583
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] RagnarokOnline@reddthat.com 42 points 1 year ago

I don’t know how I feel about this. On one hand: I dislike the trend of commercial companies buying up living space to turn around and rent it out to disruptive short-term tenants.

On the other hand: I don’t want to have anyone else present in my rental with me because that’s creepy.

[-] Ejh3k@lemmy.world 73 points 1 year ago

That's the point.

[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 33 points 1 year ago

If you and I stay in hotels, people who work there will be able to afford to live near there.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

They want you back in a hotel

[-] krellor@kbin.social 89 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] krellor@kbin.social 36 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Under the new system, rentals shorter than 30 days are only allowed if hosts register with the city.

[-] krellor@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

When you register, you must comply with hotel-level standards.

[-] krellor@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

not violating building or fire codes

This requires personal investment from people over something they nominally may not have the means or ability to change or influence.

[-] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Fire doesn't care about limp excuses.

[-] thoro@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

Then I guess they shouldn't be opening living spaces to other people for commercial purposes. Almost like doing that implies you have a responsibility to your guests

[-] Djtecha@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

So guests should just burn then? Like we have regulations because people died before said regulations.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'm sorry was there a rush of ABNB fires I haven't heard about or is this a total non-issue

[-] Djtecha@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Yea you're not really arguing in good faith here. You know fires happen and the lack of basic alerting systems is a concern. These regulations aren't costing folks 10 grand to do. There is a cost of doing business and New York has stated this is that cost. Take it up with your state assembly if you don't like it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] merridew@feddit.uk 14 points 1 year ago

Units made available as short-term rentals must also abide by building and fire codes, including one that prohibits placing locks between rooms and having certain sprinkler and fire alarm systems on the property.

The horror.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-05/airbnb-s-new-nyc-regulations-what-renters-and-hosts-need-to-know

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Poob@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago
[-] vinceman 18 points 1 year ago

Oh my god, you have to register with the city, like every other landlord? Crazy.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yes and this requires additional restrictions on the property that many people flat-out cannot afford.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

.....which makes you a business. You're making income from rentals. A landlord who has 500 units but can't seem to fill them but once or twice per year for a weekend doesn't suddenly stop being a landlord. And if they told me "I'm just supplementing my income" in order to get around installing fire alarms, I'd laugh in their face.

If you're providing a commercial service to strangers, you should be able to ensure their safety, full stop. If you can't afford to do that, you can't afford to provide the commercial service.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] fenynro@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] vinceman 5 points 1 year ago

If you can afford to run a business you can afford to run a business properly.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

How is following basic fire code onerous?

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago

From what I can tell this is to help make sure they follow the new rules

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

If those hypothetical people lose their investment houses then other people can buy them.

To live in.

[-] stigmata@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

People who aren't living in their home will lose the home to eviction? Listen to my violin.

[-] joel_feila@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Really to drop housing prices you have to address the secondary mortgage market. More supply is a band aid.

[-] Shalakushka@kbin.social 34 points 1 year ago

I want them back in a hotel too.

[-] li10@feddit.uk 31 points 1 year ago

Yes, where they should be.

If you’re travelling somewhere then stay in a hotel, it’s what they’re for.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

No thanks. Apartment rentals have existed for decades.

[-] merridew@feddit.uk 9 points 1 year ago

Just not nearly so many, and with so little regulation.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Regulation isn't my job though. Just like those not paying tax isn't my responsibility, but it should be sorted properly.

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It is still cheaper.

[-] June@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

I’ve stayed in plenty of Airbnb’s that the owners were on-site the whole time. It’s not bad at all. I even used Airbnb to rent out a spare room for a couple years and it wasn’t weird at all (except for the people who were much more comfortable with nudity than I was).

The time I visited NYC, the Airbnb I rented was a small apartment divided up into three rooms with other renters staying there. Same as if the owner was there, wasn’t a problem or creepy.

this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
583 points (100.0% liked)

News

23274 readers
2650 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS