6 ms·

Well, we don't all agree that the changes are tantamount to "damage", first of all. For my part, having lived much of my adult life in New Paltz, AirBnb has gr

by jMyles 8y ago

Well, we don't all agree that the changes are tantamount to "damage", first of all. For my part, having lived much of my adult life in New Paltz, AirBnb has greatly increased the availability of NYC housing for me, as I typically only live in NYC for 3-10 days at a time. I can understand that, if your desire is to live there perpetually for years, you might have a different perception. Perhaps living in a single place in perpetuity (especially near the center of a major metro/cosmopolitan hub) is just not as sustainable in an environment where smallish organizations like AirBnb (or the decentralized versions to come) can easily subvert statutory attempts to force a particular market outcome. Also, in NYC in particular, the role of "rent control" is worth taking into account.

pjc50 8y ago
> living in a single place in perpetuity Christ. Hotdesking for houses. This is already the reality for a lot of precariously-housed or non-street-homeless people. It's especially bad for children and will cost them grades at school when moving frequently.
lancesells 8y ago
Perhaps AirBnb should actually follow the law in NYC (30 days minimum) until they can lobby enough to change the law.
- jMyles 8y ago
  ...why? What makes this law worth following in the first place?
  - jfk13 8y ago
    If there are communities where AirBnB is deliberately breaking the law, those cities ought to be collecting punitive fines. In a civilised society, you don't get to pick and choose which laws you think are worth following, and just ignore the rest. Don't like a given law? Then engage in the political process to seek changes to it.
  - parthdesai 8y ago
    Because it directly impacts the residents who live there full time and pay all the taxes to that city and state? Every day that you don't live in the city and make a purchase outside the city is a tax-dollar that city is missing out on and that someone living full time in the city is paying. I live in downtown Toronto and here are some of the issues i face due to Airbnb: i) Some of the residents make living a hell. They come to party, don't respect the neighbours, are loud till late, trash the place and some have even gone to break the buttons in elevator. ii) With Airbnb, new owners and renters are priced out of market. People with more money but new units as secondary investment and just Airbnb it instead of renting it, thus creating artificial shortage of available units to full-time renters. One of the fascinating things about NYC is it's vast array of local businesses. Guess who do these local businesses need? Full time employees who go to work every day and not for 3-11 days.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      >>Every day that you don't live in the city and make a purchase outside the city is a tax-dollar that city is missing out on and that someone living full time in the city is paying. Another short-term resident would be there in his place on the days he's not in NYC. Year round there will almost always be someone staying in his unit. And short term renters tend to spend more per day than long-term residents, so they probably contribute significantly more to the city's tax base.
      - parthdesai 8y ago
        >And short term renters tend to spend more per day than long-term residents, so they probably contribute significantly more to the city's tax base. Per day costs, sure. But if you add recurring payments, don't think they are outspending it. Also, you are ignoring the entire point to begin with. A City should look after it's long term residents first and foremost. Unless you want it to eventually become a ghost city.
        CryptoPunk 8y ago
        I haven't seen any evidence that long-term residents contribute more to the tax base per capita. The spending differential between short term and long term renters is so large that it seems not just plausible, but likely, that the former contribute more on balance. >>A City should look after it's long term residents first and foremost. I don't see why it should. A city should look after those within its boundaries, whether they're there for a day or a year. It shouldn't set up walls and promote long term residence over visits.
jermaustin1 8y ago
> if your desire is to live there perpetually for years You mean like 99% of people? When you work in the city, grew up in the city, have met almost everyone you know in the city, to then be forced out of the city because people want to rent their apartments out for 3-10 days at a time instead of 1-3 years means that people who need the stability of a permanent address now have to either shell out much more cash than a land lord can get (illegally) on airbnb, or move out of the city and abandon the thing they have known their entire lives. I'm not saying I have a good solution to it, other than the typical protectionist idea of tax the things that are destroying us, but at least that way there is money in the treasury to try and save a portion of the people affected by it.
- jMyles 8y ago
  > 99% of people You are saying that 99% of people live in the same residence for years? I'd love to see a source on this. Between transient people, houseless people, digital nomads, business travelers, jetsetters, RVers, and all sorts of other people who don't live in one place all year, I have no doubt that the various modes of nomadism, taken together, account for far, far higher than 1%. Heck, in NYC alone, I'll wager that less than 70% of today's population has lived in the same domicile for the past 2 years. There's no way it's 99%. > When you work in the city, grew up in the city, have met almost everyone you know in the city I made clear in my post that people in those circumstances might have a different experience. But is this the only audience NYC is designed to serve? People who grew up in the city? What about those of us in the Hudson Valley? Do we not deserve any of the economic benefits of the city (for which we pay in many ways, not least of which our watershed) just because we were born 50-150 miles away? I think it's about time that real opportunities to live in the city for a few weeks out of the year become available to other NYers and not just the super rich. I didn't grow up in NYC, but I consider it my city too. I know the best open mics, the places where I can order authentic Mexican or Puerto Rican food en español, the incubators and co-working spaces, the subway system, etc. Just because you grew up there doesn't give you exclusive ownership of the culture of NYC.
- elhudy 8y ago
  There should be a new word for this type of gentrification.
ddoran 8y ago
> I typically only live in NYC for 3-10 days at a time That's not living somewhere. That's visiting.
- jMyles 8y ago
  Oh yeah? I'm alive during those 3-10 days. And I'm there. If that's not living, then where do I live? I don't have a long-term lease or anything similar. Do I not deserve the same quality of life and opportunities as people who happened to have been born in the East Village?
  - ddoran 8y ago
    Semantics. I respectfully disagree. Being alive, and living at a place are two completely different things. By your definition, I've lived in 12 countries this year. I haven't.
    - jMyles 8y ago
      It's not semantics. It's a simple question: if someone doesn't have a current lease in a particular place, where do they live? Particularly for the purposes of enjoying the privileges that everyone in this thread is claiming they deserve by dint of living in NYC (ie, artificially controlled rent prices such that the rest of us can't utilize the economic opportunities in the city).
      - jwin742 8y ago
        Where do you pay your tax to then? That's a reasonable enough definition of where you live.
        jMyles 8y ago
        In New York State. I pay the exorbitant taxes which pay for, among other things, protecting the water from the huge city down the road that I'm apparently "damaging" by living there a few weeks out of the year.
CaptainZapp 8y ago
Well, we don't all agree that the changes are tantamount to "damage", first of all. I'd wager that anybody who suddenly had an illegal hotel running out of her neighboring appartment will very strongly disagree with that statement. Unless you personally made that experience, in a house where parties live for 30 years+, you are not aware what a massive impact this can have on your quality of life. Since I've been there I stopped using AirBnb, period.
- jMyles 8y ago
  As I said, I think it's time to question whether an environment such as NYC is a realistic place to live for 30 years+ - is that sustainable for our species? I think that the availability of short-term housing in NYC in particular is a net benefit for society, even if it adds an uncomfortable dose of reality for many people who had the extreme privilege of growing up there.
  - bluntfang 8y ago
    You're strawmanning. It doesn't matter if you think people should live there for 30+ years, because that's what's already happening.
    - jMyles 8y ago
      Yeah, well, those of us who live there for < 8 weeks out of the year is already happening too. I don't understand the strawman - what argument did I mischaracterize in an attempt to make it appear weaker for the purposes of responding to it?
      - bluntfang 8y ago
        You're ignoring the fact that 30million people already live there by posing that people shouldn't be doing that in this day and age. It doesn't matter what your opinion of those 30 million people are, the fact is that it is the current condition.

