NY official: Airbnb stay illegal; host fined $2,400

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57585377-93/ny-official-airbnb-stay-illegal-host-fined-%242400/

by swallsy • 13 years ago

202 265 13 years ago

news.cnet.com

mef• 13 years ago

It already was illegal. Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5742925

kyrra• 13 years ago

I want to know how that discussion already fell off the front page? did it get flagged off the front page? It has a lot of discussion and a decent number of upvotes.

kylelibra• 13 years ago

HN detects flame wars and devalues those posts in an attempt to facilitate better discussion.

Source: http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/18/the-evolution-of-hacker-new...

macleanjr2• 13 years ago

This ruling only applies to the 5 boroughs of New York City, not the entire state.

btipling• 13 years ago

Yes title should be changed to New York City as it is in the title of the blog post.

eclipxe• 13 years ago

Oh whew! Glad it is nowhere important then.

dillonforrest• 13 years ago

This is actually an annoying thing about NYC. In NYC, when people say "New York," they actually mean "New York City's five boroughs." When people say "upstate" or "upstate New York," they mean the rest of the state of New York minus NYC. When people say "the city," they mean "Manhattan." The title only makes sense to residents of NYC.

macleanjr2• 13 years ago

As a resident of Upstate New York, I can vouch for how frustrating this is. Especially when traveling.

yebyen5• 13 years ago

Actually, I am a resident of Rochester and I understood the title intuitively. Rochester is far (6 hours+) from The City. I was from Buffalo before that, even farther away. I am used to hearing about odd laws that only apply in NYC (the boroughs), from special conditions on a learners' permit license, to bans on 16+oz fountain drinks, when I hear "now illegal in New York" I tend to think naturally, it must apply only in New York City.

We are actually second-class citizens, the legislature of NY is only for NYC (and the benefits of all the taxes we pay, union dues, etc, at least to hear my father tell it.)

scott_s2• 13 years ago

When people in NYC say "upstate," they actually mean anything north of the Bronx. They don't really think of the fact that NYC is the southern-most part of the state, and it keeps going to Canada.

I lived in Mount Vernon one summer, and I was confused when people in the city (see, I just did it) said I "lived upstate."

randomdata• 13 years ago

As someone who lives outside of the US entirely, New York = NYC, New York State = the state of New York. As such, the original title was clear to me.

rayiner10• 13 years ago

New York State was named after New York City.

ceejayoz• 13 years ago

Washington DC was named after George Washington, but that doesn't make it a person.

sbov• 13 years ago

This seems questionable. From what I recall both the province and city were named after the Duke of York when the British took control of New Netherlands (and New Amsterdam) from the Dutch in the 1600s.

jeffpersonified• 13 years ago

Curious, and I haven't heard many comments on this: does this set a precedent that other states are likely to follow, and if so, is this a serious threat to the Airbnb business?

tptacek2• 13 years ago

It's probably not even a serious threat in NYC; the ruling doesn't appear to bind on Airbnb itself in any ways, and apparently is only sporadically enforced.

aggronn• 13 years ago

This has to do with a manicpal law, so no. If another city had an identical law then maybe, but airbnb is plainly in violation of it--the court just triple checked.

HIbachikabuki• 13 years ago

It's likely that cities that have substantial tourism and insufficient hotel space in the tourist areas will see an increase in short-term internet-enabled rentals and will have to decide how they want to handle the issue. Austin just put in place a new short-term-rentals policy ~a year ago. It's a pretty fair policy IMO (distinguishes between owner-occupied vs investor/landlord properties, requires collection of hotel tax for the city, etc.). I don't think this'll kill Airbnb & its ilk any more than collection of state sales taxes will kill ecommerce businesses. As business models go mainstream, they inevitably end up getting regulated & taxed. It's only when they're little & marginal that they can fly under the radar.

Diamons8• 13 years ago

This is a win for New Yorkers. The whole sharing economy thing is unsafe, ridiculous, and kind of pathetic.

robotmay• 13 years ago

Evidence?

kwamenum86• 13 years ago

Pathetic? Care to elaborate on that?

darkarmani4• 13 years ago

> The whole sharing economy thing is unsafe, ridiculous, and kind of pathetic.

How do New Yorkers win by having less choice?

prawn3• 13 years ago

Their neighbours are more likely to be people there for the long term and with an interest in the community, rather than just renting out their place to people a night at a time.

I can see the negative side of AirBnB, though that said I just booked a place in Paris because every central hotel under $300/night appears to be booked for next week.

Diamons8• 13 years ago

I am a New Yorker and I win by not having someone here for the short term vs an actual neighbor. This is a hotel no matter which way you try and paint it.

tehabe• 13 years ago

They don't have less choice, they might even have more choice because flat which has been used as hotels could become flats again.

awolf• 13 years ago

Please do explain.

