I have lived in Manhattan for a long time and it is very important to limit Airbnb for a number of reasons. First, people who live in apartment buildings do not want transients living there for personal safety and other reasons. We have doormen for a reason, part of which is to keep strangers out. Airbnb decreases the supply of housing and makes it more expensive for residents. How are either of these helpful?
Airbnb and its investors have no respect for New Yorkers who don't want these transients in our buildings. The know that New Yorkers don't want transients living in their buildings and they know we have a housing shortage yet they make things worse.
In cities like NYC what Airbnb needs to do is to pivot and build their own hotels under the Airbnb brand and rent them out at much lower costs than the outrageous rates of "name brand" hotels. Airbnb has a huge valuation and can afford to build these hotels and make a profit, while not impinging on the local housing supply and safety of New Yorkers.
Startups like Uber are welcomed because they help New Yorkers and visitors by making the supply of taxis and taxi-like vehicles * more available and safe . Airbnb makes the housing market less available and less safe *.
>First, people who live in apartment buildings do not want transients living there for personal safety and other reasons.
This doesn't need to be a legal issue. It's simply a rule of the building. People violating it are violating their contract with their building just like when they violate any other rule.
> Airbnb decreases the supply of housing and makes it more expensive for residents.
Long term it should not decrease the supply of housing. Visitors are either going to stay in airbnbs, with friends, or at hotels. If visitors stay in Airbnbs, then there is less demand for hotels space and more space for residential properties. Demand for hotels also decreases residential supply.
Ultimately the issue of Airbnb on housing supply is a small one. Instead, question why so many neighborhoods have height restrictions and restrictions on building anything new. Most people supporting these laws are landowners and will admit that they are trying to protect the value of their property (i.e. keep housing prices high).
"Transients" is definitely a term well chosen to frame the debate in your favor.
"Tourists", "visitors", or even "people" would all be much more welcoming terms.
You mention Uber in a positive light as providing "taxi-like vehicles", a nice neutral term. How does it sound when you call them "private black cars", or alternatively, "illegal taxicabs" or "gypsy cabs" (no slur intended against people of that ethnicity!).
Calling users of Airbnb "transients" is, in my opinion, unnecessarily harsh. They're human beings, for goodness sake!
> In cities like NYC what Airbnb needs to do is to pivot and build their own hotels under the Airbnb
Why would they do that since their business model is to take as little risk as possible while making a lot of money? it's just like Uber, the law is someone else's problem in the "sharing economy". You can't rely regulate Airbnb out of cities. You can only catch people who illegally sublet their appartements.
Uber was forced to follow some rules too. Drivers in NYC have commercial insurance requirements, need a TLC license and need to drive an approved vehicle.
I don't disagree with your point, but why would Airbnb or anyone else build a real hotel then rent out rooms for less than comparable hotels in the area? They could build a hotel and get probably $300 a night in midtown, but they won't, because they're not in the hotel business, and if they were, they would have no good reason to rent out rooms cheaply.
The appeal of Airbnb, at least for me, is that you're staying somewhere novel, in a unique place, with unique hosts who may help you have a more fun experience than a hotel would provide. For example, I've had hosts show me around the city a bit, play board games with heir guests, or even just sit around and chat about life for a bit. It has a similar appeal to the good parts of CouchSurfing with a more mature vibe.
Edit: I'm sure some people use it for not-good things, but Airbnb is more comparable to a traditional vacation rental company than a hotel company.
This article is misleading. It, if you read it at face value, suggests that they've just banned all full apartments on AirBNB. The truth is, they've banned advertising full apartments for stays of < 30 days[1].
Note that since 2010, it's already been illegal to rent out a full unit for less than 30 days [2]. It's just that now, advertising on AirBNB (or similar service) could subject you to fines. This is the 'answer' to AirBNB refusing to pull illegal listings themselves.
caution: rant ahead
The Gothamist has some of the worst proofreading of any rag out there that I've across. And if you comment and correct (nicely) the information presented, they'll ban you on the spot. It's a news source with a closed circle jerk of certain ideologies and perspectives.
He says: "You can't have it both ways, @NYSenate. You can't both be a startup hub and give incumbents laws banning startups."
I disagree with this sentiment on so many levels.
First, while Airbnb has been working hard to frame this as "the hotel industry vs the disruptive startup," there are plenty of regular New Yorkers who oppose "entire apartment" listings, either because they make bad neighbors, or because they further constrain the apartment supply in an already tight rental market.
