As someone who's spent the last 3 months living in AirBnB units and sublets in NYC and doesn't have any desire to commit to a year-long rental lease, this is disappointing.
AirBnB makes the market more efficient by increasing the supply of housing that otherwise wouldn't be available and provides more alternatives to signing a lease and wading through scams on Craigslist.
If NYC is serious about providing affordable housing, then this would at best be a temporary band-aid patch while they actually tackle the real problem - building more affordable housing. Of course the government isn't actually interested in solving the problem, so blaming AirBnB is more convenient.
I agree with this. AirBNB is being used for politicians to add to their perception of support for affordable housing. Yes, there are landlords that amass units to rent them out short-term because they profit more.
But when it comes to a short-term rental versus a hotel, are we going to shed a tear for the hotel rooms not rented out that cost 300+ a night?
The city had 8M residents in 2000, it has 8.5 today. AirBNB's impact on affordability is grossly exaggerated, given the host of other factors that lead to a high demand to live in New York City: the economy and quality of life being a main one.
If anything, the law should apply to people who do this on large scale. I find it frustrating that New York housing regulations, from the DOB regulations, procedure and housing code, to laws like these, sweep the little guy in with laws and threats of fines when the 'popular discourse' criticizes big landlords and large operations.
Without going into any detail, sometimes it's just easier to rent to friends and family or leave units vacant than it is to deal with some of the BS regulations that cost you as a landlord. One example is that tenant protections can cost you, a landlord, 6-9 months of unpaid rent legally if you have a professional con (which some tenants know how to be, milking a system while they await to be evicted). As another example, 2008 and esp. 2014 housing code requires sprinkler systems in buildings with three units and above. If you have a building that is large enough to have more than two units, you're better off keeping only two units because it'll be cost-prohibitive. That's one less apartment to help fix the undersupply. And the city makes this expensive by forcing you to use architects, contractors, plumbers, expediters and then getting all the various inspections; meanwhile you're subject to the same requirements as a big developer with large staff. So you're out 100K, what do you do? You either go the illegal route, or you have a 'storage area', or a 'recreation area'.
I'm not really thrilled about this decision. I honestly feel the real winner here is the hotel industry. We'll continue to face the pain of a lack of supply and a high demand.
You can still rent an airbnb for a period of over 30 days (so, 31 days) legally with these regulations. Do you find yourself wanting to move around more often than that?
I think this is a pretty good compromise all things considered - I've gotten very tired of people spending 72 hours in the apartment across the hallway from me and generally being nuisances the entire time.
as a tourist that really likes nyc, i can't stay for 30+ days and 15 days at a hotel is too expensive (as in, i can't cook my own meals at a hotel) this affects me a lot. i guess i won't be going back to nyc so soon.
AirBnB makes the market more efficient by increasing the supply of housing that otherwise wouldn't be available and provides more alternatives to signing a lease and wading through scams on Craigslist.
If NYC is serious about providing affordable housing, then this would at best be a temporary band-aid patch while they actually tackle the real problem - building more affordable housing. Of course the government isn't actually interested in solving the problem, so blaming AirBnB is more convenient.