11 ms·

> In most residential apartment buildings, renting out your space for less than 30 days is illegal, unless you are present when you have that visitor. Why can'

by gmjoe 13y ago

> In most residential apartment buildings, renting out your space for less than 30 days is illegal, unless you are present when you have that visitor. Why can't NYC come up with some common-sense regulation, like everyone is allowed to rent their apartment to up to 8 separate groups of people, for not more than 6 mos out of the year total, or something? And that landlords are not allowed to interfere? This would prevent "hotel"-style abuse, like different tenants every night in a residential building, but still give people the flexibility to rent out for the occasional weekend, or month, or whatever. The 30-day thing is just ridiculous.

greenyoda 13y ago
"Why can't NYC come up with some common-sense regulation, like everyone is allowed to rent their apartment to up to 8 separate groups of people, for not more than 6 mos out of the year total, or something? And that landlords are not allowed to interfere?" If someone's renting an apartment, it's by definition not "their" apartment but the landlord's apartment. The landlord decides to rent to a particular tenant based on things like background checks, references, interviews, etc. These kind of assurances are not available for random people that the tenant rents to. Unless the tenant bears complete legal and financial liability for anything bad his subtenant does, it's asking the landlord to take on a significant risk. Also, if each tenant in a large building could rent their apartment to up to 8 separate groups of people, you would have a constant flow of strangers through the building. Since the short-term renters don't have any stake in keeping the building clean or safe or quiet, this could pose problems for the other tenants. I've lived in apartments where even the long-term tenants left garbage in the halls and played loud music at 2am. I can imagine that someone who is staying in the building for a weekend might be even more anti-social, since there would be no personal consequences to their bad behavior.
- benastan 13y ago
  Airbnb has sought to bake in accountability both at a large and small scale. 1) Airbnb has a crazy insurance policy [1] 2) Both the host & guest get reviewed. A single bad review can impede your ability to rent on either side. This is purely based on my experience, but it seems like guests really don't misbehave. Maybe there is the occasional party or guest who trashes the place. Good hosts tend to hire cleaning services to deal with messes. Generally, guest are tired from traveling and doing activities and are low impact. [1] https://www.airbnb.com/guarantee https://www.airbnb.com/guarantee
  - absherwin 13y ago
    The guarantee terms and conditions exclude damage to common areas and units not owned or controlled by the host. Water damage or a truly abusive guest still leave the host exposed to claims and the landlord exposed to damages for which no solvent party has liability.
    - xixi77 13y ago
      I have no problem with the landlord restricting renters from re-renting on AirBnB or the like, but how is that different from the host (first-instance renter) doing water damage himself?
      - absherwin 13y ago
        It's possible in both cases. The difference is two-fold: The landlord can control the probability of damage through the application process, assuming some people are predictably more risky, and the renter can be required to purchase insurance to ensure that damages are paid. I doubt (but haven't confirmed) that a standard renter's policy covers damages arising from short-term rentals.
  - greenyoda 13y ago