I think the sharing economy is brilliant and the way of the future. If there's spare capacity in the world, why should it not be utilized. Unsafe? Is it more unsafe to a degree that the ends don't justify the means? I doubt it.

Diamons8• 13 years ago

Perhaps sharing tools, yes. Sharing cars, MAYBE. But sharing living spaces and housing, no. Housing is one of the most intimate services out there services out there. I have standards, I have rights, and I want to feel safe and secure where I live. I am a New Yorker and I don't want to feel like I'm living like a poor person with a hotel next door.

EDIT: The very definition of a hotel - An establishment providing accommodations, meals, and other services for travelers and tourists.

namdnay7• 13 years ago

I wouldn't say AirBnb is sharing. That would be couchsurfing

toomuchtodo2• 13 years ago

God forbid we more efficiently allocate resources in a dynamic way.

If done safely and ethically, its a fabulous with for consumers.

Diamons8• 13 years ago

At the end of the day, it's a hotel. I don't want to live next to someone from somewhere else who isn't here to be my neighbor. What about my rights?

untog• 13 years ago

How do you define 'efficient'? Is pushing out people who want to live in the city in order to fit more visitors an efficient use of resources? I would argue that it is not.

polymatter• 13 years ago

I declare Poe's law! I can't tell whether this is someone with another viewpoint I can learn from or just some brilliant sarcasm.

SmileyKeith• 13 years ago

While the merits of Airbnb can be debated I suppose, sometimes I wish judges could spend time on useful things.

homosaur• 13 years ago

My general libertarian bent generally would lead me to hate this sort of legislation, but in markets where housing is near max utilization, it's not only desirable, it's necessary. We already have enough of an issue with housing in places like NYC and SF without landlords turning apartment buildings into shitty hotels full of vacationers and Spring Break types who do not care the slightest for the condition of the property or their relationship with neighbors.

drcode• 13 years ago

NIMBY

paddy_m• 13 years ago

The reason there isn't enough housing, in SF especially is government intervention. Zoning laws prevent housing supply meeting demand.

sigil• 13 years ago

I've heard SF's laws against denser housing are a major factor in the housing "shortage" there. [1]

In NYC, rent control laws are a major factor in the artificial housing shortage. There's a consensus across economists of all stripes that rent control is a bad thing ("the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city -- except for bombing"). See the studies cited here. [2]

[1] http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/01/san-francisco-can-become-a-...

[2] http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html

namdnay7• 13 years ago

The question is: Would SF be as popular without zoning laws? If there were 50 story towers in the middle of the painted ladies, would it still be SF?

Or maybe I'm confusing zoning regulations with other codes.

nlh• 13 years ago

Few things that should be pointed out here:

1) First off, most uses in the city have always been against the rules -- it's been a known issue.

2) from TFA: "this law is only actionable as a secondary offense. For example, if the police show up after a noise complaint and then find you renting out your place, only then are you in extra trouble." So it's not going to stop most hosts in their tracks.

3) AFAIK, there is still a small subset of AirBNB rentals that are within the rules -- if you have a 2+ bedroom unit and live there as your primary residence, you are allowed to rent out your second+ bedrooms.

Happy (and eager) to be corrected on any of the above if I have the wrong understanding.

danso• 13 years ago

More specifically, it's been illegal since 2011: http://skift.com/2013/01/07/airbnbs-growing-pains-mirrored-i...

tptacek2• 13 years ago

Also worth mentioning that it's probably never been safe for renters to let out their places on Airbnb, as boilerplate leases universally restrict subtenants to those approved by the landlord.

nsxwolf4• 13 years ago

I looked into adding Airbnb-friendly language to my lease for my rental property, but I am not a lawyer and any lawyer I could hire to work on the language would probably be breaking new ground.

I had a friendly chat last year with someone at Airbnb about them possibly taking the reigns on this, but I don't think anything ever came of it.

It might go a long way towards getting friendlier relations between landlords and Airbnb.

aet2• 13 years ago

Is it secondary if I call and report that you are illegally renting out your dwelling?

angryasian• 13 years ago

Wouldn't it be smart of airbnb to not allow people in cities known that their services are illegal not to allow people to post those apartments ?

tg3• 13 years ago

No because 1) There are probably still some people in those cities that can legitimately rent and 2) that would lower revenues. As it stands they can turn a blind eye and put the liability on the homeowner/renter.

DanBlake6• 13 years ago

#3 is incorrect. Short term stays (below 30 days) where you charge rent is taxed, controlled and legalized by the city you live in regardless if you have a extra room or if you live with the guest or not.

gailees• 13 years ago

linkbait?

ameister14• 13 years ago

It technically always was illegal.

To be honest, I think there's a huge risk in the airbnb business; hitch-hiking was not only popular but normal for students and young people for decades in the US. Then a couple of people were raped and murdered and fear spread.