by jMyles 8y ago

pjc50 8y ago

> living in a single place in perpetuity Christ. Hotdesking for houses. This is already the reality for a lot of precariously-housed or non-street-homeless people. It's especially bad for children and will cost them grades at school when moving frequently.

lancesells 8y ago

Perhaps AirBnb should actually follow the law in NYC (30 days minimum) until they can lobby enough to change the law.

jMyles 8y ago
...why? What makes this law worth following in the first place?
- jfk13 8y ago
  If there are communities where AirBnB is deliberately breaking the law, those cities ought to be collecting punitive fines. In a civilised society, you don't get to pick and choose which laws you think are worth following, and just ignore the rest. Don't like a given law? Then engage in the political process to seek changes to it.
- parthdesai 8y ago
  Because it directly impacts the residents who live there full time and pay all the taxes to that city and state? Every day that you don't live in the city and make a purchase outside the city is a tax-dollar that city is missing out on and that someone living full time in the city is paying. I live in downtown Toronto and here are some of the issues i face due to Airbnb: i) Some of the residents make living a hell. They come to party, don't respect the neighbours, are loud till late, trash the place and some have even gone to break the buttons in elevator. ii) With Airbnb, new owners and renters are priced out of market. People with more money but new units as secondary investment and just Airbnb it instead of renting it, thus creating artificial shortage of available units to full-time renters. One of the fascinating things about NYC is it's vast array of local businesses. Guess who do these local businesses need? Full time employees who go to work every day and not for 3-11 days.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    >>Every day that you don't live in the city and make a purchase outside the city is a tax-dollar that city is missing out on and that someone living full time in the city is paying. Another short-term resident would be there in his place on the days he's not in NYC. Year round there will almost always be someone staying in his unit. And short term renters tend to spend more per day than long-term residents, so they probably contribute significantly more to the city's tax base.
    - parthdesai 8y ago
      >And short term renters tend to spend more per day than long-term residents, so they probably contribute significantly more to the city's tax base. Per day costs, sure. But if you add recurring payments, don't think they are outspending it. Also, you are ignoring the entire point to begin with. A City should look after it's long term residents first and foremost. Unless you want it to eventually become a ghost city.
      - CryptoPunk 8y ago
        I haven't seen any evidence that long-term residents contribute more to the tax base per capita. The spending differential between short term and long term renters is so large that it seems not just plausible, but likely, that the former contribute more on balance. >>A City should look after it's long term residents first and foremost. I don't see why it should. A city should look after those within its boundaries, whether they're there for a day or a year. It shouldn't set up walls and promote long term residence over visits.

