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

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.

  • katmandood@lemmy.world
    630·
    1 year ago

    Honestly, I don’t understand what everyone has against short term rentals. It may be an unpopular opinion, but shouldn’t we let the market decide the best use of a space? For a city like New York that gets visitors and transient workers from all over the world, maybe it would be better for it to have lots of short term rentals. Ultimately the market would find an equilibrium between short term rentals, long term rentals, and owner occupied properties.

    I do think there needs to be more regulation for the rentals though, probably similar to hotels. Any property being rented out should be subject to the same safety inspections and regulations.

    • spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works
      22·
      1 year ago

      I live in an area with AirBnB rentals.

      All of the neighbor problems I and my neighbors have had, without exception, have been from short-term renters. That includes noise that continues all night, off leash, aggressive dogs, unsupervised kids, and threatening, overtly hostile renters.

      The “market” can’t deal with this kind of thing, it requires regulations and enforcement.

    • BradleyUffner@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      1 year ago

      The market isn’t deciding the best use for the space; it’s deciding the most profitable. These are two very different things.

      • spader312@lemmy.world
        91·
        1 year ago

        I love this way of looking at it. The market optimizes for profit not general good for the public

      • katmandood@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 year ago

        Definitely agree that the free market can come up with some undesirable solutions which is where I think regulation comes in to “guide” the more desirable outcomes that can be found organically. Personally, I think maximum occupancy and increased supply should be the goal where there is limited supply like NYC. Things like a vacancy tax and better zoning could help a lot.

        Also, I’m not sure that I trust the government to find the best use of space either, especially in the face of corporate lobbying. The current road/highway system being built to the detriment of public transportation is a good example where a government prescribed solution can have a negative impact decades later.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      16·
      1 year ago

      but shouldn’t we let the market decide the best use of a space?

      When it comes to something necessary for survival, like shelter, “letting the market decide” is a terrible idea.

      For example: if corporations purchased all of the water so that people couldn’t access it, and you had to buy all your water from corporations, you couldn’t “let the market decide” what a fair price of water is. They have created this scarcity so they can profit off it, and the amount people are “willing to pay” to live turns out to be about “all the money they have.”

      • katmandood@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 year ago

        Definitely not advocating for full blown free market capitalism. My comment was more along the lines of letting the market organically find the best solutions. The government should set broad goals, like “maximize the amount of occupied housing units and minimize homelessness” and then provide the appropriate incentives to guide the market in that direction.

        I agree that for inelastic goods like healthcare, food, water, shelter the situation is even more tricky. NYC just seems to be limited in that sense with already high density and low supply. Having any form of vacant units should be taxed heavily. Maybe even extend this to progressively tax larger units that reduce density. Billionaires row where the ultra wealthy have an entire floor for an apartment that they never use makes no sense to me.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          1·
          1 year ago

          The government should set broad goals, like “maximize the amount of occupied housing units and minimize homelessness” and then provide the appropriate incentives to guide the market in that direction.

          So that’s not “letting the market decide the best use of space.” That is the Government deciding the best use of space and passing laws to encourage that, which is exactly what is happening here.

    • merridew@feddit.ukEnglish
      15·
      1 year ago

      They increase the overall cost of both buying and renting a property within that market, and are a nuisance for existing residents.

      Historically – in the UK, at least – the market equilibrium has been that the rich own all the property and the poor pay rent until they die, aware that they can be served an eviction notice at any time.

      This has not proven to be a popular policy. In 1918 all British men, regardless of whether they owned property or not, got the vote, and since then politicians have found it useful to not have the majority of voters perpetually furious about it.

    • aceshigh@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      1 year ago

      the issue is that there aren’t enough available apartments in nyc. there’s high competition to actually get an apartment. it’s normal to look at apartments with all your papers ready and apply on the spot… and still not get the fucking place even though you have a very high credit score, have been working at your job for years, have high savings etc. so you end up having to keep applying to a bunch of places until your application gets accepted. it’s a nightmare.

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      2·
      1 year ago

      I wanna draw a compromise like you. I think the rental system does suck ass and shorter terms could be better negotiated into the system.

      The problem is that this current disruption in the market is making people homeless. So that some wealthy people can stay for the weekend.

      The ‘market’ isn’t gonna solve this, these social conventions have always been written by lawyers. This market just keeps trying to squeeze people out to reduce housing supply for all but the filthy rich. But playing into that market is also zoning laws, approval processes etc. It would be nice to fill in these gaps! Hostels, taverns, larger hotel rooms for big groups, short term rentals for 1 - 3 months without ‘year long lease’ and all that crazy approval bullshit.

      • katmandood@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 year ago

        Agree that regulation and zoning laws can be way better but I’m not sure how much more could be done about supply in NYC. The place is already one of the densest on the planet. Having an vacancy tax makes total sense too. Make sure that maximum available supply is actually being used.

        The issue seems to be short term vs long term rentals and I’m not sure if I favor one over another for a place like NYC where a large part of the population has always been transient.