properties are barely fully booked during the summer months or holiday/peak seasons, and are empty for weeks at a time in the winter and off-seasons. This is such a waste and hugely frustrating for folks who live and work in these communities trying to find accomodation.

humanrebar 9y ago
I want to point out that expensive rent in a rural area is different than expensive rent in an urban one. In a rural area, if it really comes down to it, people buy or rent a plot of land and throw a prefab home or trailer on it. In an urban area, you don't have a lot of options when rent goes up other than moving to a dangerous neighborhood or commuting from an inhumane distance.
- teh_klev 9y ago
  > expensive rent in a rural area is different than expensive rent in an urban one I fail to see the difference, maybe you could expand? > In a rural area, if it really comes down to it, people buy Folks are seeking affordable rents because affordable (and habitable) property to buy is pretty much non-existent. > or rent a plot of land and throw a prefab home or trailer on it. Perhaps in your country, good luck with getting away with that in the UK. We've got some fairly strict planning rules that make that kinda thing more or less impossible. Also "renting a plot of land" for this type of use isn't really a thing here.
  - matte_black 9y ago
    Bah, UK is so small it’s easy to see how it can be a problem. America has so much land available out there, some of it is incredibly cheap the farther you are from civilization, even almost free. I think I could buy several rolling acres of land for a couple thousand bucks right now.
    - teh_klev 9y ago
      I can really only speak with experience with regards to Scotland here. The problem isn't that we don't have enough land to build on. The problem is that there are vast tracts of land owned by a few large estates (many of them owned by off-shored companies in the usual Caribbean tax havens) that will never normally be available for sale. The land is wasted and misused for the benefit of a few very rich folks who want to turn up and blow away pheasants and grouse with their shotguns. The remaining available/eligible land is held by large house builders in their "land banks". Some of these tracts of land have been off the market for years and years, yet nothing ever gets built on them until the house builder decides the time is right to screw the maximum price out of buyers. I'm kinda hoping that when Scotland does finally become independent we will solve these problems with radical land ownership reform.
      - beegeezuz 9y ago
        Waiting for independence is like waiting for Monday or New Year or whatever else. Problems need to be tackled now, otherwise they won't go away regardless if you become an independent country or not.
      - ajmurmann 9y ago
        Sounds like the situation is similar than to what a poster here is describing about NYC: AirBnB is taking away a tiny portion of housing, it matters a lot though because the government is making it hard to build because of zoning or similar constraints. We conclude it's easier to get rid of Airbnb than change what the government is doing although it's supposed to reorder us the people.
      - 9y ago
- Spooky23 9y ago
  Nooo. Trailers are the country ghetto. Unlike houses they are depreciating assets. So if you are fortunate enough to own your land and dwelling, unlike a home the value curve trends towards zero. The land value is the only asset, and doesn’t build much wealth. Expensive rent in a rural area means people get pushed further away. In the medical practice that my mom worked at, employees commuted as far as 100 miles.
  - phil21 9y ago
    Housing structures don't (rarely) appreciate. In fact the opposite is true, as witnessed by my tax return each year. The land as you state is a different story. I love the idea of a disposable trailer home I could replace every 20-30 years with new technology, unfortunately due to social attitudes prefab homes are almost exclusively marketed and built for lower incomes.
    - sevensor 9y ago
      Isn't that the idea behind the tiny house? Upscale trailers?
    - Spooky23 9y ago
      Houses appreciate. Trailers do not. Trailers are like cars. Sorry my comment was ambiguous
      - srtjstjsj 9y ago
        Houses depreciate. Land appreciates
      - phil21 9y ago
        Houses never (read: rarely - exceptional cases exist) appreciate. Period. Full stop. The land itself does.
  - randomdata 9y ago
    There are always exceptions, but houses generally do not appreciate. Much like a car, they become outdated and wear out. With enough time and use, they even become completely uninhabitable. Each passing day sees less and less value in the home as it requires more and more cost to bring back up to pristine condition and costs start to compete with the value of a brand new home. Of course, if you keep your home in good repair and updated to modern standards, that will help retain value. But you're effectively selling a new home at that point, and the costs you have sunk into keeping in that way extend well beyond the original value. Land value is where you normally find the appreciation. The trouble with trailers in a trailer park is that you do not own the land, so what you bear is entirely structure depreciation.
branchless 9y ago
Agreed. And let's not forget that Airbnb isn't"the sharing economy", it's a website with images and text on it for landlords. No innovation, just exploitation. Silicon valley.
lmm 9y ago
If the price has gone up so much, there's a financial incentive to build more until supply matches demand and prices drop to previous levels. > These properties are barely fully booked during the summer months or holiday/peak seasons, and are empty for weeks at a time in the winter and off-seasons. > This is such a waste and hugely frustrating for folks who live and work in these communities trying to find accomodation. A lot of people get a lot of joy out of holidaying somewhere like Scotland in the summer. When there are limited houses and a lot of people who want to use them, there will always be winners and losers. Is it really so implausible that for a house in a scenic rural area, a succession of people renting it for a week or two each over the summer might end up getting more out of it (between them) than someone wanting to live and work in it for a whole year?
- guelo 9y ago
  The end state of your efficient market fetish is that the lower classes will only be able to live in the least desirable areas, everywhere else will be reserved for the use of the richer classes.
- teh_klev 9y ago
  > Is it really so implausible that for a house in a scenic rural area, a succession of people renting it for a week or two each over the summer might end up getting more out of it (between them) than someone wanting to live and work in it for a whole year? Are you really suggesting that just because you live and work in your local (scenic) rural community you couldn't possibly enjoy the surroundings just as much, if not more, than as a few fleeting transient warm bodies with suitcases could? As residents, we're quite proud of our village and surrounding rural lot and deeply care about and appreciate what we have. Also, and ultimately, it's the local permanent residents that sustain, year round, the two pub/restaurants, the village shop and the assortment of plumber, electrician, carpenters (all of which also provide substantial local employment), not infrequent visitors occupying holiday homes that lie empty for 50% or more of the year.
  - lmm 9y ago
    > Are you really suggesting that just because you live and work in your local (scenic) rural community you couldn't possibly enjoy the surroundings just as much, if not more, than as a few fleeting transient warm bodies with suitcases could? There's got to be diminishing returns on beautiful surroundings, surely - seeing a mountain for the hundredth or thousandth time can't compete with seeing it for the first time. So better to give dozens of people a chance to see it once than have a few people see it over and over again. (Or if someone really does want to see it over and over again, they can pay what it costs). > Also, and ultimately, it's the local permanent residents that sustain, year round, the two pub/restaurants, the village shop and the assortment of plumber, electrician, carpenters (all of which also provide substantial local employment), not infrequent visitors occupying holiday homes that lie empty for 50% or more of the year. Well if tourists are able to pay more for housing than permanent residents then they're probably also going to be spending more on meals out, more likely to want upgraded plumbing or electrics (or damage those in an unfamiliar house).... But assuming you're right, employment is a means to an end, not a goal in itself. If someone has their heart set on a career as a chef or shopkeeper or plumber or electrician or carpenter, good for them, but that doesn't mean they're entitled to do that job in a particularly picturesque place.
mylons 9y ago
I spent a winter in Tahoma, CA. I was one of about 10 people in town for months.