Second, we can argue over the semantics of what makes a company a "startup," but Airbnb is a large tech company worth billions of dollars that is impacting communities all over the world, for better or worse. It is unfair to take the position that to be a "startup hub" a city must support Airbnb's practices, even if is to the detriment of that city's residents.
And lastly, this law doesn't "ban" Airbnb. Short term "entire apartment" rentals were already illegal in NY. This just makes it easier to go after violators. And you can still rent out an extra room on Airbnb, or rent an apartment with an extra bedroom and rent that out.
Anyway, would love for PG or someone from YC who agrees with him to respond.
PG's Tweet is pretty off-base and disingenuous. He makes it seem like AirBNB is being persecuted and that there are no legitimate grievances with the way AirBNB is negatively impacting local communities and housing markets.
pg has been consistent with this viewpoint, expressing the same sentiment when Austin voters rejected a proposition that would have done away with driver fingerprinting requirements for Uber and Lyft: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/731871426056065028
If nothing else, the Austin case in particular is very interesting to me in that, with Uber and Lyft gone, there have been a flurry of startups and a non-profit in the rideshare space: Fare, Fasten, GetMe, Wingz, and the non-profit RideAustin. While none of them (yet) provide the hail times and low prices of Uber or Lyft, at the very least it is an interesting experiment in some different business models.
Same with Uber IMO. If your startup is "disruptive" by virtue of doing something against the spirit of the law, do not misunderstand law to be some immutable code; even if people love your product, the disruptees will likely be pissed and whine to the government to change the letter of the law to match the spirit once again.
"Entire apartment" short-term rentals have been illegal for some time under NY law, but it happens a lot anyway, especially in NYC, because it is difficult to enforce, since law enforcement has to prove that a violation occurred. There is a task force dedicated to that, but because of the effort involved in going after violators, they have pretty much only gone after the "big players," like entire buildings being converted to hotel operations.
Since this bill makes the advertising of the apartment itself illegal, it should actually be able put a stop to the practice, at least in NYC. This feels like a big deal to me because I live in a pretty trendy Manhattan neighborhood, and in addition to the annoyance of being a neighbor to a full-time Airbnb operation, I also have to assume it is making it harder for me and my friends to find apartments.
AirBnB could solve these problems in 1 second by limiting it to 1 rental per account. The problem isn't someone renting out their full apartment, it's the professional operation of apartments on AirBnB by firms, sometimes very large firms, and enterprising individuals. They rent a bunch of units full time, taking significant real estate from would-be renters.
Having lived in a Manhattan building where other tenants were basically subleasing their apartments on a daily and weekly basis to obnoxious guests, this is an excellent step forward. I'm disappointed to see so many tweets from tech leaders (lots of them investors in AirBnb, so taken with a grain of salt) about how this will kill startups in NY, since that is very hyperbolic.
this is not an "excellent step forward". This is a quick fix, later to be known as technical debt. An excellent step forward would have been if you could call Police for any neighbour that misbehave, no matter how he got inside that apartment.
On the general issue of if something like AirBnB should be allowed I'm mixed but on the specific of AirBnB they're an evil company in my experience.
They aren't even trying not to be evil. They are trying to take ZERO responsibility for anything. They don't care how much their hosts lie and take zero efforts to hold hosts accountable for their lies.
I've rented places that claimed to be 1 bed room but were actually a studio. I've rented places that claimed to have "parking on premises" but didn't. I've rented places that claimed to include internet but didn't. The latest is I rented a place the claimed to be at a certain location but was actually several blocks away. When I complained the AirBnB rep told me it was company policy to allowed hosts to lie about their locations because putting actual locations on the internet would be dangerous. When I pointed out Redfin, Craigslist, VRBO, etc don't have such a BS policy he claimed it was one reason AirBnB is more successful. In other words, because they allow lying they are more successful.
If they ever start taking some responsibility, say fining lying hosts or banning them from the site or marking their ratings down maybe I'll start rooting for them but until then I hope they get banned.
I've used airbnb 10 times in the past 5 months, for stays ranging from a few days to 6 weeks. Every stay has been great so far. Airbnb has some problems they need to fix, but they are an immensely valuable service for travelers. I am not sure how I would have done this trip without it. Craigslist is a massive pain in the ass compared to airbnb (for anything but long term rentals). And hotels are far too expensive for my budget. For the longer stays, even hostels cost more. I've been spending $15 to $25 a day for the longer stays.
