- 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.
They want you back in a hotel
They are trying to address housing shortages. The hotels might benefit, but so does everyone else because it effectively bars commercial operation of AirBnB. No landlords with 50 units etc.
This will not actually help with the housing shortage. It will even result in further evictions as some people lose the potential income of renting out excess space to get over the hump.
That is still allowed though. The host can rent out a spare room with up to 2 guests at a time. The host just has to live there.
So they register? There isn’t anything to indicate that hosts who plan to rent out a spare room and follow the rules won’t be approved.
When you register, you must comply with hotel-level standards.
I went and looked up the regulations.
https://rules.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/FINAL-RULES-GOVERNING-REGISTRATION-AND-REQUIREMENTS-FOR-SHORT-TERM-RENTALS-1.pdf
Host requirements start on the bottom of page 16. The requirements boil down to posting a fire exit diagram of the unit, keeping records, and not violating building or fire codes. Nothing in there that really seems that onerous, and is stuff that obviously protects the guests.
This requires personal investment from people over something they nominally may not have the means or ability to change or influence.
The horror.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-05/airbnb-s-new-nyc-regulations-what-renters-and-hosts-need-to-know
This effectively blocks struggling renters from using ABNB to bridge their payment gaps.
Yes, I think people being evicted over this policy would agree with the statement “the horror”
It’s weird to watch you balance “evictions are evil” with “I hate what I’m told to hate” and end up choosing your hate first.
Good?
Oh my god, you have to register with the city, like every other landlord? Crazy.
Yes and this requires additional restrictions on the property that many people flat-out cannot afford.
Like what, exactly? If you can’t afford a fire alarm or sprinkler system, you really shouldn’t be running a rental business. Hell, if you can’t afford a fire alarm, you have much bigger problems than whether or not you can rent a room to a stranger.
You aren’t running a rental business in these cases, but supplementing your income by allowing someone into your home a few times per year.
If they can’t afford to sit on multiple empty houses due to increased AirBnB regulations, then they can always sell some of those assets back into the market. In fact, that’s the point of the regulation :P
The idea of some poor landlord barely scraping things together because their 50 rental properties (and thus millions of dollars worth of assets) are less profitable is preposterous
The idea is that a non-negligible amount of renters pad their rental income with AirBnB and are not actually landlords.
If you can afford to run a business you can afford to run a business properly.
Not if onerous regulations designed to solve problems that don’t exist are placed in your way by populist idiot laws.
Theoretically, any business could be legislated out of existence maliciously.
From what I can tell this is to help make sure they follow the new rules
If those hypothetical people lose their investment houses then other people can buy them.
To live in.
People who aren’t living in their home will lose the home to eviction? Listen to my violin.
Really to drop housing prices you have to address the secondary mortgage market. More supply is a band aid.
I want them back in a hotel too.
Yes, where they should be.
If you’re travelling somewhere then stay in a hotel, it’s what they’re for.
No thanks. Apartment rentals have existed for decades.
Just not nearly so many, and with so little regulation.
Regulation isn’t my job though. Just like those not paying tax isn’t my responsibility, but it should be sorted properly.
And why is that a bad thing?
It’s the same as ride-sharing … which, when it started, was advertised as a cheaper alternative to taxis/cabs but that’s no longer the case.
I use taxis instead od ride-share because taxis are regulated and they have to buy licenses. Does this make them better? Not really, but they are contributing to the local economy through the tax base … and that alone does make them better.
It is still cheaper.