jermaustin1 8y ago

> if your desire is to live there perpetually for years You mean like 99% of people? When you work in the city, grew up in the city, have met almost everyone you know in the city, to then be forced out of the city because people want to rent their apartments out for 3-10 days at a time instead of 1-3 years means that people who need the stability of a permanent address now have to either shell out much more cash than a land lord can get (illegally) on airbnb, or move out of the city and abandon the thing they have known their entire lives. I'm not saying I have a good solution to it, other than the typical protectionist idea of tax the things that are destroying us, but at least that way there is money in the treasury to try and save a portion of the people affected by it.

jMyles 8y ago
> 99% of people You are saying that 99% of people live in the same residence for years? I'd love to see a source on this. Between transient people, houseless people, digital nomads, business travelers, jetsetters, RVers, and all sorts of other people who don't live in one place all year, I have no doubt that the various modes of nomadism, taken together, account for far, far higher than 1%. Heck, in NYC alone, I'll wager that less than 70% of today's population has lived in the same domicile for the past 2 years. There's no way it's 99%. > When you work in the city, grew up in the city, have met almost everyone you know in the city I made clear in my post that people in those circumstances might have a different experience. But is this the only audience NYC is designed to serve? People who grew up in the city? What about those of us in the Hudson Valley? Do we not deserve any of the economic benefits of the city (for which we pay in many ways, not least of which our watershed) just because we were born 50-150 miles away? I think it's about time that real opportunities to live in the city for a few weeks out of the year become available to other NYers and not just the super rich. I didn't grow up in NYC, but I consider it my city too. I know the best open mics, the places where I can order authentic Mexican or Puerto Rican food en español, the incubators and co-working spaces, the subway system, etc. Just because you grew up there doesn't give you exclusive ownership of the culture of NYC.
elhudy 8y ago
There should be a new word for this type of gentrification.

ddoran 8y ago

> I typically only live in NYC for 3-10 days at a time That's not living somewhere. That's visiting.

jMyles 8y ago
Oh yeah? I'm alive during those 3-10 days. And I'm there. If that's not living, then where do I live? I don't have a long-term lease or anything similar. Do I not deserve the same quality of life and opportunities as people who happened to have been born in the East Village?
- ddoran 8y ago
  Semantics. I respectfully disagree. Being alive, and living at a place are two completely different things. By your definition, I've lived in 12 countries this year. I haven't.
  - jMyles 8y ago
    It's not semantics. It's a simple question: if someone doesn't have a current lease in a particular place, where do they live? Particularly for the purposes of enjoying the privileges that everyone in this thread is claiming they deserve by dint of living in NYC (ie, artificially controlled rent prices such that the rest of us can't utilize the economic opportunities in the city).
    - jwin742 8y ago
      Where do you pay your tax to then? That's a reasonable enough definition of where you live.
      - jMyles 8y ago
        In New York State. I pay the exorbitant taxes which pay for, among other things, protecting the water from the huge city down the road that I'm apparently "damaging" by living there a few weeks out of the year.

CaptainZapp 8y ago

Well, we don't all agree that the changes are tantamount to "damage", first of all. I'd wager that anybody who suddenly had an illegal hotel running out of her neighboring appartment will very strongly disagree with that statement. Unless you personally made that experience, in a house where parties live for 30 years+, you are not aware what a massive impact this can have on your quality of life. Since I've been there I stopped using AirBnb, period.

jMyles 8y ago
As I said, I think it's time to question whether an environment such as NYC is a realistic place to live for 30 years+ - is that sustainable for our species? I think that the availability of short-term housing in NYC in particular is a net benefit for society, even if it adds an uncomfortable dose of reality for many people who had the extreme privilege of growing up there.
- bluntfang 8y ago
  You're strawmanning. It doesn't matter if you think people should live there for 30+ years, because that's what's already happening.
  - jMyles 8y ago
    Yeah, well, those of us who live there for < 8 weeks out of the year is already happening too. I don't understand the strawman - what argument did I mischaracterize in an attempt to make it appear weaker for the purposes of responding to it?
    - bluntfang 8y ago
      You're ignoring the fact that 30million people already live there by posing that people shouldn't be doing that in this day and age. It doesn't matter what your opinion of those 30 million people are, the fact is that it is the current condition.