It's awful, but I think there's a significant risk for this exact scenario crushing airbnb. Not that it would be common or even likely, but all it would take was once, and the people could even know eachother. The media would pick it up and sensationalize it and the business would go down.

washedup3• 13 years ago

Another law made obsolete by the internet that needs to be changed.

rayiner10• 13 years ago

The internet has changed nothing here. The renters are physical people--it's irrelevant to the law whether they got there from an internet website or from an advertisement scrawled into a stone wall with a chisel.

washedup3• 13 years ago

I guess I mean another law that needs to be changed, not necessarily abolished. The law should be updated so that people can legal advertise their places on AirBNB. Not doing so would be neglecting a stream of revenue that could be beneficial to the city.

When I say "made obsolete by the internet" I mean that some service or product made possible by the internet is requiring us to take a look at some piece of legislation that was put in place before such service or product existed. The service in question (AirBNB) has changed the way we think about and look for places to rent.

AirBNB is a forum which helps to legitimize these rental properties and owners through crowd sourced reviews. In the past (with chisel and stone) there may not have been such a clear way to determine this. AirBNB changes the environment by offering a faster and steadier stream of users and reviews. This changes how the economy of renting works, there by changing the effectiveness of the standing law.

lifeisstillgood• 13 years ago

I think we shall see more and more of this, airbnb, kickstarter and many other "social clearing houses" are essentially delivering services that investment regulation and consumer protection legislation has been developed explictly to prevent

Its not that this specific NYC law exists and been upheld, its that there is a whole class of such laws across the West. People will bump into these a lot more.

greghinch10• 13 years ago

That doesn't mean those laws shouldn't be challenged. Often they were put in place under different circumstances.

Argorak2• 13 years ago

Could you please clarify which of those circumstances do not apply today?

Especially the basic one that most housing space is intended for residency which, by its nature, is less lucrative then short-term renting?

Quite on the contrary, in this case I think that the circumstances here are even pointing towards more regulation and AirBNB is accellerating that.

rayiner10• 13 years ago

It also doesn't mean that the laws should be repealed. In the context of things like AirBnB and Kickstarter, people tend to only see the "good side" because the laws prevent the large-scale "bad side" from taking root. E.g. they see someone putting their apartment on AirBnB while they're on vacation, but not the shady dude turning an entire building on a quiet residential block into an AirBnB hotel for rowdy college students. They see someone funding a video game on Kickstarter, but not the people swindling the public on a large scale.

It's interesting to note that people jump on Goldman for selling shitty financial products too retirement funds and the like, but don't see the potential for abuse with something like crowdfunding. If Goldman can make a killing swindling sophisticated institutional investors, don't you think it'd be child's play for someone to do it to unsophisticated members of the public?

These sorts of laws have the incidental effect of suppressing potentially useful transactions on an individual level, but the point of them is to prevent people from making a business out of abusing the system. E.g. I have noted before that the real point of copyright protections isn't to keep an individual from copying a Windows CD for a friend (probably not going to do a lot of economic damage to Microsoft), but to keep a major Chinese OEM from shipping computers with copied Windows licenses (might do a lot more economic damage). These regulations are similar in that regard. By making them illegal, you keep people from building a large-scale business out of cheating others.

Zak• 13 years ago

This may be true, but in many cases, they're also providing a replacement for the regulation. Having a reputation system, holding payments in escrow and such make it harder to get away with fraud or providing low-quality services.

It's not absolute, of course, but neither is regulation. No matter what, a few people will do bad things, and a smaller number will get away with it.

It seems like relaxing the laws about these things to see if new models provide better solutions to the old problems might be a good idea.

rwhitman3• 13 years ago

Illegal hotels are actually a legit problem in NYC. I'd have to dig up the article but I've read about shady landlords evicting residents and turning entire apartment buildings into Airbnb hotels. Its big business, my friend pays his entire rent with Airbnb.

Real estate is at an extreme premium and hotel space is scarce. There are a lot of scammers and shady people in this city so its only natural that Airbnb will be abused (I've even been sucked into an Airbnb-based con job in NYC myself).

I think the issue isn't so much that this law is on the books, its that they haven't updated the legislation to accomodate people who rent on Airbnb safely.

vegashacker• 13 years ago

Do you have more info on the con job? It'd be good to know some things to look out for when using AirBnB.

rwhitman3• 13 years ago

Its a really long story, but I wasn't the renter, I was scammed by someone who rented on Airbnb and pretended it was their apartment

droopyEyelids• 13 years ago

Care to share how someone tried to con you? I'd really like to know what to avoid, myself.

nawitus• 13 years ago

>I'd have to dig up the article but I've read about shady landlords evicting residents and turning entire apartment buildings into Airbnb hotels.

