- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
Under the new restrictions, short-term renters will need to register with the city and must be present in the home for the duration of the rental
Home-sharing company Airbnb said it had to stop accepting some reservations in New York City after new regulations on short-term rentals went into effect.
The new rules are intended to effectively end a free-for-all in which landlords and residents have been renting out their apartments by the week or the night to tourists or others in the city for short stays. Advocates say the practice has driven a rise in demand for housing in already scarce neighbourhoods in the city.
Under the new system, rentals shorter than 30 days are only allowed if hosts register with the city. Hosts must also commit to being physically present in the home for the duration of the rental, sharing living quarters with their guest. More than two guests at a time are not allowed, either, meaning families are effectively barred.
Damn this seems like a hot take given the comments but I think these rules are dumb. If I go on a two week vacation somewhere else I should be able to rent out my place for those two weeks. The issue isn’t AirBnB as a whole, it’s people buying up places for the express intention of only using it for AirBnB,
There should be some cap on often a place can be used for short term rentals like 4 weeks out of the year, enough that people who vacation somewhere else can use AirBnb and low enough that it makes more financial sense for people to rent it out long term instead of short.
The issue is how to enforce granular rules like that. You’ll end up with people buying time shares of airbnbs or some other wacky workaround. The issue ultimately is, if you leave any wiggle room, grifters will ruin it for the people using that wiggle room as intended. You can’t put in a law and expect everyone to adhere to the spirit of said law. I think with the litany of other property value issues that NY has, this hard line in the sand makes sense. It sucks that the grifters ruined it for people like you and I but the fact of the matter is that they did.
There should be a cap to how many buildings a person or a company can own. Why a person can have more than 3 homes? In the current world, this does not make any sense.
100% agree and while at it I don’t think any single family homes or rowhouse/townhouses should be owned by corporations. Apartments and such I can understand the building owned by a management company that only does long term rentals but otherwise homes should be owned by people.
So then the person creates an LLC and now the LLC owns the properties. Do you then think corporations shouldn’t be able to own more than 3 properties, too?
Just limit the number of residential buildings a company can own then
And then should we limit how many corporations a person can operate?
Sure, anti monopoly laws exist for a reason
I don’t think you know what a monopoly is
A single person or entity having control over specific commercial commodity or service or a vertical monopoly in which a group or entity own the means of production, distribution and other levels of the commercial activity,
All of which can be done by increasing the amount of companies that a group or entity runs or acquires.
People seem to forget we used to tell companies “no” about encroaching on other companies or buying them out to have a larger market share literally as anti-monopoly policies.
Anti-monopoly? Unless a person owned every corporation that owned every rental property, anti monopoly laws wouldn’t apply.
Limiting the number of companies someone can spin off and operate is reasonable to stop monopolies as well. An unlimited regulation would in fact just cause people to spinoff new companies whenever they hit a limit and just pretend it’s a different company and person doing anything. Limits to corporations is absolutely anti monopoly
Great idea!
People would just create a different LLC for each property so limiting ownership for companies wouldn’t work either.
Exactly correct
Trouble is, any legitimate effort to stop that sort of property prospecting would affect other real estate development, which is a huge industry (and political contributor) in New York.
Honestly, I don’t understand what everyone has against short term rentals. It may be an unpopular opinion, but shouldn’t we let the market decide the best use of a space? For a city like New York that gets visitors and transient workers from all over the world, maybe it would be better for it to have lots of short term rentals. Ultimately the market would find an equilibrium between short term rentals, long term rentals, and owner occupied properties.
I do think there needs to be more regulation for the rentals though, probably similar to hotels. Any property being rented out should be subject to the same safety inspections and regulations.
The market isn’t deciding the best use for the space; it’s deciding the most profitable. These are two very different things.
I love this way of looking at it. The market optimizes for profit not general good for the public
Definitely agree that the free market can come up with some undesirable solutions which is where I think regulation comes in to “guide” the more desirable outcomes that can be found organically. Personally, I think maximum occupancy and increased supply should be the goal where there is limited supply like NYC. Things like a vacancy tax and better zoning could help a lot.
Also, I’m not sure that I trust the government to find the best use of space either, especially in the face of corporate lobbying. The current road/highway system being built to the detriment of public transportation is a good example where a government prescribed solution can have a negative impact decades later.
I live in an area with AirBnB rentals.
All of the neighbor problems I and my neighbors have had, without exception, have been from short-term renters. That includes noise that continues all night, off leash, aggressive dogs, unsupervised kids, and threatening, overtly hostile renters.
The “market” can’t deal with this kind of thing, it requires regulations and enforcement.
They increase the overall cost of both buying and renting a property within that market, and are a nuisance for existing residents.
Historically – in the UK, at least – the market equilibrium has been that the rich own all the property and the poor pay rent until they die, aware that they can be served an eviction notice at any time.
This has not proven to be a popular policy. In 1918 all British men, regardless of whether they owned property or not, got the vote, and since then politicians have found it useful to not have the majority of voters perpetually furious about it.
When it comes to something necessary for survival, like shelter, “letting the market decide” is a terrible idea.
For example: if corporations purchased all of the water so that people couldn’t access it, and you had to buy all your water from corporations, you couldn’t “let the market decide” what a fair price of water is. They have created this scarcity so they can profit off it, and the amount people are “willing to pay” to live turns out to be about “all the money they have.”
And Nestle actively wants the dystopia you describe. Very good example.
Definitely not advocating for full blown free market capitalism. My comment was more along the lines of letting the market organically find the best solutions. The government should set broad goals, like “maximize the amount of occupied housing units and minimize homelessness” and then provide the appropriate incentives to guide the market in that direction.
I agree that for inelastic goods like healthcare, food, water, shelter the situation is even more tricky. NYC just seems to be limited in that sense with already high density and low supply. Having any form of vacant units should be taxed heavily. Maybe even extend this to progressively tax larger units that reduce density. Billionaires row where the ultra wealthy have an entire floor for an apartment that they never use makes no sense to me.
So that’s not “letting the market decide the best use of space.” That is the Government deciding the best use of space and passing laws to encourage that, which is exactly what is happening here.
the issue is that there aren’t enough available apartments in nyc. there’s high competition to actually get an apartment. it’s normal to look at apartments with all your papers ready and apply on the spot… and still not get the fucking place even though you have a very high credit score, have been working at your job for years, have high savings etc. so you end up having to keep applying to a bunch of places until your application gets accepted. it’s a nightmare.
I wanna draw a compromise like you. I think the rental system does suck ass and shorter terms could be better negotiated into the system.
The problem is that this current disruption in the market is making people homeless. So that some wealthy people can stay for the weekend.
The ‘market’ isn’t gonna solve this, these social conventions have always been written by lawyers. This market just keeps trying to squeeze people out to reduce housing supply for all but the filthy rich. But playing into that market is also zoning laws, approval processes etc. It would be nice to fill in these gaps! Hostels, taverns, larger hotel rooms for big groups, short term rentals for 1 - 3 months without ‘year long lease’ and all that crazy approval bullshit.
Agree that regulation and zoning laws can be way better but I’m not sure how much more could be done about supply in NYC. The place is already one of the densest on the planet. Having an vacancy tax makes total sense too. Make sure that maximum available supply is actually being used.
The issue seems to be short term vs long term rentals and I’m not sure if I favor one over another for a place like NYC where a large part of the population has always been transient.