Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

akmalhot t1_jcf6hna wrote

Overall Airbnb should have been treated tax wise and zoning wise similar to the second home rule etc

You can rent your primary for 14 days tax free a year.

Airbnb rented over 30 days a year should have required proper zoning and permits

Or certificates of occupancy

302

djdjddhdhdh t1_jcfdbhg wrote

Ye I dunno about zoning, but tax wise having an Airbnb doesn’t subject you to any tax exceptions, it’s a business like any other. If you make more than you spend you have to pay income taxes on it

78

akmalhot t1_jcfjggs wrote

Yeah I mean more for certificate of occupancy, shouldn't have allowed more than 30-60 days in primarily residential areas. There's a reason we have hotel commercial etc some

Too late now

29

theageofnow t1_jcigfom wrote

More restrictive zoning laws will make the city worse and more difficult to find lodging, both permanent and temporary. They just made it more difficult to build hotels a few years ago (NYC had a huge hotel construction boom… and corresponding boom in tourism). There is a shortage of lodgings, both permanent and temporary, which has manifested itself in AirBnB being very profitable for some people (it shouldn’t be)

3

DoritosDewItRight t1_jcfmh88 wrote

No, that's not correct. You really can rent your primary residence for 14 days a year without having to report any of that income: https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/rental-property/10-tax-tips-for-airbnb-homeaway-vrbo-vacation-rentals/L8CEWgLSP

12

djdjddhdhdh t1_jcfntze wrote

Oh no I don’t doubt, I was talking if you’re running Airbnb full time

5

NetQuarterLatte t1_jcfa8gr wrote

That's going to put a dent on the MO of future Wolves of Airbnb.

>A wannabe rental shark who calls himself the “Wolf of Airbnb” was indicted in a scheme to illegally sublet more than a dozen Manhattan apartments while he refused to pay rent, federal prosecutors said Thursday.

https://nypost.com/2022/10/27/wolf-of-airbnb-indicted-in-nyc-rental-scheme/

223

epicxownage t1_jcfh6zm wrote

Man, this guy just hustles harder than you, you’re just simply not smart enough to make money off of breaking the law and exploiting others. /s

Hope he spends a long time in jail

177

iv2892 t1_jcgk46i wrote

This is good but what about banning corporations from owning more than 10 units , or actually , for each aditional unit past 10 they should pay like a 80% tax to discourage excess buying

60

Ein_Bear t1_jcgmax7 wrote

We'd just wind up with hundreds of shell corporations that each own 10 units

50

cC2Panda t1_jcgpluu wrote

Require them to be a primary residence and majority ownership by the owner to pay less taxes.

15

theageofnow t1_jcih627 wrote

Given the vacancy rate in NYC is very low (<1%-3% over the last decade or so), this won’t actually do anything to make it easier to find an apartment for anyone and might just make it harder (by introducing more rules and more small landlords who have more time to be busybodies over micromanaging their tenants in their 10 apartments).

5

coalstuck35 t1_jcjfh8d wrote

This should be adopted nation-wide corporations buying up whole neighborhoods

2

aceshighsays t1_jd3lu7u wrote

this is though, a result of hustle culture. hustle everyone. integrity isn't part of your business plan.

1

ThreeLittlePuigs t1_jcft3bv wrote

I’d bet this is the sorta guy that complains about others abusing the system too.

34

IAmGoingToSleepNow t1_jcg62ar wrote

I wonder if it will. Guy's probably got the verbiage in his lease already that the unit can't be used for short term rental.

> Once it does, platforms such as Airbnb or Homeaway will be unable to process payment for a guest trying to book an unregistered unit

How will the city reject payment? I'm pretty sure they can't approve/deny CC transactions where they're not involved.

We'll see if AirBNB plays along. If they don't, I don't see how enforcement will work.

10

IIAOPSW t1_jcficso wrote

I'm impressed ngl. Its so fucking ballsy you just have to respect it.

−69

2heads1shaft t1_jcg2u96 wrote

Your comment is fucking ballsy and I have 0 respect for you.

