Hacker News Reader

> This doesn't need to be a legal issue. It's simply a rule of the building. People violating it are violating their contract with their building just like when they violate any other rule.

This sounds good in writing, but in practice, is nearly unenforceable. The mechanisms for landlords to stay on top of this are either unrealistic or draconian. eg, monitoring everyone that enters and leaves and analyzing it, asking tenants to do the same and then snitch on their neighbors, or doing door to door checks.

AirB&B is banned by the contract in the building I live in, and while I respect that because I happen not to be interested, it's virtually unenforceable and I have no way of knowing whether others in my building adhere to it.

IMO, legislation that forces services like airb&b to do only what's on the tin, short term, limited scope, infrequent rentals of residential spaces by people who occupy them the majority of the time, is both reasonable and necessary. Without those checks, which airb&b is totally uninterested in enforcing themselves, the service basically becomes a black market hotel market for property hoarders.

I don't understand at all why this is unenforceable. If the person is publicly listing their apartment on AirBnB, it's pretty easy to find listings in your apartment building. I recall an article a year or so back about people identifying their neighbors in AirBnB ads and reporting them to their landlords.

> Long term it should not decrease the supply of housing. Visitors are either going to stay in airbnbs, with friends, or at hotels.

This is a slices-of-pie argument, neglecting changes in the size of the pie. By being a better value than hotels, airbnbs make traveling more attractive, meaning there will be somewhat more visitors and that they will stay longer. I think this is on balance a good thing for NYC (tourism is an industry, after all) but it does put a little more stress on an already-tight housing market.

That's completely arbitrary, all you're saying is hotels are offering things customers don't need, or legislation is causing them to bring up rates. Either way it sounds like there's a problem with the system, yet you think the blame lies solely with those who try and find an alternative.

Increased tourism might be "on balance a good thing" for NYC economically, but NYC also has an obligation to the welfare of its citizens. Does this new law bill strike the right balance between welfare and economics? I don't know, but the situation before was out of control.

You realize that the parent was talking about Manhattan, right. They have more than a few tall buildings there.

We're not talking NIMBY San Francisco with extreme resistance to anything. We are talking about bulldog being turned into flophouses (i.e. The 3 family in Queens that made the papers when it was divided into 24 AirBNB units is one example.) Another are coops which cost a ton.

The issue is that Airbnb decided that it is entitled to just flaunt the law and push out any liability to its customers. Other services make more of an effort... A few resort areas that I'm familiar with have rental restrictions in some areas. VRBO seems to be able to respect that. Airbnb not so much. Similar business model, different practice.

We're not talking NIMBY San Francisco with extreme resistance to anything

Actually, NYC is little better: http://www.city-journal.org/html/preservation-follies-13279.... or see the graph here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-o....

I'd suggest you look beyond Manhttan and PR stories probably sourced from developers... Look especially for local papers in the outer boroughs.

Plenty of neighborhoods that were 1-2 family houses in Queens as recently as the early 90s are 50%+ 4+ unit condos and apartments. My childhood home in Queens (a 19th century farmhouse) is now two 6 unit condos. Google about development in Forest Hills Queens and Staten Island. Plenty of stuff going on.

Even in Manhattan... It isn't turning into a playground for the rich because of zoning laws... It's a rich man's playground because there are lots of uber rich people who want it that way. Remember the current Mayor's crusade for horse rights? His care for equine welfare was motivated solely by his rich donors who want to redevelop the horse stables.

> You realize that the parent was talking about Manhattan, right. They have more than a few tall buildings there.

I see the Manhattan skyline every day. A lot of it does not have tall buildings and much of it has had severe height restrictions for decades.

> We are talking about bulldog being turned into flophouses (i.e. The 3 family in Queens that made the papers when it was divided into 24 AirBNB units is one example.) Another are coops which cost a ton.

So go after particular cases that you think are abusive, rather than pushing everyone. There's no hotel near where I live in Brooklyn, and when my family comes to visit, they've frequently rented a whole place (from people who clearly do live there 90% of the time). I don't see why that should be make a crime just because others act in ways you don't like.

We're not talking about mutualized apartments or condominiums, we're talking apartment buildings, the residents don't have much of a say.

Beyond that, the rules even from a condo complex can be lacking teeth, the law is not.