With fines starting out at $1,000, pretty sure it'd be worth it to have a full-time city employee to scan for violations. Heck, you could outsource it, letting the third-party keep a % of the fine. While we're at it, there could be a startup for this.. disrupting the disrupters!
That's pretty much what I thought when I saw the headline. The article doesn't give text of the law, but it does say the law doesn't apply to homeowners who rent out single rooms while they are themselves present. I suspect that if you're not present, you're not safe from prosecution.
Renting two rooms while you are present seems safer.
> Shouldn't that be considered a band-aids to actually increasing the supply of housing?
Manhattan is a little tight on space for fill-in (I doubt this legislation was targeted at Staten Island...), although I'd be curious how much denser one could make Manhattan with modern building techniques.
Airbnb’s unchecked growth is depleting our affordable housing stock and driving up rent, while threatening good-paying middle class union hotel jobs in New York City and around the country," Peter Ward, president of the New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council, said in a statement. "This bill will go a long way toward better protecting tens of thousands of affordable housing units our members and their families rely on to remain in the neighborhoods they call home, and preserving the quality jobs and quality of life in our communities our members deserve. (Posted not from the weak Gothamist article but from Crain's)
You have to love the hotel lobby, coming out in protection of 'communities' and affordability.
Has anyone experienced poor usability if they search their own city? Load up the VPN and suddenly it works? I have a suspicion that airbnb likes to prevent airbnb strata-enforcers from searching the site.
I haven't personally noticed that, but I attempted a VPN comparison like you did. On one hand, it would would make it harder for neighbors, regulators, and law enforcement to take action against Airbnb hosts, but on the other it would also make it more difficult for guests to hop rentals when they are visiting a city and choose to extend their stay.
Of course, Airbnb has been accused of manipulating data before, when it was noticed that they removed a large number of listings just before handing a dump to the NY attorney general, so I wouldn't put it past them by any means.
I live in the Lower East Side, which is the most concentrated neighborhood in NYC for illegal airbnb's. There is literally no inventory here and the apartments that are available have skyrocketed in price in the last 4 years since I moved here. Thanks airbnb.
The Lower East Side is plagued with height limits, zoning restrictions, heavy parking requirements, etc. Thankfully, DeBlasio has been fighting these rules in order to allow more building, but for the most part, the Lower East Side's problem is simply that new housing has not really been built there and lots of people want to live there.
More than half the buildings in Manhattan today violate the modern zoning laws and couldn't be built today. There was a NYtimes article about it recently.
Why nkt let the building owners decide? If you own a condo apt or coop, amend the operating agreement to not allow short term rentals without board approval... Assuming the rest of your building agrees.
The new law is against advertising the apartment. So NYC can go after people just for putting the apartment online instead of having to rely on AirBnB taking it down.
As a libertarian I really dislike any restrictions placed on the use of property I paid for and worse pay taxes on. As long as it does not threaten the health or safety of others/environment the state should not be telling me how I can use my property. If its a residence then I should be able to decide who who can reside there and how long pursuant to that I do not cause them harm or harm others by hosting them.
There is an apartment shortage specifically because regulation so restricts what you can build, where you can build, and worse at times what you can sell for; setting aside "affordable" units and such
You do as least recognize that under our current system land ownership is a long way away from being a free market path? The government subsidizes and insures a large portion of lending for home ownership. Also large tax breaks are typically given for new large scale construction. On top of that transportation to and from that land is provided by the government as well as government supplied protection for that property. Not to mention government supplied utilities for that property to access resources such as water and electricity.
I definitely not trying to get into a base line discussion about libertarian property rights ideas. But at least to help you understand what we have right now is a long long way from individual free and clear property ownership of land. Maybe before we start letting people do whatever they want with what you feel like is solely their land we need to address the massive amount of government supplied resources that land owner is currently enjoying.
One problem is that if you live in an apartment building where someone is renting out their apartment using AirBnB, your safety is now decreased as non-tenants now have access to the building where they wouldn't have had it before.
[+] [-] davidf18|9 years ago|reply
Airbnb and its investors have no respect for New Yorkers who don't want these transients in our buildings. The know that New Yorkers don't want transients living in their buildings and they know we have a housing shortage yet they make things worse.
