
Update on the New York Attorney General’s Investigation - e15ctr0n
http://publicpolicy.airbnb.com/new-york-community-update/
======
wdewind
I have taken a special interest in this story as I have been negatively
impacted by having someone use AirBnB in my apartment building.

Every step of the way, from what I can tell, AirBnB has been at best
deliberately obtuse and at worst actively lying. This post seems to be an
example of the latter.

When AirBnB says things like:

> The vast majority of our hosts are simply renting out their own homes on an
> occasional basis. The law was never meant to target them, and we now believe
> the Attorney General did not mean to target regular New Yorkers either.

They are purposefully clouding the issue and making it seem like it is about
things it's not. Renting out your home on any basis, no matter how occasional,
is illegal if you are not present. It doesn't matter if you're a "regular New
Yorker" instead of someone who operates a business renting out multiple AirBnB
apartments.

The simple fact is that the vast majority of AirBnBs in NYC are illegal, and
AirBnB has access to the data they need to fix the issue without significant
cost to them, except for vastly shrinking their, illegal, market.

~~~
ufmace
Can you elaborate on how you were negatively impacted? I haven't seen any
first-hand accounts of actual negative impacts yet, just people speculating
about things that might or could happen.

~~~
dominotw
There is a discussion about this every month on HN. Here is the last one, many
first hand accounts
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7923849](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7923849)

~~~
notlisted
That top post was my first-hand account (and it's all true, so glad I left)
but... let's not focus on the small picture of safety/quality of life.

The BIG picture is general cost of living in all major metropolitan areas
where AirBnB has made in-roads. Fewer apartments/rooms available result in
higher rents. This has been noticed all over the world (Amsterdam, Berlin,
NYC, San Francisco). While I like the the basic concept of AirBnB (let no
resource go to waste) the skirting existing rules/regulations which are in
place for a good reason simply has to stop.

With regards to the AirBnB post in question, my best guess is that the DA has
decided to require details on those properties which indicate actual illegal
hotels. The most likely scenario for 'innocent' hosts is that they will need a
permit, like Berlin, and in the process of applying for one, they will be
vetted appropriately.

A recent CNet article outlines issues in cities other than NYC [1].

[1] [http://www.cnet.com/news/vexed-in-the-city-the-sharing-
econo...](http://www.cnet.com/news/vexed-in-the-city-the-sharing-economys-
hidden-toll-on-san-francisco/)

~~~
rahimnathwani
I understand that both NYC and San Francisco have rent control (either fixed
rents or a maximum annual % increase), at least for some portion of the
housing stock.

It seems like rent control creates consumer surplus for renters, at the
expense of landlords. The use of AirBnB transfers some of this consumer
surplus from the original renter to the temporary guest.

So, the combination of rent control and AirBnB-style short term rentals takes
money from landlords (by restricting their return on capital to below the
market level) and shares it between tenants (who become middlemen) and guests.

In cities without rent control, does AirBnB thrive to the same extent?

~~~
wdewind
> It seems like rent control creates consumer surplus for renters, at the
> expense of landlords. The use of AirBnB transfers some of this consumer
> surplus from the original renter to the temporary guest.

We can obviously agree AirBnB is not the way to address this potential issue.

> In cities without rent control, does AirBnB thrive to the same extent?

I'd wager that less than 1% of AirBnBs are in rent controlled apartments in
NYC. I'm sure rent control has a minor systemic effect, but rent control
arbitrage is not the story here.

------
staunch
YouTube used illegal methods to succeed but there was no appreciable damage to
anyone. The world was better for what YouTube did. Airbnb is causing actual
pain in many people's lives and the problem is fundamental.

You simply can't invite dozens of strangers into apartment buildings without
causing pain to the other inhabitants. Noise, damage, violence, and other
issues are inevitable. Apartments are usually hellish enough with long-term
tenants that are subject to real consequences.

No Airbnb employee or investor would put up with living in an apartment
building full of Airbnb users. They'd go insane. But they do seem wiling to
inflict this pain on others. That's evil.

~~~
wdewind
Yep, that is what is making this issue distinct from, say, Uber and Lyft
pushing the boundaries on regulation.

~~~
beamatronic
>> No Airbnb employee or investor would put up with living in an apartment
building full of Airbnb users. They'd go insane.

Well there's your solution! That's some good out-of-the-box thinking right
there.

------
preinheimer
Their post talks about people "abusing" their platform. I'm taking that to
imply that owning a property to list solely on AirBnB is "abuse".

Renting out an entire apartment can be selected to answer the second question
on their signup process.
[https://www.airbnb.ca/rooms/new](https://www.airbnb.ca/rooms/new)

Reading through the various hospitality pages, I don't see anything saying
it's only to be used casually to rent out an apartment while you're away. The
"Responsible Hosting" page ([https://www.airbnb.ca/help/responsible-
hosting](https://www.airbnb.ca/help/responsible-hosting)) seems region
specific, but still doesn't say anything along the lines of "renting on AirBnB
full time is considered abuse".

For something they consider abusive, there doesn't seem to be any large
warnings against doing it.

~~~
jdmichal
I believe they meant the term "abusive" in the relative sense of New York law,
not in the relative sense of AirBnB or its terms of service. I interpret the
statement as meaning, "abusing the AirBnB platform to circumvent or break New
York law."

~~~
preinheimer
According to a different reply here, all postings of under 30 days are
illegal.

I can't imagine only 140 of their New York postings are offering places for
less than 30 days. There must be other selection criteria.

~~~
potatolicious
All "whole apartment" postings under 30 days are illegal. Sharing an apartment
with a host is legal - though you may still be in violation of your lease.

I believe the term "abusive" here means "users whose behavior doesn't support
our narrative of a populist/grassroots service". This would probably mean
people who listed multiple properties, since that doesn't play into AirBnb's
desired image as helping "regular people" make ends meet.

~~~
JohnTHaller
If you do a quick search of Manhattan, you'll see that a majority of their
listings are of the illegal whole apartment variety.

------
JTon
Warning, my post is loosely related to article. I want to share my experience
using airbnb and the subsequent run-in with the law.

I recently used airbnb for the first time while visiting Washington DC.
Unfortunately, my car was broken into while parked on the street overnight.
The responding police officer inquired about where we were staying and I told
him about airbnb. He has never heard of the service before. About an hour
later the officer comes back and asks to speak with the landowner (who was
out). The officer was about to give him a warning about operating an
unlicensed bed and breakfast with the threat of a $1,000 per day fine.

------
jpeg_hero
> First, this request represents an incredibly small fraction of our New York
> hosting community – far less than 1 percent.

Good PR spin. Less than <1% of number of users "in our community"... providing
15% of the inventory. Whoops, leave that last part out.

~~~
joelrunyon
Do you have a reference for that number? I wouldn't be surprised but would
still want to see where you got that from.

------
brixon
A link for some background. I had no idea why this was an issue.

[http://skift.com/2013/05/21/airbnb-is-not-illegal-in-new-
yor...](http://skift.com/2013/05/21/airbnb-is-not-illegal-in-new-york-city-
but-many-of-its-hosts-break-the-law/)

------
joelrunyon
Interesting that they can just do that. It seems like twitter / google /
facebook have taken a much stronger stance against this stuff, but I guess
since AirBnB is still relatively "young" \- they're willing to jump through
hoops a bit more.

Honestly - as an AirBnB host - this worries me.

~~~
mtalantikite
Airbnb tried to fight it but they lost.

The fact of the matter is that most Airbnb listings in NYC are illegal, and
pretty much everyone I know that lists their place on it is aware it's against
the law. They do it anyways.

Airbnb is trying to cooperate as best they can without giving up too much of
their users privacy as they need to get laws changed here in NYC (and other
cities) if they want to keep operating in these markets.

~~~
_delirium
> The fact of the matter is that most Airbnb listings in NYC are illegal

Full-apartment listings, yes. As I understand it, many listings renting out a
shared part of the living space in which the leaseholder also lives (and is
present) are legal, since that's considered taking in a short-term boarder,
not subletting, which is allowed in NYC (and in fact protected as a tenant
right, even if the landlord tries to ban it in the rental contract).

~~~
dominicmauro
Last year, this fellow named Warren tried that logic in NYC. It didn't work
too well. The Verge ran a piece about it back in May 2013.

> The law seems to include an exemption for hosts who rent out an extra room
> or couch to a "lawful boarder" for less than 30 days, but remain in the
> dwelling while the guest is there. Because Warren's roommate was home while
> his Russian boarder was there, he argued that the exemption should apply.
> However, the judge interpreted the terms "boarders and lodgers" in the law
> to mean "occupants who share the life of the dwelling with its permanent
> occupants" and not to "complete strangers who have no, and are not intended
> to have any, relationship with the permanent occupant." Because the Russian
> visitor did not interact with Warren or his roommate, the judge said, the
> exemption should not apply.

That last sentence is an interesting interpretation of the judge's decision,
but the rest of it is pretty spot on. The opinion in question is here:
[http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/702734/decision-and-
or...](http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/702734/decision-and-order-for-
nov-35006622j.pdf) [PDF]

~~~
_delirium
Ah, that's interesting. That seems like it would still allow a "classic"
boarder, who interacts more with the household, including typically eating
meals along with the household rather than only renting a room (as in "room
and board"), not purely renting out a room. But probably safer if there is
also some other connection (friend-of-a-friend, etc.), reading the other bits
of the blurb.

~~~
dominicmauro
Yeah, it seems like the judge is making an effort to let you have friends and
friends-of-friends, just not customers. It's worth noting that this is an
opinion from Administrative Law Judge, which is about a half-dozen appeals
from the State's highest court, the Court of Appeals. So there are plenty of
judges who could overrule this in the next few years.

------
metaphorm
a huge number of airbnb hosts in NYC are flagrantly breaking the law. this
causes significant harm to the permanent residents of New York and the
attorney general should do everything in his power to prevent these illegal
rentals.

------
cookiecaper
It seems that airbnb will be forced to face the music and adhere to zoning
laws and other regulations sooner or later, at least in dense, mostly-
apartment cities like New York. I think airbnb is cool, so I hope they choose
to comply and assist people in offering legal rentals before this blows up and
they go the way of Napster et al. Sometimes, startups need to adapt, just like
bigger companies.

------
dominotw
Maybe I am one of the people advesely impacted by the the 1% "bad actors" in
Chicago. But its simply not fair for them to say because its just a small
percentage of hosts we should just ignore it.

I just want airbnb to go away. For god's sake please go away. Please ban this
website, put the owners in Jail.

------
ZoFreX
This made a lot more sense with the original title: "Airbnb to Out 124 Hosts
to New York Attorney General". The new title gives no indication at all as to
what this is about.

~~~
joelrunyon
Agreed - sometimes sticking to the post's title is a detriment to the reader.

~~~
JohnTHaller
I've noticed a distinct pro-Airbnb slant to coverage on HN, so this is in
keeping with that pattern.

~~~
joelrunyon
Well YC has a big investment in them obviously.

That said - I'm very pro-airbnb, but I _still_ really need to know about this
in case they decide they're going to operate like this in places outside NYC>

~~~
JohnTHaller
Considering that the majority of their business in NYC is illegal sublets and
they're well aware of that fact but lie about it - and purposely mislead the
public about it in their commercials and public statements - doesn't exactly
paint them as a good player in locations outside NYC.