    But the landlord is not a party to the contract between Airbnb and the host. If any damage were to occur to the building, the landlord would need to sue the host and collect from him, and Airbnb says nothing about paying for legal expenses. (And once the landlord got involved, it would probably ultimately result in eviction proceedings against the host for violating the terms of his lease.) Note that the Airbnb guarantee doesn't insure the host's personal property: "The Host Guarantee is not insurance and should not be considered as a replacement or stand-in for homeowners or renters insurance." However, using your apartment as a rental property probably violates the terms of a standard renters insurance policy, so the insurance company would probably not pay for losses that were due to an Airbnb guest.
    - benastan 13y ago
gojomo 13y ago
"8 rentals not more than 6 months per year" seems just as arbitrary and ridiculous to me as the "under 30 days disallowed unless present" rule. So the problem is "common sense regulation" varies a lot based on perspective. For me, the common sense rule would be: let people contract however they want. Let them talk out or complain/negative-review/sue for any actual abuses that develop. A parade of responsible short-term tenants incurs little negative impact, while a single bad tenant (or even house-guest) can be a disaster of crime of destruction. Let the right checks and balances evolve, rather than trying to dictate beforehand what formulas might work for wildly different tenants, properties, landlords and neighborhoods.
- URSpider94 13y ago
  For me, the common sense rule would be: let people contract however they want. Let them talk out or complain/negative-review/sue for any actual abuses that develop. First of all, NYC landlord-tenant law is so far past the "let people contract however they want" phase that it would be laughable to let AirBnB operate under these rules. Nearly 50% of the apartments in New York are rent-stabilized, meaning that the tenants can't be evicted except for non-payment of rent, and are guaranteed a below-market-rate rent with government-dictated annual increases. It's ridiculously unfair to landlords to allow rent-stabilized tenants to re-rent their apartments at market rate and pocket the difference. Second, have you ever actually tried to sue someone? It's incredibly difficult, time-consuming and expensive. Third, there's the issue of moral hazard. A renter whose AirBnB tenant burns down the building is unlikely to have the resources to pay for the damages to the property of the landlord or the other tenants (and is unlikely to even have insurance to cover those costs). Upside always looks better when you know you'll be able to walk away from the downside.
  - xixi77 13y ago
    First of all, NYC landlord-tenant law is so far past the "let people contract however they want" phase that it would be laughable to let AirBnB operate under these rules. Nearly 50% of the apartments in New York are rent-stabilized, meaning that the tenants can't be evicted except for non-payment of rent, and are guaranteed a below-market-rate rent with government-dictated annual increases. It's ridiculously unfair to landlords to allow rent-stabilized tenants to re-rent their apartments at market rate and pocket the difference. All of these are horrible things (particularly rent-controls). Perhaps instead of crusading against AirBnB it would be better to focus your efforts on changing this system? Sometimes the only way to bring a bad system (an it is a very, very bad system) down is to abuse it to the extent possible.
yardie 13y ago
Apartments don't have 24-hour security. And that is 1 of the reasons I don't use it. The other being corporate discount and frequent flyer miles usage. And AirBnB is suffering from it's own popularity. Once you get beyond a certain size your audience stops being responsible, early adopters and grows to include everyone and anyone.
xixi77 13y ago
These are not city regulations, these are buildings rules -- the owners who would like a rule like you are suggesting are surely free to propose that at condo owners association meeting. Zoning BS is quite another matter.