chrisseaton 9y ago

$250 a month must be getting to the point where the landlord is actively losing money through maintenance costs. How do they cope with that?

ordinaryperson 9y ago
By trying to force them out any way possible: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/opinion/sunday/how-to-force-out-rent-controlled-tenants.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/opinion/sunday/how-to-for...
- ohgodmorecow 9y ago
  "upon completing the work, rented the place out for $2,900/month." Oh my god, how is it possible for anyone to pay that much? 2800$ is about the general income / month here.
  - lr4444lr 9y ago
    Roommates. Very few single NYers in market apartments live by themselves. It's a status symbol, of sorts.
  - nemo44x 9y ago
    To be fair the potential to earn a high salary is much higher in NYC than many other places. All those huge towers are full of executives, VP's and highly skilled workers. There are many hundreds of thousands of people making 6-figure salaries here and tens of thousands making over a million. However, many people in NYC do not make big money and it comes down to living further away from Manhattan and having roommates. Depending on the industry you're in you can have a huge range in salaries based on experience, your reputation and simple luck.
    - busterarm 9y ago
      Actually, a pretty significant portion of the luxury development is purchased by non-residents as a place to park their money. This makes up a high percentage of AirBNBs here.

freddie_mercury 9y ago

> Easy to blame lack of affordable housing on AirBnB and not, say, rent control laws or the difficulty of building new housing stock in the city. None of this seems relevant to the article. Did you read it before posting? These are the topics the article covers: - what percentage of AirBNB hosts are commercial operators that are likely breaking the NYC laws? (12%) - how is renting income distributed? 10% of hosts account for 50% of rentals & revenue. - where are AirBNBs contributed? - how many "ghost hotels" are there in NYC? I don't think there was a single sentence in the article about affordable housing. There were maybe three or four sentences on rent and each time they reiterated that rents were only up 1.4% due to AirBNB.

ordinaryperson 9y ago
> I don't think there was a single sentence in the article about affordable housing. I'm guessing you missed the entire section on "The gentrification factor". The study, and others, claim AirBnB pushes out poor black people from neighborhoods because white owners decrease housing stock by renting out to AirBnb instead of locals. E.g. "Wachsmuth and his team estimate that the platform raised rents by 1.42 percent in north-central Brooklyn neighborhoods such as Bed-Stuy and Crown Heights." In other words, rents are going up in black neighborhoods. Another quote: "According to the Cox report, black New Yorkers are also the most likely to face housing loss due to Airbnb." As I said, it's easy to blame AirBnB for this problem and not look at how crazy rent laws distort the market. I don't want to see low-income renters forced out of their homes but AirBnB is only one factor. Rent control/stabilization laws also remove units from the market, and building new units for anything other than rich people is prohibitively expensive because of red tape, bureaucracy and overpriced cost of NYC-area construction. So yes, I've read the article. The question is: have you?

tootie 9y ago

There's very, very few rent-controlled apartments left.

ordinaryperson 9y ago
Rent control yes but rent stabilized no. Something like 1 million units are rent stabilized: https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/13/15264890/nyc-apartments-guide-tips-new-york https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/13/15264890/nyc-apartments-guid...
- JBReefer 9y ago
  As someone that had a good one, you do anything you can to hold onto them. 1% yearly increases in a gentrifying neighborhood is awesome
  - nugi 9y ago
    And pushing up prices for the rest of the neighborhood. You have a good deal, but you are exactly the problem. Not sure you can complain about what you are bragging about contributing to.
    - JBReefer 9y ago
      I'm saying that it's something you don't give up if you don't have to - I own my apartment now. Thanks for assuming, though.

kadenshep 9y ago

Ah yes, the "remove standards and everything will be better" mind set has always worked out in the past.

ordinaryperson 9y ago
I didn’t say there should be no laws, just better ones. Again I don’t think we should evict granny but there are 1 million rent stabilized units in the city. Great deal...unless you’re looking to rent.
dantheman 9y ago
40% of buildings in manhattan couldn't be built today. Seems like the standards could be lowered. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-percent-of-manhattans-buildings-could-not-be-built-today.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-...
- shados 9y ago
  This is always such a stupid argument. Zoning and regulations are not about what is there, its about what you WANT to be there. If you had supply issue in an area full of flats, and you said "all buildings from now on have to be at least 2 stories high", 100% of buildings could not be built today. But you're trying to make things better. (I realize that's not the point of the article you linked, and that it's usually the other way around, but the "X% of buildings could not be built today" on its own is just stupid). I live in a condo that could not be built again under current zoning laws and regulations. And you wouldn't want it to: its not safe anymore (thus new code) and the current sewer is at capacity (until there's a major overhaul there, you can't build anything else). Sometimes its not as simple as "build whatever!!!". We should be allowed to learn from our mistake and make things better.
  - lmm 9y ago
    > This is always such a stupid argument. Zoning and regulations are not about what is there, its about what you WANT to be there. If you had supply issue in an area full of flats, and you said "all buildings from now on have to be at least 2 stories high", 100% of buildings could not be built today. But you're trying to make things better. If what you have now is worse than you think it should be then the argument isn't valid, agreed. But if you think the way the place is now is pretty good - if the things that are now illegal are the same things that set this place apart from other cities - then the argument makes sense.

svantana 9y ago

The density of NY is the cause of the high costs of living, making it even denser is unlikely to bring costs down long term. It would make more sense just to accept that living centrally is a luxury not everyone can afford, and instead channel the revenue away from the rent-seekers and into the hands of the public (i.e. by increasing property taxes).