Why shouldn't landlords have the right to turn their buildings into Airbnbn hotels? (Assuming that the landlord pays taxes as usual, and the evicted residents were evicted under the rental agreement).

seren• 13 years ago

I assume that hotels have to comply to additional regulations (safety, hygiene, etc) and taxes. In this context, an AirBnB hotel would be a de facto hotels, without all the legal constraints. So this is not fair, to your competitors.

rayiner10• 13 years ago

Have you ever lived near a hotel? My building in Chicago was in the same complex as a hotel. It was a very nice hotel (Doubletree), but there was a steady stream of college students on spring break, prostitutes soliciting business travelers, etc.

tomkarlo11• 13 years ago

The fire codes and taxes for a hotel are much more onerous than for a residential apartment building. Presumably landlords who are doing illegal conversions are flouting both, plus also violating zoning rules by converting a residential building into something else. (I believe NY zoning has specific "hotel districts".)

gline2• 13 years ago

I'm conceptually in favor of airbnb and its peers. However, in NYC there's definitely an odd dynamic right now - renters are the main proponents of the service, because they can turn around and re-rent their apartments and recoup some of their housing costs (I know some people who are turning a net profit), but I'm pretty sure this is short-sighted. NYC is underserved by hotel rooms (maybe for zoning reasons?), so hotel space trades at a premium to residential space. If apartments become eligible to earn income as "hotel rooms", it's landlords, not renters, that will ultimately benefit - the rental market will reset at a higher rate and we'll all be forced to rent out our apartments when we're not around to make up the difference. I see this already in the form of friends renting larger apartments or paying higher rents because they expect to benefit from airbnb income; that behavior has to be driving up rents. Half my building (literally) is for rent on airbnb, as well as a third of the building next door.

This may be 'net beneficial' economically but I'm pretty sure most of the benefit will ultimately accrue to property owners, not renters.

And of course, although owners may come down hard for liability reasons if they find out about airbnb operations in their buildings, they have every incentive to turn a blind eye: if they can plausibly claim they didn't know and blame the tenant, surely their liability is at least somewhat reduced and in the meanwhile they benefit from rising rental income.

cletus• 13 years ago

I've had this argument with several people. Their position is that "it's my house/apartment, I should be able to do what I want with it" (even when renting they use this argument).

My argument is that this is not and has never been true. You can't, for example, run a tannery in your apartment.

What's more, as a resident (and especially if I were an owner) I wouldn't want my building being a de facto hotel. An endless stream of people coming and going, having building keys and so on.

I don't believe this ruling is anything new. I believe short stay (<30 days) like this was always illegal in NYC.

A friend of a friend lives in a building where the super was soldering a pipe and managed to burn the entire building to the ground (gutted the inside that is).

Imagine the scenario if an AirBnBer does this with say a cigarette?

Or what if someone is assaulted by such a person?

Residency laws exist for a reason. Honestly, AirBnB just seems like a massive liability time bomb waiting to go off.

davidw3• 13 years ago

The term that's involved in this is "externality": costs that are imposed on people not involved in the actual transaction (use of the place for payment).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

You rightly point out, that, for instance, in a crowded apartment building, having something like a dynamite storage facility would probably be a bad idea.

However, other things might be annoying too, such as having children or pets or noisy sex, so you have to 1) get an idea of the actual costs involved, and not just "well, this could happen", and 2) see if there's a framework where people could regulate/resolve their differences on a more local level. Perhaps in some buildings, people would be ok with some AirBnB traffic if they get a small cut of it. The idea being that the more global the solution, the more likely it's going to be inefficient.

tomkarlo11• 13 years ago

At some point, the cost of adjusting for the externalities will erase the savings of AirBnB. Which would indicate that the much of the "benefit" of AirBnB simply comes from not paying for the externalities.

Beyond the neighbors, there would also need to be city taxes to pay for the regulation and oversight of the rental (and fire inspections, etc), and the use of city services by visitors (who probably don't pay income taxes in that city.) Basically, "hotel tax", which in some places is 20% or more and right now you don't pay when using AirBnB.

Not to mention additional liability insurance, as you can bet that the level of risk incurred by someone doing short-term rentals is much higher than a normal homeowner -- so they shouldn't be in the same risk pool.

sliverstorm• 13 years ago

Yeah, AirBnB basically seems to be an exercise in converting externalities into profit.

baddox18• 13 years ago

Pointing out the existence of externalities is not sufficient. You need to show why government (loosely defined here as an organization with a well-accepted legal monopoly on the use of violence to resolve conflicts) will lead to fewer negative externalities than other means of conflict resolution.

radiusq• 13 years ago

Your argument is completely shallow and void of reason..

> You can't, for example, run a tannery in your apartment

Why not? Whats your argument?

>What's more, as a resident (and especially if I were an owner) I wouldn't want my building being a de facto hotel.

If I owned a building then I set the rules/laws. This is about property rights, not about what you think is right or wrong. If I want to turn my home into a transient hotel then I should have the right to do so. Existing residents should abide by my rules under the current terms of their lease.

>Imagine the scenario if an AirBnBer does this with say a cigarette?

