I think this is where the argument for short term whole-residence rentals breaks down.
In the beginning, Airbnb was for homeowners and renters to provide a spare bedroom to travelers. In that case, they're facilitating a private transaction between two individuals to exchange money for a place to crash. By the residents staying at the home for the duration of the guest's stay, it's hard to call that a sublet, and there's a very strong argument to be made that it's just a communications platform to link either side of a marketplace.
But the case of whole-home rentals gets murkier. I don't see how letting someone stay in your home while you're living somewhere else is anything but a sublet. And if it is a sublet, why should it not have to conform to the established rules for sublets?
I find it disappointing that the Airbnb team hasn't done much in the way of explaining this point. When they do address the legality of Airbnb, they almost always refer to the first case. It's understandable, as it's a much more easily defensible position. I'd be interested to hear someone from Airbnb directly address the possibility of their service being used to turn residential spaces into commercial spaces (in the form of hotels).
> By the residents staying at the home for the duration of the guest's stay, it's hard to call that a sublet
Its actually quite easy: you are renting out space in a unit you are renting from a landlord -- so its a sublet. That you are present is irrelevant to whether it is a sublet (it may, OTOH, be relevant to whether it is prohibited by law independent of lease conditions even aside from considering whether it is a sublet, but that's a different issue.)
>This seems like a more compelling point than the title topic.
I agree. If a large number of residential spaces start getting occupied for AirBnB usage, that makes the housing stock that much shorter. And that would actually increase price of housing in the city. As another commenter posted, it was harmless when people were letting travelers stay the night in their currently occupied homes, as that didn't decrease the housing stock. But when people start using residential properties as fully functioning motels, that's when we see society adversely affected.
And this is a far more logical argument than the Brothrel one as not everyone agrees how bad that is.
Hmm. Why do we need that? AirBnB promotes better capital utilization. The only reason to be against that is if you're some sort of Commie at heart and think that the government should be in the job of trying to make your rental a way to transfer wealth from landlords to tenants.
Which is certainly a political opinion that some people endorse, of course, but when you do that it's generally a contributing factor towards a housing shortage, like you see in places such as New York and San Francisco... go figure :b
So basically, she's admitting that the property is more valuable than its current use, and the city is actively denying itself tax revenue because of it.
Sometimes a short term gain in capital doesn't result in a long term social benefit. Of course people on vacation will spend more for a few days than a resident will for rent. But if that grows unchecked, the city will begin to lose its residents. Which additionally will result in a decline in income taxes, so it may even result in a decline in tax revene.
And if the city loses residents, then it can't support its tourism industry as well, and then it become less of an attractive tourist destination. This really seems like a self correcting problem.
Virtually all problems of civilization are "self-correcting" in one fashion or other.
But that doesn't mean that the residents of a city are obligated to just sit around until a problem, say gang violence or murder-for-hire, corrects itself. "Society" is about taking action to, uh, "proactively" correct these things.
That correction cycle could take decades, and some neighborhoods could be altered dramatically in the process. It really doesn't affect me at all either way, but I can acknowledge that some people have concerns, or at least a legitimate interest in managing probable outcomes.
It isn't necessarily the case. When individuals optimize their outcomes, they often make decisions that are not optimal from the whole group perspective. In such cases regulations are necessarily to achieve optimal global solution.
Some would say the purpose of government is to provide the services the voters voted for it to provide at as low a cost as reasonably possible - rather than to maximise tax revenue.
There are many things that would increase short term government revenue but which would be terrible public policy.
If the AirBnb rentals complied with hotel regulations you would have a point, but it's not an apples to apples comparison. Renters/owners like to take advantage of the fact that by not being in compliance with hotel laws they can undercut hotel prices and make an illegal profit. That's not the same as what the underlying property value is if you comply with regulations.
Investors in NYC given the choice of building hotels, office buildings, or residential properties are generally building residential properties. In fact a lot of the rezoning has been turning commercial space into residential space over the last 5-10 years. The market is clearly demanding residential space (specifically luxury units) first and foremost.
I think she's taking the position that there's inherent value in providing affordable residential property in New York which exceeds the value in extracting maximum tax revenue from every square inch of the city. At the very least, I find that to be a defensible position.
@moron4hire: It's a good point. But there are side effects of reducing residential property. What happens to the city's economy when everyone's commute is doubled because housing in the city is becoming prohibitively expensive as supply shrinks? Without zoning laws, how do you attract people to move to your city when there's no guarantee their apartment building will still be an apartment building once the lease is up?
To answer the question, I think it's the city government's job to balance the interests of people and businesses that reside in the city. In a perfect world, every side effect and externality would be neatly quantifiable, and municipal leadership would be fair and evenhanded. For now, we have to trust that the feedback loop of election will produce pretty good solutions to problems. I can't think of a better way to approach things in the current system.
Yeah, I get that, but it seems pretty tenuous. All this talk about the "value" of the property with regards to it being used for one thing over another, when price is the way in which we quantify value.
Who gets to decide what the value of a piece of property to The People should be? Should it be elected officials, who probably only represent the interests of the people on even numbered days, or should it be The People themselves, through price movement?
It's a common belief - especially on the internet - that whatever the unfettered free market decides (or would decide) is good and correct. You may believe this, and you may even take it as axiomatic, but you should be aware that very many people disagree, and will reject any argument with this as its foundation.
I forgot to clarify the opposing view. Some people see or foresee a negative outcome of an unfettered market, and want to take steps to prevent it. Then they pass laws or regulations, like hotel zoning. They see the improvement as justification for the burden placed on the market. There are so many of these baked into society that you probably don't notice them. Minimum wage laws, overtime laws, vehicle safety laws, workplace safety laws, noise ordinances, etc.
In the beginning, Airbnb was for homeowners and renters to provide a spare bedroom to travelers. In that case, they're facilitating a private transaction between two individuals to exchange money for a place to crash. By the residents staying at the home for the duration of the guest's stay, it's hard to call that a sublet, and there's a very strong argument to be made that it's just a communications platform to link either side of a marketplace.
But the case of whole-home rentals gets murkier. I don't see how letting someone stay in your home while you're living somewhere else is anything but a sublet. And if it is a sublet, why should it not have to conform to the established rules for sublets?
I find it disappointing that the Airbnb team hasn't done much in the way of explaining this point. When they do address the legality of Airbnb, they almost always refer to the first case. It's understandable, as it's a much more easily defensible position. I'd be interested to hear someone from Airbnb directly address the possibility of their service being used to turn residential spaces into commercial spaces (in the form of hotels).