
New York passes bill making it illegal to advertise entire apartments on Airbnb - pyrophane
http://gothamist.com/2016/06/18/its_about_to_be_illegal_to_advertis.php
======
davidf18
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 __*.

~~~
travisp
>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).

~~~
comicjk
> Long term it should not decrease the supply of housing. Visitors are either
> going to stay in airbnbs, with friends, or at hotels.

This is a slices-of-pie argument, neglecting changes in the size of the pie.
By being a better value than hotels, airbnbs make traveling more attractive,
meaning there will be somewhat more visitors and that they will stay longer. I
think this is on balance a good thing for NYC (tourism is an industry, after
all) but it does put a little more stress on an already-tight housing market.

~~~
ChrisLTD
Increased tourism might be "on balance a good thing" for NYC economically, but
NYC also has an obligation to the welfare of its citizens. Does this new law
bill strike the right balance between welfare and economics? I don't know, but
the situation before was out of control.

------
mancerayder
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.

/rant

1 -
[http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20160617/BLOGS04/160619...](http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20160617/BLOGS04/160619868/in-
last-minute-move-albany-whacks-airbnb)

2 - [http://ny.curbed.com/2013/3/25/10260752/an-introduction-
to-n...](http://ny.curbed.com/2013/3/25/10260752/an-introduction-to-new-yorks-
short-term-rental-laws)

------
pyrophane
I'm a little disappointed by Tweets like this one from pg:
[https://twitter.com/paulg/status/743877723257331713](https://twitter.com/paulg/status/743877723257331713).

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.

~~~
ap3
Why should not be able to advertise/rent your apartment on Airbnb?

~~~
seanp2k2
For one, it's against every rental agreement I've ever signed (no subletting
clause). Another reason people don't like it is due to the party people who
frequently rent these, the extra parking spaces being used, people moving
around at all hours, people not caring about the space because they don't own
it, etc. Basically all the things which are incentivized in normal multi-month
rental contracts which are not present in Airbnb contracts. People who live in
an apartment building don't want a hotel room next to them.

~~~
ap3
The you don't need a law, just enforcement of a private contract.

People who live in apartment buildings have no say in who lives mext to them
and no guarantee how long they will stay

------
pyrophane
"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.

~~~
greenyoda
Berlin's court has just upheld the city's ban on short-term rentals. There,
the penalty can be much higher: €100000 ($113000).

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11930098](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11930098)

------
orthoganol
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.

~~~
mancerayder
I think that's a very sensible compromise.

I own a duplex in a multi-family, and thought about renting out one floor
(which might come across as a separate apartment in photos) on an occasional
basis for extra money. That's very different from a vast enterprise that's
doing it at scale. Unfortunately, New York laws have a tendency to affect the
small and the large equally, despite the fact that the latter have a lot more
financial buffers as protection and the former is more exposed to risk.

That said we can still rent it out for 30+ days at a time, legally.

~~~
fencepost
Be careful about that as well - I'm pretty sure that in a lot of cases 30 days
is the trigger point for a lot of tenant's rights issues such as having to go
to court to try to evict someone who stops paying rent.

~~~
URSpider94
Yup, after 30 days they are a tenant. You then need to give them 30 days'
notice to terminate their lease, have to go to housing court for evictions,
etc.

------
cddotdotslash
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.

~~~
GoToRO
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.

~~~
cddotdotslash
So you're going to call the police five times a month and say what? "My
neighbor is renting his apartment illegally and his guests are loud and left
trash in the hallway?" The police have better things to do. The building
managers are a better place to start but this kind of abuse is quite
widespread and not easily stopped. There are some people who have purchased or
rented multiple units and then AirBnb them out like hotels. It's unsafe for
the other residents, it's annoying for those who are paying rent and living in
those apartments, and, it's illegal. This law now makes it easier to actually
enforce since perviously it was very difficult to catch violators. Now,
someone can just browse the site and find them without having to set up some
form of sting operation.

~~~
GoToRO
I was thinking about big fines for noise and the like. If not paid by guest
make the owner pay. But this needs time to be implemented (in law and in
practice) and nobody has an financial interest to do it. So instead of that,
what you have is all kinds of groups that request what sounds to me to be very
absurd laws.

------
greggman
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.

