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.

  • SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Comes from another comment I posted here:

    New York City’s housing stock has only increased 4% since 2010, not nearly enough to keep up with its 22% increase in jobs. And from 2017 to 2021, New York City permitted 13 homes for every 1,000 residents in 2017

    This is because of zoning restrictions preventing building. This occurs everywhere you see housing spiking, which distorts even the areas where building is occurring.

    People don’t want “those people” in their neighborhoods or don’t want to lose their “neighborhood character,” or simply want to “protect their home values,” and so a persistent lack of supply is strangling the market.

    Denying current renters an income stream, tightening the grip of the hotel market monopoly, and not actually freeing enough homes to impact the increase in demand, is not the solution.

    • li10@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s fair, but I think it’s not particularly relevant here.

      Tourists should not be holidaying in people’s “back yards”.

      It’s not about keeping out certain “types of people”, it’s about not wanting any people who have specifically come to holiday and treat the area like their playground.

      And every Airbnb I know is run by someone who has multiple properties, and certainly isn’t letting holidaymakers live in their actual home.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tourists should not be holidaying in people’s “back yards

        Literally just NIMBYism.

        • li10@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay, ignore the rest of what I said and focus on your little buzzword 🤷‍♂️

          I don’t want someone to knock down the house next door and start fracking the land, is that NiMbYiSm?

            • li10@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I just don’t see how anything you’re saying is relevant to Airbnb??

              Landlords are buying more houses and turning them into Airbnbs, hence less houses available and increasing prices for regular people.

              The idea that it’s really benefitting regular people is just not the reality of the situation.

              NIMBYism

              the behaviour of someone who does not want something to be built or done near where they live, although it does need to be built or done somewhere

              The area for holidaymakers are hotel districts. If you need to expand the actual hotel district then so be it, but don’t just let everywhere essentially be a hotel district.

              Edit: Can’t respond if you block me 🤷‍♂️

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The area for holidaymakers are hotel districts

                We will never see lower home prices while NIMBYism exists.

                I’m willing to bet you don’t want tall buildings with dense housing for low-income people on your street either, yeah? They’d ruin your view/the charm of the neighborhood/bring crime?

                Congrats. You’re the problem.

                Edit: didn’t block you.

                • merridew@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  But turning half the units in that tall building full of dense housing into short-term lets that are a nuisance to the people who actually live there is okay in your book? Because, as you say, objecting to that would be “NIMBY”.

                  Airbnb is way more profitable than conventional letting. Why would anyone offer stable leases to poor people when they can rent out the whole place for higher rates?

                  In some parts of my country, it is becoming functionality impossible for families to rent a property for a stable term, because landlords want properties vacant over the holidays for short-term lets.

                  https://www.dazeddigital.com/life-culture/article/59744/1/airbnb-is-making-life-hell-for-young-renters-in-tourist-hotspots-cornwall

                  But you think unregulated AirBnB is somehow a positive for housing?

                  • SCB@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Yes, because you’re still adding net housing in those buildings.

                    I think AirBnB helps people pay their rent in NYC, because data confirms that people do in fact use it as bridge income

                    I also think AirBnB both is not the culprit here (a housing shortage is) and that building more housing solves the problem more neatly while also discouraging using housing as an “investment” which then discourages predatory housing practices.

                    Human beings will always respond to incentives, and right now the incentive is to buy housing and hold it because it will be worth more later. That’s a big problem.

    • WetBeardHairs@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      New York isn’t like other places - it is quite literally out of available land to build residential structures. NIMBYism may have an affect, but the overwhelming restriction in preventing new construction is that you’d have to raze structures to do so.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Renters absolutely benefit from AirBnB if they were using the money to help bridge costs, which nearly every single article on this subject mentions.

        And Landlords benefit a lot more from tighter housing restrictions.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s irrelevant because net increases to supply still move toward closing the supply/demand gap, and people further down the chain just move into vacated homes as people move into the new ones.

        • archiotterpup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, that’s not happening. Those prices also go up. That’s because the invisible hand isn’t invisible. It’s greedy landlords jacking up rents.

          Your theory is cute but it doesn’t match reality.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s not happening because demand still outstrips supply by a huge amount. What is happening when building occurs is a mitigation of cost increases, but the production is not not enough to lower costs .

            The thing about supply and demand is that it exists even if you don’t like it.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              demand still outstrips supply by a huge amount.

              Because owners aren’t selling their property, and why would they when they can keep it and rent it out either monthly or daily on ABNB?