In cities like NYC what Airbnb needs to do is to pivot and build their own hotels under the Airbnb brand and rent them out at much lower costs than the outrageous rates of "name brand" hotels. Airbnb has a huge valuation and can afford to build these hotels and make a profit, while not impinging on the local housing supply and safety of New Yorkers.
Startups like Uber are welcomed because they help New Yorkers and visitors by making the supply of taxis and taxi-like vehicles * more available and safe . Airbnb makes the housing market less available and less safe *.
[+] [-] travisp|9 years ago|reply
This doesn't need to be a legal issue. It's simply a rule of the building. People violating it are violating their contract with their building just like when they violate any other rule.
> Airbnb decreases the supply of housing and makes it more expensive for residents.
Long term it should not decrease the supply of housing. Visitors are either going to stay in airbnbs, with friends, or at hotels. If visitors stay in Airbnbs, then there is less demand for hotels space and more space for residential properties. Demand for hotels also decreases residential supply.
Ultimately the issue of Airbnb on housing supply is a small one. Instead, question why so many neighborhoods have height restrictions and restrictions on building anything new. Most people supporting these laws are landowners and will admit that they are trying to protect the value of their property (i.e. keep housing prices high).
[+] [-] LeifCarrotson|9 years ago|reply
"Tourists", "visitors", or even "people" would all be much more welcoming terms.
You mention Uber in a positive light as providing "taxi-like vehicles", a nice neutral term. How does it sound when you call them "private black cars", or alternatively, "illegal taxicabs" or "gypsy cabs" (no slur intended against people of that ethnicity!).
Calling users of Airbnb "transients" is, in my opinion, unnecessarily harsh. They're human beings, for goodness sake!
[+] [-] spriggan3|9 years ago|reply
Why would they do that since their business model is to take as little risk as possible while making a lot of money? it's just like Uber, the law is someone else's problem in the "sharing economy". You can't rely regulate Airbnb out of cities. You can only catch people who illegally sublet their appartements.
[+] [-] Spooky23|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tim333|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanp2k2|9 years ago|reply
The appeal of Airbnb, at least for me, is that you're staying somewhere novel, in a unique place, with unique hosts who may help you have a more fun experience than a hotel would provide. For example, I've had hosts show me around the city a bit, play board games with heir guests, or even just sit around and chat about life for a bit. It has a similar appeal to the good parts of CouchSurfing with a more mature vibe.
Edit: I'm sure some people use it for not-good things, but Airbnb is more comparable to a traditional vacation rental company than a hotel company.
[+] [-] mancerayder|9 years ago|reply
Note that since 2010, it's already been illegal to rent out a full unit for less than 30 days [2]. It's just that now, advertising on AirBNB (or similar service) could subject you to fines. This is the 'answer' to AirBNB refusing to pull illegal listings themselves.
caution: rant ahead
The Gothamist has some of the worst proofreading of any rag out there that I've across. And if you comment and correct (nicely) the information presented, they'll ban you on the spot. It's a news source with a closed circle jerk of certain ideologies and perspectives.
/rant
1 - http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20160617/BLOGS04/160619...
2 - http://ny.curbed.com/2013/3/25/10260752/an-introduction-to-n...
[+] [-] pyrophane|9 years ago|reply
He says: "You can't have it both ways, @NYSenate. You can't both be a startup hub and give incumbents laws banning startups."
I disagree with this sentiment on so many levels.
First, while Airbnb has been working hard to frame this as "the hotel industry vs the disruptive startup," there are plenty of regular New Yorkers who oppose "entire apartment" listings, either because they make bad neighbors, or because they further constrain the apartment supply in an already tight rental market.
Second, we can argue over the semantics of what makes a company a "startup," but Airbnb is a large tech company worth billions of dollars that is impacting communities all over the world, for better or worse. It is unfair to take the position that to be a "startup hub" a city must support Airbnb's practices, even if is to the detriment of that city's residents.
And lastly, this law doesn't "ban" Airbnb. Short term "entire apartment" rentals were already illegal in NY. This just makes it easier to go after violators. And you can still rent out an extra room on Airbnb, or rent an apartment with an extra bedroom and rent that out.
Anyway, would love for PG or someone from YC who agrees with him to respond.