And what if an existing resident did that? Whats your point?

You completely leave out any actual reasoning to support your statements. A very shallow argument.

Jun8• 13 years ago

Owning a building and an apartment are different things. If you own an apartment or condo, you are bound by the home owner's association rules, which can be pretty limiting.

scott_s2• 13 years ago

I think the tannery comment was a statement of fact: there are laws against using residential spaces for business purposes. If you own a building, you set the rules, but not the laws. Again, this is not a moral statement, but a recognition of how things work.

aegiso• 13 years ago

It was less an argument than a statement of fact. These are the laws.

If you want to argue what fundamental rights should or shouldn't be afforded to a property owner, HN probably isn't the place. This stuff has a long and complicated political history, which I humbly encourage you to learn more about.

ta26262• 13 years ago

> > You can't, for example, run a tannery in your apartment

> Why not? Whats your argument?

Because it smells bad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanning#History

evan_• 13 years ago

>> You can't, for example, run a tannery in your apartment > Why not?

Because tanning hides requires strong acid and a bunch of other chemicals and it will stink up the building and probably break some kind of regulation for residential spaces. If you happen to be a tanner and you disagree with it, pretend he said "Nuclear reactor" or "shooting range".

coldtea• 13 years ago

>If I owned a building then I set the rules/laws.

He is talking about when you own an apartment, not the whole building.

And even when you own a building you still don't get to "set the rules/laws". There are tons of laws about what you can, and what you cannot do with and in your building. And in some areas, like e.g. Santa Fe IIRC, there can even be rules about what your building should look like.

Given those, starting your response with "your argument is completely shallow and void of reason.." is certainly ironic.

beedogs• 13 years ago

Ugh. libertarian alert.

dev_jim4• 13 years ago

Agree. AirBnB is the ultimate John Galt system in NYC. Apartment renters get cash for their apartment (that they usually don't even own) and then everyone else in the building gets to deals with the fallout of a revolving set of neighbors who share the lobby, amenities, hallways, and walls. Good riddance.

durango2• 13 years ago

When you forced to pay $300/night in Manhattan at the W hotel, Atlas Shrugged.

Not a AR fan btw, just saying both sides of the fence have their pros and cons. I'd place higher value on an apartment complex that explicitly did not allow short-term renting within their contract.

The other problem is... what's the difference between me using AirBNB and me knowing a friend who let me stayed at his place for 6 days and I just happened to give him some money as a thank you gift?

baby• 13 years ago

I can't agree more with you, and in the mean time I feel really bad because AirBnB is a blessing in this world.

There's no real efficient way to enforce such a law though, I don't really know for the US but we have many craig-list style websites in France where you can find a place to rent for a week (and avoid AirBnB's fee). AirBnB just made everything simpler, and safe (rating people, profiles, etc...)

One more thing. AirBnB is especially relevent in big cities like New York, Hong Kong, ... where hotels are super expensive and rent as well.

brudgers2• 13 years ago

Oh, its more serious than that.

(IANAL) Using a dwelling for short term rental may be a violation of the covenants upon the deed and may allow someone previously holding title to the land to reclaim it - this is why Home Owner Associations are obligated to enforce the regulations of deed restricted communities and what allows them to impose sanctions against violators.

I once was involved with a waterfront parcel deeded to the city for a park in the 1920's. It was never developed as such and an adjacent property owner - a trauma surgeon - offered to purchase it. I became involved nine years on after the surgeon had tracked down and obtained a quit-claim from all the surviving heirs of the previous owners. That was in 2002 as part of the city's approval of the sale.

baddox18• 13 years ago

> You can't, for example, run a tannery in your apartment.

I would prefer that you could, in the (perhaps unlikely) scenario that it was allowed by the terms of your rental agreement. If it's your own property, go right ahead.

> What's more, as a resident (and especially if I were an owner) I wouldn't want my building being a de facto hotel.

Many residents would probably agree, and if enough agree, then there's no reason why the property owner couldn't prohibit the practice in the rental agreements. I live in San Francisco, where airbnb is legal (as far as I know), yet my property owner explicitly prohibits "short term subleasing," effectively banning airbnb rentals. No law or government action required, no criminals made, no taxpayer-funded enforcement, and no problem.

JohnTHaller• 13 years ago

Every lease I've seen of my group of friends prohibits subletting without express permission of the landlord/owner. It's already the standard in NYC. Realistically, every AirBNB within a rental unit in NYC is likely violating the terms of their lease.

nathanstitt2• 13 years ago

You cannot be serious. Just because you happen to own the property does not give you absolute rights. What you are arguing against is called zoning and the legality of that is very well settled.

The tannery example is pretty apt here - what right do you have to run a foul smelling eyesore right beside the property where I'm attempting to raise a family?

dev_jim4• 13 years ago

> If it's your own property, go right ahead.