ordinaryperson 9y ago
From Crown Heights and Bed Stuy (two of the neighborhoods singled out in the article) it's about a 45-60 minute commute into Manhattan via the subway -- not exactly "living centrally." Are people supposed to live 2 hours out? > instead channel the revenue away from the rent-seekers and into the hands of the public (i.e. by increasing property taxes) Good luck getting that passed. And while I'm in favor of higher taxes on the land-owning elite almost half of NYC's income tax revenue is made up from 1% of its residents (https://nypost.com/2014/04/15/citys-one-percent-pay-larger-income-tax-share-than-rest-of-us/ https://nypost.com/2014/04/15/citys-one-percent-pay-larger-i...), about 35K people making > 600K. And income tax is about 2/3 of how NYS collects revenue (https://www.tax.ny.gov/research/collections/fy_collections_stat_report/2016_2017_annual_statistical_report_of_ny_state_tax_collections.htm https://www.tax.ny.gov/research/collections/fy_collections_s...). Raise taxes on them enough and they move to NJ or CT and it's actually a net loss for the city.
- svantana 9y ago
  > Raise taxes on them enough and they move to NJ or CT and it's actually a net loss for the city. Theoretically, increased taxes shouldn't affect the cost of living, because the supply is fixed, and the market price is way above maintenance costs. The revenue will simply shift from the banks and landowners to the public. At least that's the theory, but it should work for a gradual tax increase.
  - ordinaryperson 9y ago
    Money for schools, roads, subways, police etc has to come from somewhere, and if high-income earners flee (because of being overtaxed) to nearby low-tax areas then taxes go up on everyone else to cover the shortfall, or services are cut. I favor a tax increase on the wealthy but I'm just saying implementing such a policy is more difficult than it sounds, especially because NJ and CT are so close by.

Spooky23 9y ago

NYC != Manhattan. By taking residential units out of the market, affects of short term rentals are affecting rents in other boroughs as well. NYC isn’t San Francisco. Rent control is a known quantity that has been around forever, as has been the lack of space in the NY Metro area. AirBnb and similar services bend the supply curve, hurting hotels and renters alike. Short term rental growth didn’t create all problems, but it makes many worse.

lr4444lr 9y ago

Yes, but AirBnB poses a completely different kind of threat. If it's allowed to operate with impunity and turn the entire residential housing market into de-facto hotels, then landlords are going to start to ask why they should put up with tenants acting as their middlemen who reap all of the profit, tenants who are protected by strict and very generous regulations that make eviction and raising the rent difficult in the first place, not to mention the need for people to handle the paperwork, constant maintenance complaints, etc. Let's say a one bedroom apartment in Manhattan can be found for as little as $2500 (likely very low), and that AirBnB going rate is $200/night for that same apartment (likely quite a bit higher in reality). They only need to rent the place for 12 nights a month to break even, and they're then free of the hassle of tenant law.

ordinaryperson 9y ago
You're right, it does pose a new kind of threat. And it shouldn't be able to operate with impunity. Renters can't sublet their place on AirBnB, only owners can. And you'd select long-term tenants over short-term AirBnB'ers b/c it's less work (or should be). But your point is still valid: the presence of AirBnB can disincentivize a slice of owners to rent to locals. I'm just saying any study on the negative effects of AirBnB on housing is myopic if it doesn't include arcane rent stabilization/control laws and the obscene price of new construction.
- RestlessMind 9y ago
  Operating AirBnB in a place like NYC is far more profitable than renting out long term for multiple reasons. For one, AirBnB charges have to only beat hotel prices to be an attractive alternative and that is easy because hotels are subjected to various extra fees, taxes and regulations. Also, one has higher budget while traveling for per-night accommodation compared to monthly rents (compare 150$ hotel room vs 4500$ monthly rental apartment). Third, you have to "tolerate" even the worst of AirBnB guests only for a few days and AirBnB covers insurance for truly worst cases, whereas once you are locked into a tenant in a tenant-friendly city like NYC (or SF), you are screwed for longer term.
brooklyn_ashey 9y ago

lsadam0 9y ago

Rent control and difficulty of new development are problems that need to be addressed. However, AirBnB is absolutely part of the problem. The existence of multiple causes is no reason to dismiss an individual cause.

pc86 9y ago

> I get not throwing grandma out of the $250/month 4BR she’s been living in for 50 years Sorry, but not when the 2BR across the hall is renting for $4,000/mo and is on the market for 4 hours before someone gets it. Grandma doesn't have a right to live in the exact same apartment for the rest of her life at the expense of everyone else.