10

SpiceyPorkFriedRice t1_jcgb0s6 wrote

Fuck Airbnb. I'll rather get a hotel now than them since they have gotten so expensive. I miss when they were for the broke people lol.

76

SPER t1_jch5ht1 wrote

They are perfectly fine for broke people. I'm looking up a place right now for only $35/nt. For 4 nights it comes out to less than $200! You can't beat that..

(Goes to checkout) Ohh.. $250 cleaning fee, and $75 "service fee" not included.

50

iamiamwhoami t1_jch6a3y wrote

It's still good if you want to rent a house out in the country, but if you're staying in a city you're probably better off with a hotel.

13

ejpusa t1_jcfepqv wrote

There are over 80,000 EMPTY apartments in NYC. My landlord bought out my old rental, sealed it up. For years now, has lost over $300,000 in rental income.

They just don’t care. Waiting for the laws to change.

NYC is the center of the world. To get a $700 a month studio is unrealistic. But that seems like a reality to posters on my Facebook feed. Anything more than that? Blame Airbnb.

Just don’t think that’s going to happen.

67

tiregroove t1_jcffvyk wrote

>For years now, has lost over $300,000 in rental income.

Imagine being a landlord *so wealthy* that you can afford to 'lose' this much money.
Please. Don't cry for these landlords, they're fucking scum trying to manipulate the market.

119

09-24-11 t1_jcfgi2p wrote

Even worse these properties are likely LLCs and they’re writing them off as business expense losses come tax time.

46

ChornWork2 t1_jcftvfg wrote

What do you mean? Sure, may result in a loss for the unit since zero revenue but some expenses means a loss. But all they can do with that is offset tax they may have from profit elsewhere. Still a negative for them.

19

JuniorAct7 t1_jcg0gly wrote

This is correct. They can only deduct rental losses against other passive income. It will lower their taxable income, but almost certainly not enough to offset the lost revenue.

13

kiklion t1_jcg7h5l wrote

It’s considered passive income and there is a cap on how much of that loss can pass through to offset your personal income.

Otherwise it just grows as a prior loss and the expenses are used to offset future revenue, but that only happens if they actually rent out the unit.

4

theageofnow t1_jcihh3n wrote

LLCs are pass-through entities, if the landlord owned the building as a direct partnership or in their own name (no incorporation), it would not affect their tax status or rate.

2

monkeysandmicrowaves t1_jcg5hb7 wrote

Are they able to deduct the market value of the rental, or just the taxes and maintenance costs? If it's the former, I think we've identified a big part of the problem.

1

theageofnow t1_jcihm5r wrote

You can’t deduct money you don’t earn. It’s not writing off an unpaid invoice using the accrual method. You can’t invoice a tenants that’s not there.

2

tsgram t1_jcfg8o0 wrote

Imagine having so much money that you can but extra of a vital resource (housing) and lend it out at a huge profit. It’s like back in the 1800s when some wealthy dick would buy up all the staple food in the port and gouge everyone who needed to eat on resell. Fuck landlords.

35

the_lamou t1_jcfjymi wrote

I mean, asshole landlords aside, who else would you rent apartments from? And if you say "everyone just buys their own," well... that's a really good idea for screwing over recent immigrants and the unbanked who can't qualify for a mortgage, plus all the petite that wouldn't be able to afford to buy even it prices fell by half.

10

99hoglagoons t1_jcfp49r wrote

Not-for profit housing and non-market housing is a thing that is utilized across the world to various degrees of success. This is not to be confused with subsidized social housing (like NYCHA).

We just lack the imagination here to even ask the right questions. Asshole landlords or ownership. Both of these are rooted in for-profit financial transactions. There are a lot of people financially vested in you believing these are the only options.

18

the_lamou t1_jcfu5cv wrote

Not-for profit housing and non-market housing is a thing, but the degrees of success it's used to across the world are "low." Every major city around the world is currently experiencing an affordability crisis (except Tokyo and some other large Japanese cities, but that's a while separate thing.) No one's got it worked out yet.