Yep, this is the problem with services like AirBnB and Uber. It's embraces a purely selfish attitude in individuals with blatant disregard for the rest of the community.

dragonwriter4• 13 years ago

> I live in San Francisco, where airbnb is legal (as far as I know)

Its generally not (its illegal in San Francisco to rent a unit for less than thirty days in a residential building with more than four units.) New York and San Francisco are the two US locations that I've seen the most news coverage for AirBnB's legal issues in.

> yet my property owner explicitly prohibits "short term subleasing," effectively banning airbnb rentals. No law or government action required, no criminals made, no taxpayer-funded enforcement, and no problem.

All contracts, and especially lease agreements where the ultimate enforcement action is eviction, depend very much on law, government action, and taxpayer-funded enforcement action.

lotsofcows• 13 years ago

"go right ahead" Yeah! My neighbours can go fuck themselves! Always complaining about my 3am parties and my friends from the Silencers Are a Crime Motorbike Club. It's my turn to be selfish!

snambi• 13 years ago

if someone owns the property, they should be able to rent their house or condo. Illegal sounds like city is trying to protect other businesses such as established hotels. Define, the rules, so that people can follow them.

chrisbaus• 13 years ago

In my opinion, this should be left to the owners of the specific building and not a city wide restriction. I own a property in Florida and the HOA restricts rentals less than a month. It isn't necessary for the municipality to get involved.

voidlogic• 13 years ago

>>Imagine the scenario if an AirBnBer does this with say a cigarette?

How is the situation different if you have a friend stay over night? What if they house sit for you a couple of days?

The only difference above is they are not paying you, but how does that affect liability?

namdnay7• 13 years ago

Your home insurance will cover damage caused by friends staying over. They won't cover damage caused by customers of your (undeclared) business.

DanBlake6• 13 years ago

The tannery thing is a bad example because its not a inherently illegal activity.

Renting out units under 30 days is plain and simple illegal as the laws are written.

With that, a much better example would be running a brothel. It is as cut and dry illegal as this is. Both have city laws saying "This is not allowed". The city certainly has more priority in enforcing one over the other mind you.

You can argue all day airbnbing your unit should not be illegal, but it currently is. Lots of people argue prostitution should be legal though as well, so best of luck.

fragsworth• 13 years ago

> What's more, as a resident (and especially if I were an owner) I wouldn't want my building being a de facto hotel. An endless stream of people coming and going, having building keys and so on.

I can understand your desire to have things this way, but as an individual, I see no reason why you would want to force this rule on everyone in your city. If you don't want your neighbors renting their place out, go live in an apartment complex that doesn't allow tenants to do this. If you don't want your tenants doing this, then make it against the terms of your rental agreement.

What business licensing really does is foster a kind of local monopoly, often as a favor to the existing businesses. It's anti-competitive, by making it very difficult to start a business. Most people are completely unaware of these very real motives behind local licensing laws.

FelixP2• 13 years ago

> If you don't want your tenants doing this, then make it against the terms of your rental agreement.

It's actually a violation of most standard residential rental agreements; sub-tenancy is often tightly controlled and only permitted with the express permission of the landlord.

Source: my family owns apartment buildings in several different cities.

bcgraham2• 13 years ago

It probably is against the rental agreements for most of the people doing it.

willbill• 13 years ago

One of the main problems I have with it is that in New York, I know of people who are doing a taking account AirBnb rates when calculating a break even for their sublets/extra rooms. This will push rents up in the city and ultimately not help a lot of the actual residents.

doughj3• 13 years ago

> I believe short stay (<30 days) like this was always illegal in NYC.

If by "always illegal" you mean "since two years ago": http://skift.com/2013/01/07/airbnbs-growing-pains-mirrored-i...

uptown• 13 years ago

Separate from that law, literally every New York lease I've ever seen has included terms forbidding the rental behavior that AirBNB promotes, and I'd be surprised if the bylaws of every co-op didn't include house rules forbidding this type of activity. Some condos may be more-flexible in their laws - but there's always been a pretty-strong legal framework in-place forbidding re-renting an apartment in this manner.

reuven• 13 years ago

I can't say that I'm at all surprised. Moreover, I would expect to see more judges, as well as legislatures, pass such rules. I've discovered (full-disclosure: through consulting work with a site similar to AirBNB) that many vested interests -- typically hotels and real-estate organizations -- don't want such sites to operate. Until and unless the legislators are convinced to change the rules by a popular, grass-roots demand to allow it, things won't change so fast.

And you know what? I'm not sure if they should.

My family has used VRBO ("vacation rental by owner") to rent apartments in Paris, Amsterdam, and Budapest over the last three summers. We loved the experience, and would never even consider going to a hotel in the future, for all of the reasons you can imagine -- we save money, cook our own meals, and feel at "home" in a foreign city. It's a marvelous feeling.