ordinaryperson 9y ago
The economist in me agrees with you but where is she going to live? Just going to ship her out to West Virginia? I'd be OK w/it if you have a humane way to implement it but I doubt voters in the city would ever sign off on it.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  Well, that's kind of the point - if the possibility to live in a particular place is scarce and so desirable that it costs $4000/month, then you either can afford that or don't live in that place - and this mechanism is useful; it allows people who really value living in that particular spot to pay the premium and do so; and the money flowing in provides a strong incentive to increase supply.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Part of the problem with talking about some policies is differing visibilities of suffering. Yes, the old grandma who has lived in the same apartment for 50 years has very visible suffering if you make her apartment market rate. However, what about the people who were never able to move to NY to start their career and family because of the policy? Or a family that had to leave the city and everyone they knew because they couldn't afford it, and the grandma monopolized all of the 'affordable housing' benefit?
- razorunreal 9y ago
  If Grandma needs subsidized housing, that is something that should be separately agreed upon and implemented, presumably from tax revenue. The idea of forcing landlords to pay that subsidy basically at random seems ridiculous to me, the kind of thing that results in discrimination and legal fights.

busterarm 9y ago

I love this lie that everyone believes about rent control in NY where everyone is getting huge posh apartments for cheap. Almost all "rent stabilized" apartments in Manhattan are within spitting distance or throwing distance of market rate. Once a significant number of them cross the $2700/mo threshold in a building, the rent destabilizes. "Rent controlled" units account for less than 30,000 units in all of NYC. That number is never going up and that number is half of what it was 15 years ago. They are not 4BR apartments for $250 a month. This is a wonderful lie that middle class people believe because they don't actually know anyone with a rent controlled apartment -- they're kind of unicorns in the city. The rent control board in NYC has approved the maximum increase after every single 2 year freeze since about 1990. Then landlords do improvements to get MCI increases as well. The median rent controlled unit in NYC rents for $1040 and is a studio. The rent controlled 1BR that I live in has not ever been $250/mo and hasn't been under $1000/mo since maybe 1992.

wilde 9y ago
It’s nice that you’re benefiting, but rent control is relatively well studied and it doesn’t achieve its aims. https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-19 https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/e...
- untog 9y ago
  You're ignoring the OPs point. Rent controlled apartments are a rounding error in the grand scheme of making NYC apartments affordable. It's also been around for a very long time, so its effects are well known. As the article outlines, Airbnb is something new.
  - ordinaryperson 9y ago
    Rent controlled and rent stabilized two very different things but both decrease housing inventory. According to this there are 1 million rent stabilized (not controlled) units in NYC: https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/13/15264890/nyc-apartments-guide-tips-new-york https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/13/15264890/nyc-apartments-guid... If that's accurate, it's a little bit more than a rounding error. Ultimately there has to be a balance. Throwing out long-time renters isn't a great idea but nor is capping prices to decrease inventory. Personally I favor construction reform -- I mean, look how expensive that 1 mile of the 2nd Ave subway was. It shouldn't be that expensive to build in NYC.

bogomipz 9y ago

>"... or the difficulty of building new housing stock in the city." What difficulty? I'm guessing you haven't visited NYC in quite some tie. New York City has experienced an almost continuous building boom for the last 20 years. See the NYC Construction Dashboard: http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/html/dob-development-report.html http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/html/dob-development-re... Note the the graph for "NYC Employment: Construction of Buildings (2000 - 2016)" >"The endless red tape in new construction makes non-luxury bulidings unprofitable." "Luxury" has become little more than a cliche marketing term used in promotional material. Almost all new construction has things like a roof deck or Amazon lockers and so is termed as "luxury." Please provide a citation or any evidence that demonstrates the existence of "endless red tape" in NYC as a barrier to new construction.

ordinaryperson 9y ago
I've lived here in NYC for decades. Most of the new buildings that go up are luxury condos, out of reach for mere mortals like myself. I actually purchased a condo in a new building in one of the neighborhoods this article mentioned about a decade ago but I was never able to move in, even after signing the contract, because the city wouldn't grant a certificate of housing occupancy to the builder (long story). But yes, I've personally lived the red tape issue. It's not exactly parallel but check out this NYT article from December about why the 2nd Ave Subway was so outrageously over-priced -- while most people aren't tunnelling under Manhattan the issue of overpriced construction applies to all 5 boros: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- thriftwy 9y ago
  Why would you expect that apartments in NYC will be available for mere mortals? There's 7 bln people on the planet and let's say 1% of them would move in if prices were affordable. It's an alpha plus plus city, only two of these, both biting expensive.