by gmjoe 13y ago

greenyoda 13y ago

"Why can't NYC come up with some common-sense regulation, like everyone is allowed to rent their apartment to up to 8 separate groups of people, for not more than 6 mos out of the year total, or something? And that landlords are not allowed to interfere?" If someone's renting an apartment, it's by definition not "their" apartment but the landlord's apartment. The landlord decides to rent to a particular tenant based on things like background checks, references, interviews, etc. These kind of assurances are not available for random people that the tenant rents to. Unless the tenant bears complete legal and financial liability for anything bad his subtenant does, it's asking the landlord to take on a significant risk. Also, if each tenant in a large building could rent their apartment to up to 8 separate groups of people, you would have a constant flow of strangers through the building. Since the short-term renters don't have any stake in keeping the building clean or safe or quiet, this could pose problems for the other tenants. I've lived in apartments where even the long-term tenants left garbage in the halls and played loud music at 2am. I can imagine that someone who is staying in the building for a weekend might be even more anti-social, since there would be no personal consequences to their bad behavior.

benastan 13y ago
Airbnb has sought to bake in accountability both at a large and small scale. 1) Airbnb has a crazy insurance policy [1] 2) Both the host & guest get reviewed. A single bad review can impede your ability to rent on either side. This is purely based on my experience, but it seems like guests really don't misbehave. Maybe there is the occasional party or guest who trashes the place. Good hosts tend to hire cleaning services to deal with messes. Generally, guest are tired from traveling and doing activities and are low impact. [1] https://www.airbnb.com/guarantee https://www.airbnb.com/guarantee
- absherwin 13y ago
  The guarantee terms and conditions exclude damage to common areas and units not owned or controlled by the host. Water damage or a truly abusive guest still leave the host exposed to claims and the landlord exposed to damages for which no solvent party has liability.
  - xixi77 13y ago
    I have no problem with the landlord restricting renters from re-renting on AirBnB or the like, but how is that different from the host (first-instance renter) doing water damage himself?
    - absherwin 13y ago
      It's possible in both cases. The difference is two-fold: The landlord can control the probability of damage through the application process, assuming some people are predictably more risky, and the renter can be required to purchase insurance to ensure that damages are paid. I doubt (but haven't confirmed) that a standard renter's policy covers damages arising from short-term rentals.
- greenyoda 13y ago
  But the landlord is not a party to the contract between Airbnb and the host. If any damage were to occur to the building, the landlord would need to sue the host and collect from him, and Airbnb says nothing about paying for legal expenses. (And once the landlord got involved, it would probably ultimately result in eviction proceedings against the host for violating the terms of his lease.) Note that the Airbnb guarantee doesn't insure the host's personal property: "The Host Guarantee is not insurance and should not be considered as a replacement or stand-in for homeowners or renters insurance." However, using your apartment as a rental property probably violates the terms of a standard renters insurance policy, so the insurance company would probably not pay for losses that were due to an Airbnb guest.
  - benastan 13y ago

gojomo 13y ago

"8 rentals not more than 6 months per year" seems just as arbitrary and ridiculous to me as the "under 30 days disallowed unless present" rule. So the problem is "common sense regulation" varies a lot based on perspective. For me, the common sense rule would be: let people contract however they want. Let them talk out or complain/negative-review/sue for any actual abuses that develop. A parade of responsible short-term tenants incurs little negative impact, while a single bad tenant (or even house-guest) can be a disaster of crime of destruction. Let the right checks and balances evolve, rather than trying to dictate beforehand what formulas might work for wildly different tenants, properties, landlords and neighborhoods.

URSpider94 13y ago
For me, the common sense rule would be: let people contract however they want. Let them talk out or complain/negative-review/sue for any actual abuses that develop. First of all, NYC landlord-tenant law is so far past the "let people contract however they want" phase that it would be laughable to let AirBnB operate under these rules. Nearly 50% of the apartments in New York are rent-stabilized, meaning that the tenants can't be evicted except for non-payment of rent, and are guaranteed a below-market-rate rent with government-dictated annual increases. It's ridiculously unfair to landlords to allow rent-stabilized tenants to re-rent their apartments at market rate and pocket the difference. Second, have you ever actually tried to sue someone? It's incredibly difficult, time-consuming and expensive. Third, there's the issue of moral hazard. A renter whose AirBnB tenant burns down the building is unlikely to have the resources to pay for the damages to the property of the landlord or the other tenants (and is unlikely to even have insurance to cover those costs). Upside always looks better when you know you'll be able to walk away from the downside.
- xixi77 13y ago
  First of all, NYC landlord-tenant law is so far past the "let people contract however they want" phase that it would be laughable to let AirBnB operate under these rules. Nearly 50% of the apartments in New York are rent-stabilized, meaning that the tenants can't be evicted except for non-payment of rent, and are guaranteed a below-market-rate rent with government-dictated annual increases. It's ridiculously unfair to landlords to allow rent-stabilized tenants to re-rent their apartments at market rate and pocket the difference. All of these are horrible things (particularly rent-controls). Perhaps instead of crusading against AirBnB it would be better to focus your efforts on changing this system? Sometimes the only way to bring a bad system (an it is a very, very bad system) down is to abuse it to the extent possible.

yardie 13y ago

Apartments don't have 24-hour security. And that is 1 of the reasons I don't use it. The other being corporate discount and frequent flyer miles usage. And AirBnB is suffering from it's own popularity. Once you get beyond a certain size your audience stops being responsible, early adopters and grows to include everyone and anyone.

xixi77 13y ago

These are not city regulations, these are buildings rules -- the owners who would like a rule like you are suggesting are surely free to propose that at condo owners association meeting. Zoning BS is quite another matter.