[jMyles]

Well, we don't all agree that the changes are tantamount to "damage", first of all.

For my part, having lived much of my adult life in New Paltz, AirBnb has greatly increased the availability of NYC housing for me, as I typically only live in NYC for 3-10 days at a time.

I can understand that, if your desire is to live there perpetually for years, you might have a different perception.

Perhaps living in a single place in perpetuity (especially near the center of a major metro/cosmopolitan hub) is just not as sustainable in an environment where smallish organizations like AirBnb (or the decentralized versions to come) can easily subvert statutory attempts to force a particular market outcome.

Also, in NYC in particular, the role of "rent control" is worth taking into account.

[jermaustin1]

> if your desire is to live there perpetually for years

You mean like 99% of people? When you work in the city, grew up in the city, have met almost everyone you know in the city, to then be forced out of the city because people want to rent their apartments out for 3-10 days at a time instead of 1-3 years means that people who need the stability of a permanent address now have to either shell out much more cash than a land lord can get (illegally) on airbnb, or move out of the city and abandon the thing they have known their entire lives.

I'm not saying I have a good solution to it, other than the typical protectionist idea of tax the things that are destroying us, but at least that way there is money in the treasury to try and save a portion of the people affected by it.

[TheTrotters]

But the solution is simple: build more apartments. There's no reason there shouldn't be enough housing for way, way more people other than that it's the policy of local government and the preference of many voters.

[jermaustin1]

This is a solution in places like queens, brooklyn and statan island, but manhattan is quite nearly fully developed, and without displacing people to build new high-rises (which kind of exacerbates the issue), there isn't much that can be done.

[gaius]

build more apartments. There's no reason there shouldn't be enough housing for way, way more people other than that it's the policy of local government and the preference of many voters.

Where, exactly? Central Park?

[jMyles]

> 99% of people

You are saying that 99% of people live in the same residence for years?

I'd love to see a source on this.

Between transient people, houseless people, digital nomads, business travelers, jetsetters, RVers, and all sorts of other people who don't live in one place all year, I have no doubt that the various modes of nomadism, taken together, account for far, far higher than 1%.

Heck, in NYC alone, I'll wager that less than 70% of today's population has lived in the same domicile for the past 2 years. There's no way it's 99%.

> When you work in the city, grew up in the city, have met almost everyone you know in the city

I made clear in my post that people in those circumstances might have a different experience. But is this the only audience NYC is designed to serve? People who grew up in the city? What about those of us in the Hudson Valley? Do we not deserve any of the economic benefits of the city (for which we pay in many ways, not least of which our watershed) just because we were born 50-150 miles away?

I think it's about time that real opportunities to live in the city for a few weeks out of the year become available to other NYers and not just the super rich.

I didn't grow up in NYC, but I consider it my city too. I know the best open mics, the places where I can order authentic Mexican or Puerto Rican food en español, the incubators and co-working spaces, the subway system, etc.

Just because you grew up there doesn't give you exclusive ownership of the culture of NYC.

[elhudy]

There should be a new word for this type of gentrification.

[jMyles]

People refusing to stay in the locality and socioeconomic conditions of their birth place, and instead exploring the world and learning about its people, is gentrification now?

The amount of NYC-born privilege being waved around in this thread is astounding.

I have paid, in many ways, for NYC my whole life. It's my city too, even though I wasn't born there. I identify with its culture. I know its geography and social norms. I play its open mics to enthusiastic audiences of a size that I simply can't reach upstate.

Why do you think that people who are born in NYC are entitled to these things to the exclusion of the rest of us?

[jermaustin1]

I'd say that isn't the gentrification, but the fact that a wealth individual can "redevelop" a neighborhood, raising the rents of many less fortunate people who have lived there their entire lives.

Rent Stab/Control exists for a reason, had those generations of people not been there, NYC wouldn't be what it is today. But when the entire neighborhood becomes too expensive because of landlords preferring to run hotels, and the only apartment stock that is affordable is the failing NYCHA properties, then I would consider this a gentrification.

[elhudy]

Why are you getting so defensive? I agree with you, but that doesn't mean it's not a type of gentrification.

>Why do you think that people who are born in NYC are entitled to these things to the exclusion of the rest of us?

Did I say that? Just because I noted it was gentrification doesn't mean you can treat me like a straw-man punching bag.

[emodendroket]

If we have to make the choice I think it is reasonable to privilege the concerns of people who live in a place year-round over those visiting for a week.

[CryptoPunk]

Let's say a 400 square mile area of land can only accommodate 10 million people, but that 2 billion would prefer to live there if they could, because it is one of the nicest localities in the world.

Why have 10 million lucky individuals get year round access to it, rather than giving 1 billion people 3-4 days each to visit it?

[emodendroket]

Because the alternative is not a city but a city-sized theme park.

[CaptainZapp]

Well, we don't all agree that the changes are tantamount to "damage", first of all.

I'd wager that anybody who suddenly had an illegal hotel running out of her neighboring appartment will very strongly disagree with that statement.

Unless you personally made that experience, in a house where parties live for 30 years+, you are not aware what a massive impact this can have on your quality of life.

Since I've been there I stopped using AirBnb, period.

[jMyles]

As I said, I think it's time to question whether an environment such as NYC is a realistic place to live for 30 years+ - is that sustainable for our species?

I think that the availability of short-term housing in NYC in particular is a net benefit for society, even if it adds an uncomfortable dose of reality for many people who had the extreme privilege of growing up there.

[emodendroket]

Generation after generation of people have lived in the same locality for about as long as we've had agriculture so I'd say it is pretty sustainable. I think it's odd that a jet-setting tourist should be lecturing the locals about their "extreme privilege."

[jMyles]

Did you just call people who take the $14 bus ride from New Paltz to NYC "jet-setting tourists"?