muse900 9y ago

Personal experience and this has nothing to do with New York City but I can understand the article POV. I recently moved to an island in Greece. The small town am living in, has the exact same issue that the article is describing, yet even worse. Everyone, literally EVERYONE, has their apartments/houses/properties that they don't live in, turned into Airbnb's. Doesn't matter if its in the town center or 30 miles out of the town center. Government only just now sort of regulated airbnb renting. (Average rent per month is 300 euros. During the busy period which starts at April and ends November someone can make 100euros a day from that apartment) Up to now the town I am living in and every single village in its radius, had a massive housing issue. You couldn't find anything to rent. I had an issue with renting as well, and I was well willing to pay way above the normal to get something as I do work for a foreign company that pays me the salary of a western country. I don't know how much of this applies to New York and if the article is going the right way with it, but I can most definitely reflect my own experience to that article. I think Airbnb and anything that is similar should get regulated. I think Airbnb came in at a time where laws/regulations weren't in place for such a thing, or were very light, and it made sense for people to rent out their 2nd homes for it. Although it has created a massive issue with finding a home. As I mentioned above someone can make 3 times or more the money that he'd be making in a year of rent from 3-4 months of renting to airbnb. Another massive issue that Airbnb and similar sites have also created in the area I live in is that the small hotel owners and family hotel owners are getting slowly out of business. That is happening because obviously the massive hotels can offer full packages and whatever and will always be profitable, but smaller ones still have to pay a lot of money on tax, licences and offer some sort of services that an airbnb owner didn't have to up until now in my area. Even now that its sort of regulated, airbnb owners are still going to have a better time than the small hotel owners. So yes all in all, airbnb and similar sites, create a massive issue and I feel like something should be done about it.

empath75 9y ago
>So yes all in all, airbnb and similar sites, create a massive issue and I feel like something should be done about it. It seems like the issue is a massive housing shortage and the solution is to build more housing.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

kerkeslager 9y ago

> I get not throwing grandma out of the $250/month 4BR she’s been living in for 50 years, but it means something like 200,000 rent-controlled/rent-stabilized units are also raising everyone else’s rent by decreasing inventory. So you're saying that affordable housing is preventing housing from being affordable? LOL. > The endless red tape in new construction makes non-luxury bulidings unprofitable. Want cheaper rents? Fast-track approval for new apt buildings. Luxury buildings are more profitable because rooms are more spacious (literally requires less construction), you need to make fewer sales to make the same revenue (in a 10 story building you sell 40 condos instead of 80) and buyers are more financially stable (each sale is easier). Removing red tape has nothing to do with that. There's certainly lots of red tape in NYC construction, but I see zero evidence that there is more red tape with non-luxury construction. This is just a ridiculous HN meme at this point: every problem is caused by regulation and the only tool we're allowed to use to solve problems is incentives. I, for one, am deeply skeptical that making things cheaper for rich people is a good place to look for solutions to the problems of the poor. More to the point: none of what you've said means that AirBnB isn't to blame for the lack of affordable housing in NYC. NYC housing is a complex market, and a lack of affordable housing has more than one cause. The article presents its evidence why they think AirBnB caused the problem. Simply presenting alternate causes doesn't mean AirBnB isn't a cause, because I think we can agree there is more than one reason that housing prices are high in NYC.

ordinaryperson 9y ago
> So you're saying that affordable housing is preventing housing from being affordable? LOL. I think you're conflating 2 types of 'affordable housing.' People say 'affordable housing' when they mean 'government legally forcing landlords to underprice their units' versus what the term should actually mean, 'a reasonable price range of rents'. > there's certainly lots of red tape in NYC construction, but I see zero evidence that there is more red tape with non-luxury construction. There isn't necessarily more but there should be less to incentivize builders. No point in going through all the bureaucracy if your margins are going to be super low. > Simply presenting alternate causes doesn't mean AirBnB isn't a cause It's a factor, for sure. I'm not defending Airbnb as a nonentity, my point is that it's easy to blame Airbnb because they're a new player whereas academics and state politicians seem less enthused about taking a cold, hard look at housing laws, while well-intentioned at protecting low-income renters, probably play a far larger role in increasing housing costs.

guelo 9y ago

Easy to blame a detailed study with tons of data and not my ideological preconceived complaint that I haven't bothered to look up the data on.