4 ms·

It is kind of mission critical that they don't, correct? I have stayed in one lady's place who even mentioned to us that it wasn't exactly kosher with the landl

It is kind of mission critical that they don't, correct? I have stayed in one lady's place who even mentioned to us that it wasn't exactly kosher with the landlord, but she was going out of town for a conference anyway and would be gone for the week. I see it as mission critical because it would be too easy for landlords to take that information and use it against people.

simias 13y ago
Do you mean that airbnb giving this info to the attorney general would make it public?
colmvp 13y ago
"I see it as mission critical because it would be too easy for landlords to take that information and use it against people." Well they could've done themselves a favor by not illegally subletting their rental. I don't mind the concept of Airbnb but it's laughable that proponents glaze over the fact that rental agreements often prohibit subletting yet Airbnb users still rent their space anyway.
apaprocki 13y ago
As someone on the condo board of a building, I can guarantee you that we don't need any data dump to locate people illegally renting out units in our building. We regularly look on AirBnB and VRBO for units within our building that are easily identifiable through the photographs in the listing and fine anyone in violation of the condo rules.
- gojomo 13y ago
  Other than the fact that such rentals are against the rules (malum prohibitum), has your condo board seen actual damages from such website-mediated-rentals, making the practice wrong in-and-of-itself (malum in se)? The rules probably date back to when such arrangments were often quite sketchy and informal, whereas the Airbnb era adds traceable payments/stay-records, sticky reputations linked to real-world identities, and a commercial-entity's own "guarantee" against harms. So would the board consider waiving those rules under certain situations? It seems the option to rent out property in some cases will protect or improve the property's value... which I presume is one of the major goals of the condo board.
  - apaprocki 13y ago
    The rules date back to when I and the rest of the board put them into effect a few months ago. I can't imagine a situation where the option to short-term rent will ever increase property value. We have had short-term rental guests not obey other condo rules and cause damage / mess within the common areas of the building. The minimum rental period in our building is 12 months and we do not wish anyone sharing our common elements for a time period less than that. Everyone in the building is free to disagree, vote us out, then change the policy, but no one has expressed any desire to change this policy.
    - gojomo 13y ago
      Thanks for your answers. Do you know if the problematic short-term guests came via Airbnb or some other avenue? "No one has expressed any desire to change the policy" - not even the people who've been fined? (Were they renters subletting, or owners flaunting the rules?)
      - apaprocki 13y ago
        The unit that caused the biggest problem was listed on 2+ sites, so it is unclear which guests came from which platform. The person previously renting (an owner) ignored multiple requests to stop and only stopped when a fine was introduced. In the NYC market these situations can be very profitable so it is in the renter's/owner's interest to break the rules as much as they feel they can get away with until the equation no longer becomes profitable. This is how condo boards fight the situation -- the fines have to be heavy enough that it impacts the profitability of the entire concept. The condo board is in a position to put a lien on the unit for the money owed, so owners can not ignore the rules without potentially severe consequences.
        gojomo 13y ago
        But it's clearly more than "no one" would would like to pursue this profitable opportunity without fines, right? (Maybe they're the kind of people who don't show up and vote at condo association meetings, but presumably they're not voting in favor of the rules/fines but then blatantly violating them.)

simias 13y ago

Do you mean that airbnb giving this info to the attorney general would make it public?

colmvp 13y ago

"I see it as mission critical because it would be too easy for landlords to take that information and use it against people." Well they could've done themselves a favor by not illegally subletting their rental. I don't mind the concept of Airbnb but it's laughable that proponents glaze over the fact that rental agreements often prohibit subletting yet Airbnb users still rent their space anyway.

apaprocki 13y ago

As someone on the condo board of a building, I can guarantee you that we don't need any data dump to locate people illegally renting out units in our building. We regularly look on AirBnB and VRBO for units within our building that are easily identifiable through the photographs in the listing and fine anyone in violation of the condo rules.

gojomo 13y ago
Other than the fact that such rentals are against the rules (malum prohibitum), has your condo board seen actual damages from such website-mediated-rentals, making the practice wrong in-and-of-itself (malum in se)? The rules probably date back to when such arrangments were often quite sketchy and informal, whereas the Airbnb era adds traceable payments/stay-records, sticky reputations linked to real-world identities, and a commercial-entity's own "guarantee" against harms. So would the board consider waiving those rules under certain situations? It seems the option to rent out property in some cases will protect or improve the property's value... which I presume is one of the major goals of the condo board.
- apaprocki 13y ago
  The rules date back to when I and the rest of the board put them into effect a few months ago. I can't imagine a situation where the option to short-term rent will ever increase property value. We have had short-term rental guests not obey other condo rules and cause damage / mess within the common areas of the building. The minimum rental period in our building is 12 months and we do not wish anyone sharing our common elements for a time period less than that. Everyone in the building is free to disagree, vote us out, then change the policy, but no one has expressed any desire to change this policy.
  - gojomo 13y ago
    Thanks for your answers. Do you know if the problematic short-term guests came via Airbnb or some other avenue? "No one has expressed any desire to change the policy" - not even the people who've been fined? (Were they renters subletting, or owners flaunting the rules?)
    - apaprocki 13y ago
      The unit that caused the biggest problem was listed on 2+ sites, so it is unclear which guests came from which platform. The person previously renting (an owner) ignored multiple requests to stop and only stopped when a fine was introduced. In the NYC market these situations can be very profitable so it is in the renter's/owner's interest to break the rules as much as they feel they can get away with until the equation no longer becomes profitable. This is how condo boards fight the situation -- the fines have to be heavy enough that it impacts the profitability of the entire concept. The condo board is in a position to put a lien on the unit for the money owed, so owners can not ignore the rules without potentially severe consequences.
      - gojomo 13y ago
        But it's clearly more than "no one" would would like to pursue this profitable opportunity without fines, right? (Maybe they're the kind of people who don't show up and vote at condo association meetings, but presumably they're not voting in favor of the rules/fines but then blatantly violating them.)