[+] [-] danhak|9 years ago|reply
The city of Santa Monica banned certain short-term AirBNB rentals last year and remains one of the hottest tech hubs in the country: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/13/406587575/...
Kudos to NY lawmakers for taking this step.
[+] [-] mtmail|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adevine|9 years ago|reply
If nothing else, the Austin case in particular is very interesting to me in that, with Uber and Lyft gone, there have been a flurry of startups and a non-profit in the rideshare space: Fare, Fasten, GetMe, Wingz, and the non-profit RideAustin. While none of them (yet) provide the hail times and low prices of Uber or Lyft, at the very least it is an interesting experiment in some different business models.
[+] [-] hackaflocka|9 years ago|reply
If the mafia re-incorporates as a startup in NYC, does it become incumbent on NYC to protect it because it wants to be a "startup hub"?
[+] [-] seanp2k2|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Spooky23|9 years ago|reply
I think he should rent an apartment in a building that's been Airbnb'd for 90 days and revisit his opinion on day 91.
"Incumbents" are people, trying to live peacefully.
[+] [-] ap3|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyrophane|9 years ago|reply
Since this bill makes the advertising of the apartment itself illegal, it should actually be able put a stop to the practice, at least in NYC. This feels like a big deal to me because I live in a pretty trendy Manhattan neighborhood, and in addition to the annoyance of being a neighbor to a full-time Airbnb operation, I also have to assume it is making it harder for me and my friends to find apartments.
[+] [-] greenyoda|9 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11930098
[+] [-] orthoganol|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cddotdotslash|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GoToRO|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greggman|9 years ago|reply
They aren't even trying not to be evil. They are trying to take ZERO responsibility for anything. They don't care how much their hosts lie and take zero efforts to hold hosts accountable for their lies.
I've rented places that claimed to be 1 bed room but were actually a studio. I've rented places that claimed to have "parking on premises" but didn't. I've rented places that claimed to include internet but didn't. The latest is I rented a place the claimed to be at a certain location but was actually several blocks away. When I complained the AirBnB rep told me it was company policy to allowed hosts to lie about their locations because putting actual locations on the internet would be dangerous. When I pointed out Redfin, Craigslist, VRBO, etc don't have such a BS policy he claimed it was one reason AirBnB is more successful. In other words, because they allow lying they are more successful.
If they ever start taking some responsibility, say fining lying hosts or banning them from the site or marking their ratings down maybe I'll start rooting for them but until then I hope they get banned.
[+] [-] dwaltrip|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logicallee|9 years ago|reply
Listing #95462: "Half of connected apartment available,see listing #95459 if you'd like to see the other half instead!"
[+] [-] bdcravens|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thaumasiotes|9 years ago|reply
Renting two rooms while you are present seems safer.
[+] [-] furyofantares|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kiba|9 years ago|reply
Shouldn't that be considered a band-aids to actually increasing the supply of housing?
I admit the solution, 'building more apartments' is a political problems. Humans are making it far more difficult than it has to be.
[+] [-] santaclaus|9 years ago|reply
Manhattan is a little tight on space for fill-in (I doubt this legislation was targeted at Staten Island...), although I'd be curious how much denser one could make Manhattan with modern building techniques.
[+] [-] mancerayder|9 years ago|reply
You have to love the hotel lobby, coming out in protection of 'communities' and affordability.
[+] [-] crdoconnor|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orbitingpluto|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyrophane|9 years ago|reply
Of course, Airbnb has been accused of manipulating data before, when it was noticed that they removed a large number of listings just before handing a dump to the NY attorney general, so I wouldn't put it past them by any means.
[+] [-] jsegal1|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] travisp|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Rathor1|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|9 years ago|reply
Close. The number is 40% [1].
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-p...
[+] [-] tehabe|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hkmurakami|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dplgk|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spriggan3|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mason55|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pix64|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|9 years ago|reply
There is an apartment shortage specifically because regulation so restricts what you can build, where you can build, and worse at times what you can sell for; setting aside "affordable" units and such
[+] [-] hiou|9 years ago|reply
I definitely not trying to get into a base line discussion about libertarian property rights ideas. But at least to help you understand what we have right now is a long long way from individual free and clear property ownership of land. Maybe before we start letting people do whatever they want with what you feel like is solely their land we need to address the massive amount of government supplied resources that land owner is currently enjoying.
[+] [-] crdoconnor|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tjl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsegal1|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]