But that marvelous feeling is probably less-than-marvelous for a city's permanent residents. When we stayed in Paris, we were told that short-term rentals there are illegal partly because housing is in short supply, and is thus astronomically expensive. Forbidding short-term rentals, in theory, can increase the pool for annual rentals, thus bringing the cost down. (We were also told that rental law was 100 years old, but was only now going to be enforced. Amusingly, we were also told that the French justice minister lived in our building...)

Plus, I don't know if I would want an apartment in my building to be occupied by new people each week. We have enough trouble with the neighbors we know.

Bottom line, AirBNB is a brilliant idea, and many people clearly love it. But I don't think that they, or we, can expect laws to change immediately to accommodate this new idea. And when the laws do change, we can probably expect them to still impose some restrictions, or even taxes, on the homeowners.

yardie• 13 years ago

There are so many problems with housing in Paris that I feel that short term rentals are only a small percentage of a percentage of a contributing factor. Even if short term rentals were forbidden it still wouldn't put a dent in the costs.

I do agree with you on the constantly new people problem. I recently found out that the reason the front door to my building is broken is because one of our neighbors is a prostitute and the johns were letting themselves in and buzzing random doors to get the second door unlocked. Since we aren't a hotel the burden of safety and security has been placed on her neighbors.

Variance• 13 years ago

> Forbidding short-term rentals, in theory, can increase the pool for annual rentals, thus bringing the cost down.

That's completely contrary to how supply and demand would work--if you forbid short-term rentals you move all the short-term demand into the annual market, increasing annual demand, which drives up prices and causes more scarcity.

Since short-term housing can house multiple people each year and annual housing can house only one per year, each new annual housing unit added will be accompanied by multiple new demanders that were previously in the short-term market and could have been all housed in one year by that apartment as a short-term rental. You increase annual supply by one and increase annual demand by more than one--likely by more than half a dozen--and so prices skyrocket as demand outstrips supply and the shortage is exacerbated.

Of course, city governments are not exactly the gold standard of understanding economics when passing housing laws.

brudgers2• 13 years ago

Airbnb is no more or less legal than it was before. Some buildings and sites are allowed to provide short term rentals. Most aren't.

What is happening nationally is that people are creating short-term rentals in areas where the use and occupancy are deemed incompatible by land use regulations and building codes. The AirBnB model is no different than renting migrant workers mini-warehouses for dwelling. It's just that the landlord and tenants transfer the burden of commercial uses and transient lodging onto the surrounding neighborhood.

Disclaimer: I am currently involved in removing a short-term rental from my neighborhood. At several hundred bucks a night, transient lodgers often have few social constraints preventing them from treating the dwelling as a hotel, and normal hotel behaviors spill effect the surrounding neighborhood. The difference being that there is no onsite management and no oversight by local and state regulators as is the case with the formal economy.

joshdance• 13 years ago

If the law was created to stop large property owners from buying up residential space and creating hotels, is there a way to change the law to prevent just that?

davidf18• 13 years ago

As a Manhattan resident I am very pleased about this decision. As others have stated, people don't want strangers and transients living in their buildings. AirBnB was simply making profits off the inconvenience caused to residents in NYC and this is clearly wrong.

The people who run AirBnB simply don't respect the feelings of others and the investors should change management to those who do respect feelings of others.

rsingel• 13 years ago

So Business Insider is summarizing a post from Fast Company, which itself is summarizing a post from CNet, which did actual reporting and has the text of the decision. I wish OPs would take the time to actually figure this out before submitting links. You want good journalism? Then support it by promoting the original work, not the get-rick-quick aggregation.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57585377-93/ny-official-air...

bdcravens• 13 years ago

How many stories on Tumblr have their been the past few days? Never mind the articles on Jobs and Swartz when they passed. Take something and repurpose it for our own benefit .. hey, isn't that the basis of AirBnB's business model? :-)

apgwoz• 13 years ago

But, technically, isn't renting an apartment for the month of February (28 days) illegal too, since it's less than 29 days that the Hotel Law stipulates?

cfesta9• 13 years ago

I thought this was America! Huh? Isn't this America? I'm sorry, I thought this was America. -Randy

I just went on a european trip and used airbnb. Houseboat in Amsterdam (super awesome place) My "Experience" was wonderful. However, I did feel that the security deposit was unsettling. Their word against mine kind of thing. So it goes. I guess we will just leave the hotel business to the professionals. How did 9flats avoid this?

dominotw• 13 years ago

Yes. I hope more cities follow the lead, before more people get scammed into putting themselves and their property in danger.

k-mcgrady• 13 years ago

AirBnB will need to evolve their service to deal with this. They are going to face this problem many times more I'm sure.

The only way I can see around it would be working with individual cities and adapting the service within those cities so that it works better for everyone.

There are many negative externalities caused by AirBnB (personally I wouldn't want my neighbours changing weekly and having access to my building and mailbox) but there are also positive ones (filling vacant properties, boosting the local economy).