~~~
dwaltrip
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.

~~~
greggman
I've stayed in 22 places of which about 1 out of 4 has lied about their
accommodations. One place claimed internet included, turned out they were
stealing it from a neighbor and it only worked if you sat the the side of the
sofa closest to the window. One place claimed 1 bedroom but was actually a
studio with a wardrobe used as a separator. The difference between a 1 bedroom
and a studio is whether or not there is a door to shut out the noise of the
refrigerator. 2 places advertised parking on premises but didn't have it. I
paid for those places so I wouldn't have to deal with searching for parking.
Several places have claimed to have internet but when I show up it turns out
they only have a MiFi and a notice saying "Please don't use the internet much
or it will run out because it has a 5Gig limit for the entire month". And of
course I've rented the place for 4-6 weeks as a place TO LIVE not to be a
tourist. The last place lied about its location.

Since then I've gotten better about spotting the lies before hand but AirBnB
won't do anything about it when you try to report them. Places I've messaged
to verify the listed amenities actually exist (like parking), get told they
don't actually exist, I then flag the listing, report the issue, check back a
few weeks later, no change to the listing.

AirBnB is an evil company because they purposely let people lie about their
listings. I don't disagree with you they could be a useful service but as long
as their official policy is that false advertising is ok they are clearly not
a company with any sense of ethics.

~~~
dwaltrip
Hmm. Thanks for your note. I haven't had to deal with any disputes so far. It
is good to know that I should be careful about that.

What were the reviews like for these places that had false advertising? So far
I've only stayed at places that had good reviews.

~~~
greggman
I've only stayed at places with good reviews as well. For the last one with
the false location I can only think of a few possible explanations

 _) the users didn 't look at the AirBnB map and only looked the instructions
received a day or 2 before arriving

_) the users noticed but didn't care

If you're visiting a city you've never been to you're more likely not to care.
If on the other hand you're visiting a city you're familiar with (me) then
you're more likely to be using the map to choose a place you actually know.

I don't know where you live but I'm sure you know some places where the
difference of a 1-3 blocks would be the difference between some place you want
to stay vs some place you don't. Next to a freeway/highway vs not. In a safe
neighborhood vs in a dangerous neighborhood. On a scenic street vs on a non-
scenic street.

For others maybe people are more forgiving. Example: I only rent 1 bedroom or
larger because loud refrigerators keep me awake. (at least in the USA where
they are loud) So when a listing lied about a studio being a 1 bedroom it
meant I didn't sleep well the entire time. If that kind of noise doesn't
bother you then you're not going to complain.

Similarly if you rent a place that says it comes with parking but you don't
bring a car then you're not likely to complain about false advertising. If you
come to a place to sight-see then you might not care about limited internet
where as if you rent a place for a business trip then you probably do care
since you'll likely be trying to do work from the place.

Finally the fact that hosts are people you actually interact with one-on-one
makes it harder to leave a bad review for most people. It's easy to leave a
bad review for Marriott. It's not so easy to leave a bad review for Jane
ArtStudent renting out her apartment for extra cash while she stays with her
S.O. She was really nice when she handed over the keys. It feels bad to give
her a bad review so I'm guessing people pull their punches. I know I have even
when I probably shouldn't have because the people I rented from felt like nice
people even if they were falsely advertising.

I've learned my lesson though and now leave 1 star reviews if they lied to me.

------
logicallee
Listing #95459: "Half of connected apartment available,see listing #95462 if
you'd like to see the other half instead!"

Listing #95462: "Half of connected apartment available,see listing #95459 if
you'd like to see the other half instead!"

~~~
bdcravens
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!

~~~
justratsinacoat
>While we're at it, there could be a startup for this.. disrupting the
disrupters

This isn't as crazy as it sounds. "Hello, mid-size municipality! If you
implement our easily-tailored boilerplate-legalese bylaw suite, our specially
trained twentysomethings will provide same-day firing solutions to your bylaw
officers for the likes of Uber, AirBnB, Lyft, wind turbines, factory farms,
people who park in the bike lane, and much more!"

------
kiba
Laws that protect affordable housing?

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
> 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.

~~~
travisp
Manhattan could be much denser. Most of Manhattan is not skyscrapers or high
rises.

Manhattan currently has a population of 1.6 million. In 1910, it has 2.3
million. In 1950, it had 2 million.