Personally, I would prefer that rather than handing control of all housing units to the people who did such a great job with the projects, we just fix our renting rules to be more equitable. Things like income-based rent regulations, first-come/first-served requirements in leasing, better tenant protections and maintenance requirements, more rent stabilization with fewer loopholes, limits on number of rental units owned, etc.

From a public policy perspective, I would much rather see a system that creates thousands of small landlords who have essentially built themselves a job than have that money to what would have to be a massive new program.

4

99hoglagoons t1_jcfzct9 wrote

Oh yeah. I was just putting the not-for-profit concept out there. Even if implemented today at a large scale, it would take decades to see any meaningful results. And it's not happening anyways.

> we just fix our renting rules to be more equitable.

This part is going to continue to be a mess. The 2018 IAI reform was well meaning and intended to prevent landlords from evicting long term tenants in order to deregulate units or just significantly jack up prices through various improvement clauses. Or as I call it: "The great dishwasher revolution of 2010-2018". I didn't know a single person who had a dishwasher in NYC prior to that time period, man.

End result of that reform? Landlords are hoarding apartments they deem unprofitable and are waiting for regulatory winds to change. You could throw in clauses to prevent this, but hand of capitalism is insatiable. They keep finding different ways to circumvent. Combine units to deregulate is the latest and greatest. That empty unit is waiting for an adjacent unit to become vacant so they can go to work.

> Every major city around the world is currently experiencing an affordability crisis

Direct result of almost zero interest loans that have turned real estate into a wealth hedging tool. The recent uptick in interest rates is the best thing that could happen to affordability, but even that will take a decade plus to play out, and most likely it will not be allowed to play out. Interest rates will drop to near zero again just in time for corporations to buy out the next round of foreclosures.

We've been through all of this before.

6

[deleted] t1_jcg0uu5 wrote

[deleted]

−8

99hoglagoons t1_jcg1m3i wrote

> We live in a free market my friend.

I don't know where to even begin with this absolutist statement. NYC housing market is a pasta bowl of regulated and unregulated rules and regulations. Like, anyone living here should at least know the basics.

Are you typing this from Florida?

11

[deleted] t1_jcgmdtd wrote

[deleted]

−10

99hoglagoons t1_jcgq1ui wrote

I own in the city. Not looking for a handout. But I also rented here for very long time and have sympathy for renters who have to deal with negligent landlords who will fuck you over by denying basic services or plain force you out in name of chasing the profits. Been there.

Places where not-for-profit housing exists, you are basically paying a COOP fee instead of rent, and that fee covers cost of all operating expenses. Underlying mortgage, common utilities, maintenance, etc. No private profit is levied on top of that. Over the years such housing becomes really inexpensive. This is not some commie plot to nationalize housing. Variations of this have existed for a century in NYC. For the last 2 decades+ we have been balls deep into "private for profit developers" will magically make housing more affordable. Not happening. Not here, or anywhere else that took this neoliberal approach.

5

columbo928s4 t1_jche1j4 wrote

no, actually we don't. we live in a mixed market economy

2

n3vd0g t1_jcfkhbc wrote

Government.

Edit: for the people who truly believe that current state of the rental market isn’t already the dystopian hellscape they believe gov owned housing would be https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE Edit: Also, Adam Smith has some great words on the subject https://www.reddit.com/r/adamsmith/comments/zche7/ysk_adam_smith_spoke_of_landlords_as_cruel/

6

NetQuarterLatte t1_jcg6ybu wrote

NYC invests in the "right to shelter" to the tune of 5k per bed per month.

At those price levels, swimming pool amenities are possible even in Manhattan...

3

filenotfounderror t1_jcfrnpf wrote

imagine how fucked in the head you would have to be to think "the government owns all the rental housing" isnt some dystopian nightmare 10x worse than whatever already exists.

2

n3vd0g t1_jcfv2mn wrote

Youve clearly never heard of Austria 🙄

1

filenotfounderror t1_jcfx5qn wrote

i dont know what that means.