When it comes to big cities like New York, Paris, London etc. AirBnb should spend the money to carry out analysis of how the service could work best for everyone and work with local authorities.

gozmike2• 13 years ago

I had a really sketchy experience as a guest this winter that made me worry about AirBnB.

I spent a few months living in the Haight with a delightful German woman who supported her photography career by renting her spare rooms in a gorgeous clean apartment.

For a while, the arrangement worked out pretty well. That is, until I ran into one of her neighbours in the stairwell. I made friendly conversation with him and he asked if I was staying at her place through AirBnB. I thought nothing of it at the time.

That night, while greeting my "landlady", I told her I met the neighbour. Her heart sank and she chastised me for talking to her neighbours (I had been living at her place for a month or so!). Turns out that many renters agreements in SF prevent the tenant from earning a profit on their rental.

Long story short, the neighbour I spoke to ended up not being so nice to her and is causing significant problems for her. She may lose her rent-controlled apartment (and thus her livelihood) all because I chatted with a neighbour in the stairwell.

DanBlake6• 13 years ago

And for good reason. Rent control should not allow tenants to make a /profit/ on their apartments. The current SFRB law basically states you can only 'pro rata' charge what you charge. So if you pay 1k a month for rent and you are renting it out for half the month the most you can charge is 500. Or if its a 2 bedroom and you rent 1 bedroom, you can charge 50% of that.

Not that that matters. You are basically saying you parked in a firezone while robbing a bank. You are already doing something against the law so the additional methods dont matter much.

gozmike2• 13 years ago

Totally. It screws the landlord and drives up the overall cost of housing.

That said, this AirBnB host was supporting her (very frugal) lifestyle on the profits from this rental. It hurts to know that I may have played a part in undoing that.

DanBlake6• 13 years ago

The reason this is a issue (in san francisco, at least) is that long term, elderly and protected tenants are getting evicted from buildings with whats called a 'ellis act'.

A ellis act lets you kick everyone out of your building with the restriction that you cannot 're-rent' it for 5 years.

Since a 30 day stay is not 'renting' per sf code, unscrupulous landlords have been using BnB sites to profiteer evictions.

That is one of many reasons why its against almost all city/state codes to do this.

I thought about this before- AirBnB and VRBO themselves are not actually committing the 'crime' however they are certainly with knowledge of the use that is happening. As such, I am sure any landlord wronged by either site would have a absolutely fantastic case for tortuous interference to them (AirBnB interfered with the contract between a landlord and tenant)

I think it basically comes down to this. Certain things are illegal, like it or not. Lots of people think prostituion should be legal country wide, like nevada. But its not. Setting up a site to let you sell something that it knows is going to be illegal is riding a extremely fine line.

It reminds me of a old trick used in a terms of service for a filesharing website back in the day. "You agree that by continuing, you have received a written, expressed waiver from warner, nbc, fox, [etc...] to download their content "

The service knows that absolutely nobody has such a warning/waiver but by shifting the blame to the user, they think to be untouchable.

I am not a lawyer though, so what do I know.

kansface• 13 years ago

Yes, but why should anyone who has lived in an apartment for 1 year be entitled to pay that price for life? Why should a resident who has lived in my building for 5 years be entitled to pay 40% of what I do for as long as they care to stay? The current opposite extreme is just as bad.

pbreit• 13 years ago

For co-ops and buildings with HOAs, etc, they would most likely ban short term stays. Which is fine since such a situation is undesirable for other residents/owners.

But for free standing homes and other buildings for whatever reason choose to allow such a thing, there should be some sort of "bed and breakfast" type rules which govern semi/non-professional letting. Sort of like on Ebay how you can sell up to a certain dollar amount before you have to pay taxes like ordinary retail businesses.

amorphid• 13 years ago

I love AirBNB for finding a place to stay. Here are thoughts on how I might feel in other roles:

* landlord: I'd have an issue with a high volume of non-tenants coming in and out of my building without permission.

* hotel operator: I'd rather the supply of hotel rooms be limited. The fewer rooms, the more demand for my rooms!

* insurance company: guest of AirBNB guest does something bad and the cost of dealing with it is high. What a mess.

* mayor: publicly I'm against it because hotels fund my election campaigns. Privately, I stay in AirBNB rooms while in vacation because civil service doesn't pay much (albeit it wouldn't surprise to find mayors are rarely broke)

* neighbor: there's too much noise coming from that place down the hall. They are rude and have no vested interest in being nice because they don't live here.

AirBNB is a fabulous service to use and I understand why it has opponents.

tusharc• 13 years ago

The strangest part of the ruling to me was the following implication that it would have been fine if the tenant had gone into the housemate's room (not just been allowed access, as per the verbiage of the law) "... Morrick noted that his renter did not go into Warren's housemate's room during her stay."

NY official: Airbnb stay illegal; host fined $2,400

Related Stories