Being born in NYC doesn't mean the city belongs to you. I'm a New Yorker too.

[emodendroket]

In the sense that New Paltz is in New York State, sure, you are a New Yorker if you live in New Paltz. But you're not a resident of New York City, not because of where you were born but because you do not reside there.

[bluntfang]

You're strawmanning. It doesn't matter if you think people should live there for 30+ years, because that's what's already happening.

[jMyles]

Yeah, well, those of us who live there for < 8 weeks out of the year is already happening too.

I don't understand the strawman - what argument did I mischaracterize in an attempt to make it appear weaker for the purposes of responding to it?

[bluntfang]

You're ignoring the fact that 30million people already live there by posing that people shouldn't be doing that in this day and age. It doesn't matter what your opinion of those 30 million people are, the fact is that it is the current condition.

[jMyles]

...but I can say the exact same thing:

You're ignoring the fact that millions of people already live for only a few weeks out of the year there by posing that people shouldn't be doing that in this day and age. It doesn't matter what your opinion of those people are, the fact is that it is the current condition.

[ddoran]

> I typically only live in NYC for 3-10 days at a time

That's not living somewhere. That's visiting.

[jMyles]

Oh yeah? I'm alive during those 3-10 days. And I'm there.

If that's not living, then where do I live? I don't have a long-term lease or anything similar. Do I not deserve the same quality of life and opportunities as people who happened to have been born in the East Village?

[ddoran]

Semantics. I respectfully disagree. Being alive, and living at a place are two completely different things. By your definition, I've lived in 12 countries this year. I haven't.

[jMyles]

It's not semantics. It's a simple question: if someone doesn't have a current lease in a particular place, where do they live? Particularly for the purposes of enjoying the privileges that everyone in this thread is claiming they deserve by dint of living in NYC (ie, artificially controlled rent prices such that the rest of us can't utilize the economic opportunities in the city).

[michaelt]

  It's a simple question

Google "Tax Residence" and you'll discover, while the question may be simple, the answer isn't :)

[jwin742]

Where do you pay your tax to then? That's a reasonable enough definition of where you live.

[jMyles]

In New York State. I pay the exorbitant taxes which pay for, among other things, protecting the water from the huge city down the road that I'm apparently "damaging" by living there a few weeks out of the year.

[rebuilder]

You do not, as a visitor, deserve the same opportunities as people who live in a place permanently, IMO. What would governance and city planning look like, if that were the case? How do you build a community if you have to give equal consideration to people who want to spend their lives contributing to that community and to people who prefer to just visit every now and then?

[emodendroket]

> Do I not deserve the same quality of life and opportunities as people who happened to have been born in the East Village?

No, no more than I deserve a passport from every country I have ever traveled to.

Most US states consider you a resident if you stay more than 90 days. That's when you'd be expected to change your driver's license, car registration, etc.

You seem to be conflating the ideas of birthright and residency. I don't think anybody is arguing you shouldn't be allowed to become an NYC resident if you want to; what they're saying is that visiting doesn't make you a resident.

[jMyles]

"Residency" in a state is a dumb concept to begin with. Why expect a technology startup to form itself in a such a way as to presume that it's meaningful? Isn't the whole point of a (good) technology startup to pose some meaningful critique to society?

[pjc50]

> living in a single place in perpetuity

Christ. Hotdesking for houses. This is already the reality for a lot of precariously-housed or non-street-homeless people. It's especially bad for children and will cost them grades at school when moving frequently.

[lancesells]

Perhaps AirBnb should actually follow the law in NYC (30 days minimum) until they can lobby enough to change the law.

[jMyles]

...why? What makes this law worth following in the first place?

[jfk13]

If there are communities where AirBnB is deliberately breaking the law, those cities ought to be collecting punitive fines.

In a civilised society, you don't get to pick and choose which laws you think are worth following, and just ignore the rest. Don't like a given law? Then engage in the political process to seek changes to it.

[parthdesai]

Because it directly impacts the residents who live there full time and pay all the taxes to that city and state? Every day that you don't live in the city and make a purchase outside the city is a tax-dollar that city is missing out on and that someone living full time in the city is paying.

I live in downtown Toronto and here are some of the issues i face due to Airbnb:

i) Some of the residents make living a hell. They come to party, don't respect the neighbours, are loud till late, trash the place and some have even gone to break the buttons in elevator.

ii) With Airbnb, new owners and renters are priced out of market. People with more money but new units as secondary investment and just Airbnb it instead of renting it, thus creating artificial shortage of available units to full-time renters.

One of the fascinating things about NYC is it's vast array of local businesses. Guess who do these local businesses need? Full time employees who go to work every day and not for 3-11 days.

[CryptoPunk]

>>Every day that you don't live in the city and make a purchase outside the city is a tax-dollar that city is missing out on and that someone living full time in the city is paying.

Another short-term resident would be there in his place on the days he's not in NYC. Year round there will almost always be someone staying in his unit.

And short term renters tend to spend more per day than long-term residents, so they probably contribute significantly more to the city's tax base.

[parthdesai]

>And short term renters tend to spend more per day than long-term residents, so they probably contribute significantly more to the city's tax base.

Per day costs, sure. But if you add recurring payments, don't think they are outspending it. Also, you are ignoring the entire point to begin with. A City should look after it's long term residents first and foremost. Unless you want it to eventually become a ghost city.

[CryptoPunk]

I haven't seen any evidence that long-term residents contribute more to the tax base per capita. The spending differential between short term and long term renters is so large that it seems not just plausible, but likely, that the former contribute more on balance.

>>A City should look after it's long term residents first and foremost.

I don't see why it should. A city should look after those within its boundaries, whether they're there for a day or a year. It shouldn't set up walls and promote long term residence over visits.