  1. The government doesn't own all the rental property in Austria, though im sure it s subject to local laws.

  2. The Austrian Government has nothing to do with the US government. I am not familiar with Austrian politics, but the US govt is almost entirely dysfunctional at every level, usually on purpose, for a variety of reasons.

  3. i imagine the Austrian housing market in vastly different from the US housing market

  4. Regulating the entire rental market in the US in such a fashion would probably destroy billions, probably trillions of dollars in wealth for mostly retired Americans because housing prices would instantly crater. So on top of being entirely politically unfeasible it also just bad policy. All your doing is stealing for one person to give to another.

4

n3vd0g t1_jcga0at wrote

  1. Vienna’s city government owns and manages 220,000 housing units, which represent about 25 percent of the city’s housing stock. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_011314.html Not suggesting all, but would like a substantial amount.

  2. Excuses. No reason we can’t work for a better government

  3. Yeah in that it regulates stock to maintain affordability and availability and allows for government ownership of dignified low income housing

  4. You really think the current rental prices aren’t already theft from one generation to another? Regardless, this is what social security is supposed to be for. We shouldn’t be encouraging owning rental properties as a means to retirement. Retirement should be a guaranteed right, but not like this. Regardless, this is unsustainable and I’m not going to cry over lost profits since society would still be for the better. Like come on man

4

JX_JR t1_jchuqus wrote

New York's city government owns and manages 178,684 units, about 6% of the housing stock. They manage it exceptionally poorly, nobody wants to live there, and they are routinely sued for their inability to keep units in repair and supplied with heat and hot water.

2

drpvn t1_jcflhjl wrote

This is some dystopian shit.

1

n3vd0g t1_jcfv63q wrote

Yeah, Austria is soooo dystopian

2

the_lamou t1_jcfxrt0 wrote

Most of Austria's social housing stock isn't owned by the government, but rather by private companies who operate a landlords within a tightly regulated system. It's no different than NYC's affordable housing lottery, albeit with a larger percentage of new units being allocated and better regulation. But it's not remotely accurate to say "the government owns the housing." Private landlords own the housing. They just lease it under the government's watch.

1

n3vd0g t1_jcg9358 wrote

> Vienna’s city government owns and manages 220,000 housing units, which represent about 25 percent of the city’s housing stock. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_011314.html

Yet still a substantial amount is owned by the government and the program is wildly successful. It is very very different.

3

the_lamou t1_jcgchn9 wrote

It's about half of all subsidized units, and has been in major drawdown mode for a while, shifting more units from government-owned to private-owned-but-regulated.

Their biggest advantage when it comes to housing prices is the ability to grow outwards. The city is essentially surrounded entirely by farmland, and as their population grew they were able to easily build new developments on what was formerly empty fields on the outskirts of the city. This is where a lot of the subsidized units come from - relatively recent new development undertaken as a public/private partnership.

NYC is not only incredibly densely populated (about 3x Vienna) but that population density extends out throughout the immediate metro area. For NYC to replicate it would require either deploying large swaths of small homes in the outer borroughs and converting them to midrises (which will cost billions upon billions of dollars and piss off a ton of long-time New Yorkers,) OR start building city-subsidized units in Duchess County and out near Dover, NJ.

1

n3vd0g t1_jcgm66t wrote

> It's about half of all subsidized units, and has been in major drawdown mode for a while, shifting more units from government-owned to private-owned-but-regulated.

If this is true, then it doesn't seem to be doing them any favors. Housing prices are rising sharply as a result. https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Austria/Price-History

> NYC is not only incredibly densely populated (about 3x Vienna) but that population density extends out throughout the immediate metro area. For NYC to replicate it would require either deploying large swaths of small homes in the outer borroughs and converting them to midrises (which will cost billions upon billions of dollars and piss off a ton of long-time New Yorkers,)

So just do nothing then? That's your solution? Our country is in crisis and all we seem to do is virtue signal about homelessness while only actually caring about landowners. Do you know how much we spent on the Iraq war alone? Billions upon billions is quite literally nothing to the American government and that money would be cycled into people's pockets as people would be employed during this process to build these things.