The current density of Manhattan itself is just 12 people per 5,000 square
feet. There's plenty of room to grow, plus, why just consider Manhattan? Many
of us are happy to live in the nearby boroughs (which are also, unfortunately,
very limited in what they're allowed to build).

~~~
greenyoda
_" Manhattan could be much denser."_

One big problem with cramming more people into Manhattan is that putting up
new buildings isn't sufficient. All those new residents will also need to get
to work, further taxing a mass transit system whose aging infrastructure is
already packed to capacity. Life would be much more pleasant for existing New
Yorkers if the city upgraded its transit infrastructure _before_ it allowed
the building of massive numbers of new apartment buildings. There are also
issues like having adequate electricity for all these new residents - on a hot
summer day, NYC operates dangerously close to peak power capacity, and all
those new residents are going to want to have air conditioning too.

 _" Manhattan currently has a population of 1.6 million. In 1910, it has 2.3
million. In 1950, it had 2 million."_

In 1910, lots of people in NYC were living in tenements with multiple families
packed into a couple of rooms. We really don't want to go back to those
conditions.

The number of single-person households has increased significantly since the
1950s, so my guess is that many of those 400K extra residents in 1950 were
kids living with their parents, who didn't require apartments of their own and
didn't commute to work by subway.

~~~
travisp
> Life would be much more pleasant for existing New Yorkers if the city
> upgraded its transit infrastructure before it allowed the building of
> massive numbers of new apartment buildings.

This is true, but essentially making it illegal for new people to move here
(by making it impossible to build anything new), doesn't seem to be an
appropriate solution. Rather, the MTA should be more under control of the city
rather than the state. Further, increased density (and therefore more taxes
and subway revenue), _should_ in a reasonable world make it easier to upgrade
infrastructure.

I get this concern, but the problems of infrastructure in NYC are primarily
political, and punishing everyone (including people who just want to rent out
their place when they go on a trip themselves), seems unjust.

> In 1910, lots of people in NYC were living in tenements with multiple
> families packed into a couple of rooms. We really don't want to go back to
> those conditions.

Maybe not, but many young single people would love to be allowed to live in a
modern 300 square foot microapartment in Manhattan.

------
mancerayder
_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.

~~~
crdoconnor
It's not like AirBnb is advocating for affordable housing either.

~~~
DorintheFlora
Not only that, but I think there is reason to believe that AirBnB further
stresses the housing market and adds additional fuel to the existing divide
between the Haves and Have Nots by putting more rent monies into the hands of
the Haves and creating more scarcity of housing for those looking for a long-
term rental, not an alternative to a hotel.

~~~
mancerayder
They are, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. However, that the Hotel Lobby
makes a statement about affordability is a little much, it has such a
rhetorical, trendy ring to it (these days a speech has to use the words
community, affordable housing, 'your homes', etc.)

Out of a housing stock of about 2.2M or so units, AirBNB takes something like
30K off the market, apparently, in this particular instance (short term
rentals).

People will always skirt the system, though. It's unclear what impact this
will have.

~~~
yuhong
I wonder what would happen if it was not illegal and there was actually a spot
and contract market in housing.

~~~
ghaff
Maybe we'd call it a hotel or something like that.

~~~
yuhong
That is not what I mean.

------
orbitingpluto
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.

~~~
pyrophane
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.

~~~
BlueZeniX
If I'm a guest, visting NYC and looking for the next place to stay, I would be
logged in and Airbnb would know very well I'm from out of town (payment
details etc.)

------
jsegal1
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.

~~~
travisp
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.

------
Rathor1
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.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _More than half the buildings in Manhattan today violate the modern zoning_

Close. The number is 40% [1].

[1]
[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-p...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-
percent-of-manhattans-buildings-could-not-be-built-today.html)

------
dplgk
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.

------
spriggan3
The problem is enforcing the law. I'm pretty sure there are enough laws
against subletting in N.Y already, they are just hard to enforce.

~~~
mason55
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.

------
pix64
Now if only I could get a hotel of the same quality at the same price. Wish
hotel rooms came with a kitchen.

------
Shivetya
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

~~~
hiou
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.

~~~
stale2002
No. The problem is that people who currently own houses want their properties
values to go up.

The solution to all of this is to build so many houses that rent prices and
housing prices are driven into the freaking ground. But the rich people who
own all the land and buildings don't want them to happen because it would hurt
their profits.

The enemy is not airbnb. The enemy is those who are using the government to
protect their investments by preventing the free market from building.

~~~
ghaff
One often sees this argument here. Speaking for myself, well sure, I don't
want my property value to plummet so that I had to give it away if I ever
wanted to move. But _far_ more important is that I have the continued ability
to use and enjoy my property on more or less the terms that existed when I
purchased it. Yes, I understand that those terms evolve over time, especially
in a city. But it's not just about the money.