2

the_lamou t1_jcgyrqt wrote

>Housing prices are rising sharply

Housing prices are rising sharply everywhere because we literally cannot keep up with demand. What do you want the government to do about that? Forcibly seize land and force people to build houses on it? Or would you rather we sterilize half the population to prevent demand growth?

Home prices generally go up over time, if for no other reason than inflation goes up over time, and there's absolutely no way to stop that short of extremely unpleasant solutions.

>So just do nothing then? That's your solution?

No, it's not. I've outlined several solutions throughout this thread. Some are temporary stop-gaps. Others are actual solutions. But the only long-term solution is to build more housing (probably outside the city) and increase wages. That's it. It's not magic, and it's the only thing that'll really work. Supplement that with subsidization for people incapable of working, and you're done. BUT that might mean that you live in Poughkeepsie and have an hour and 45 minute commute into the city. Which, frankly, you can already do.

>Do you know how much we spent on the Iraq war alone?

Yeah. About two trillion dollars direct by the federal government. What I don't understand is how you think federal spending has any bearing on state and city spending.

But even assuming that this comparison made sense, let's say you wanted to build some apartments in NYC. We'll assume that the average zoning district in NYC is R6, and we use the smallest possible minimum lot size as a proxy for average apartment land cost. So that's 1,700 square feet, of which at least 40% has to be open space, leaving us with a building of 1020 square feet. That allows you to build about 1.5 units of housing per zoning regulations at a land cost of about $78,000 per unit.

NYC is (conservatively) short 1,000,000 units. That's about $8 billion JUST in land cost. Even if we upzone like crazy, and can cut that in half, we're talking $4 billion in current land cost. And if the city actually tried to do this, the land cost would go up significantly due to supply and demand pressure.

The actual building is going to cost about $350 per square foot. At 1.5 units per 1020 square feet, we're talking about an extra $240,000 per unit. So now we're at $316,000 in costs per unit, or 1/3rd of a trillion dollars, and that's being extremely conservative. Even if you assume the federal government pays for all or part of it, that solves one small problem in one small corner of the country while doing nothing to address everywhere else. And if you take this model and sissy it throughout the US, that $300 billion turns into $30 trillion easy, which is about double the annual US federal budget.

Plus, your plan requires us to forcibly kick people out of their family homes to make room for other people, which is a truly shitty thing to do.

One possible way around this is a combination of the Austrian system with the Athenian antiparochi system: the city partners with developers to go to low-density homeowners and say "you give us your land to develop, we build multifamily housing on it, in return you get a couple of units in the new building to do with what you want, some of the units are market rate, and half are subsidized housing, and we'll also upzone the property to make sure the developer has enough profit motive to handle the building." Combine that with a gradual upzoning of neighborhoods from the center out and within a decade or two, we might get to a point where supply meets demand.

In the meantime, we should continue fighting for a living wage. And, if you want cheap rent, you may just have to live outside the city, because unfortunately there are not enough units for everyone that wants one, and the only fair way of dividing resources when demand exceeds supply is to price some people out. Because no matter how good it may feel, hysterics on Reddit don't actually stove anything.

0

n3vd0g t1_jch17z5 wrote

> Because no matter how good it may feel, hysterics on Reddit don't actually stove anything.

Lol hysterics? So rude jfc

> Housing prices are rising sharply everywhere because we literally cannot keep up with demand. What do you want the government to do about that? Forcibly seize land and force people to build houses on it? Or would you rather we sterilize half the population to prevent demand growth? Home prices generally go up over time, if for no other reason than inflation goes up over time, and there's absolutely no way to stop that short of extremely unpleasant solutions.

First off, you're gonna claim hysterics while putting that genocide straw man on me? ok. Second, yeah, I have no problem with seizing land that people are just sitting on. It's called eminent domain and I support it when necessary. inb4 "it's been abused in the past"

> Plus, your plan requires us to forcibly kick people out of their family homes to make room for other people, which is a truly shitty thing to do.

When did I ever say I'm kicking families out. Since when is a giant landlord that owns multiple buildings in nyc a "single family"? Again, straw man. It's naive to think this doesn't happen already anyways. It happens by landlords on a scale that is plainly ridiculous. And many times, the landlords don't even do substantional renovations or add units. They paint over shit, fix a few cabinets, add some appliances and hike the rent up by another grand a month.

> Yeah. About two trillion dollars direct by the federal government. What I don't understand is how you think federal spending has any bearing on state and city spending.

You do realize that part of a state's budget comes directly from federal allocations too, correct? You know how government works right? Like, not all infrastructure spending in a state is solely financed by that state.

I mean, whatever man. It's not like either of us will get our way anyways

2

the_lamou t1_jch3dag wrote

>First off, you're gonna claim hysterics while putting that genocide straw man on me? ok.

Check your sarcasm detector, buddy.

&#x200B;

>Second, yeah, I have no problem with seizing land that people are just sitting on

Well, if by "just sitting on" you mean "living in with their families," and you're still ok with it, that's a pretty shitty attitude. Not to get all hyperbolic on you or anything, but maybe we shouldn't endorse forcibly seizing people's family land given this country's history.

&#x200B;

>When did I ever say I'm kicking families out. Since when is a giant landlord that owns multiple buildings in nyc a "single family"?

You didn't say that, but nevertheless that's what it's going to take. Why would we seize a giant landlord's multiple densely-zoned buildings? Those are already providing plenty of housing, and demolishing them isn't likely to increase density in any meaningful fashion.

No, the only way to get the city to have enough residential units is to go out to Queens and Brooklyn and the Bronx, go to the neighborhoods which are currently single-family, duplex, and triplex homes, demolish every single one of them, and replace them with 4+ story 12+ unit housing. I know you're dead set on making this entirely an "ooga booga big landlord" problem, but it isn't. Big landlords build big buildings because that's how they maximize returns. The current housing shortage is a SMALL landlord, family-owned small building problem.

&#x200B;

>It's naive to think this doesn't happen already. It happens by landlords anyways on a scale that is plainly ridiculous.

Sorry, WHAT happens? You need to provide a little more clarity, because the "it" here can refer to a number of different things.

&#x200B;

>And many times, the landlords don't even do substantional renovations or add units. They paint over shit, fix a few cabinets, add some appliances and hike the rent up by another grand a month.

What do renovations have to do with substantial new development? You're going all over the place, because I suspect what you want isn't actually affordable housing. What you want is a bright, spacious, freshly-renovated apartment with all the latest amenities, in a cool neighborhood, for 1/10th market rate.

&#x200B;

>You do realize that part of a state's budget comes directly from federal allocations too, correct? You know how government works right? Like, not all infrastructure spending in a state is solely financed by that state.

Yes, I actually am very well of where infrastructure spending comes from. Given that I actually showed you the math, which you seem to not have understood in the least, I would say I likely understand it a lit better than you do. For example, I understand that in FY2019 (the last year before shit hit the fan,) the federal government provided about $711 billion dollars in grants to states. Which would pay for a massive upzoning and new construction project in two major cities, while leaving zero federal dollars for any other state programs. You ready to tell people they're going to have to give up their Medicaid so that you can have a shiny, new apartment?

−1

drpvn t1_jcfxit9 wrote

Oh shit I was in Vienna once and it was really pretty although insanely expensive and a random guy on Reddit just suggested that the Austrian government acts as a landlord so I guess I have no choice but to agree that landlords should be banned

−2

n3vd0g t1_jcg95n0 wrote

Vienna’s city government owns and manages 220,000 housing units, which represent about 25 percent of the city’s housing stock. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_011314.html

3

drpvn t1_jcgb2d5 wrote

Well there it is, I am now forced to admit that landlords should be made illegal.

What’s the first step? Passing legislation that requires all landlords to either stop renting property or turn over their property to the state?

−1

tsgram t1_jcfn6vd wrote

Maybe landlords in a less predatory way, or a govt agency (yea….. I know that would be super corrupt in this country), or maybe if we hit the reset button on housing economics we don’t also need banks leeching people’s money to the extent they do because housing becomes more affordable.

2

the_lamou t1_jcfsg6c wrote

Right, so the issue isn't "landlords," per se. The issue is predatory behavior and unaffordable rents. Banning landlords might solve the predatory behavior issue (although, considering the number of scandals NYC's affordable housing lottery has had, I wouldn't be quite so sure.) But it definitely wouldn't solve the affordability crisis, because there are simply not enough units for everyone that wants one, and the prices that people think are "affordable" are hilariously low. Like, not remotely realistic virtually anywhere in the country, let alone in the unofficial capital of the world.

As for banks leeching money, I genuinely don't know what you mean. Are you saying you should be able to get a long-term loan without paying interest?

1

DepletedMitochondria t1_jcfrroa wrote

I mean that's how the original robber barons made their money, they were sitting on natural monopolies in rail, oil, and steel. Bribed the government to give them the contracts

3

[deleted] t1_jcfp7tu wrote

[deleted]

−6

one_pierog t1_jcftu7g wrote

Student housing is extremely easy to address with university-owned options, which has the bonus of making things a hell of a lot easier. Dorms are already very common at the sort of schools one would attend from across the country.

4

MarbleFox_ t1_jcgcr4k wrote

> Imagine owning a home, getting sent on military deployment and that home just sitting empty rather than it be legal to rent it out while away.

I’m not sure I see the problem here. Besides, how many active military personnel without families also own homes?

> Imagine your children are accepted to a great college far away but they can’t go because you can’t afford to buy a second home near that college.

No one said universities can’t have dorms.

> The problem is the shortage of housing units.

The shortage of housing units is certainly a problem, but the price inflation landlording necessarily creates is also a major problem.

2

Double-Ad4986 t1_jcgc7qn wrote

exactly. it should be illegal to have these apt's not be used here. we should write legislation that if a building or unit stay unoccupied for more than 2 yrs then it's either able to get bought out or it's fined heavily for every single month that it's continued to be unoccupied for.

14

ChornWork2 t1_jcfti73 wrote

There is non-zero cost to dealing with a renter. If a landlord is refusing to rent out a price controlled unit, it is telling about how far off from market that price is at.

Enduring price controls are simply bad policy. All for measures that give renters more price protections beyond the initial lease term, but they shouldn't be perpetual. E.g., tenant has right to three renewals beyond current term of lease with rent increase capped at X%.

3

survive_los_angeles t1_jcftrq7 wrote

some of them have some looooooooooooong money. shit that family that owned dumbo had all that property for decades and decades before dumbo got developed. no skin off their nose to wait a generation or two for an area to develop or squeeze a market to higher rents --

3

Getoutofthekitchenn t1_jchsls6 wrote

I don't think anyone is "crying for these landlords"

I also don't think that sweeping generalizations about what makes a landlord are beneficial to anyone, particularly the thousands of duplex, 3 and 4 family owned homes in and around the city. Being a landlord does not by default make someone rich, nor does it make them shitty.

This narrative has been beat to death and is really hurting small landlords who are one non paying tenant away from mortgage default. Or using this as their retirement income..

1

ejpusa t1_jcfgy1z wrote

Yes and no. They’re developers. They take financial risk to resurrect neighborhoods. Remember you DID NOT go past Ave A in the early 80s, you just didn’t do that.

Dumbo? Deserted.

Williamsburg? Used to see cars there on fire at 3 AM. Not anymore.

Yes, we all hate developers, some go bankrupt, others build Industry City.

Franklin Avenue, way back when, I saw bodies in the street, another shooting, going to the Deli. Now? It’s hipster central.

A 2 edge sword awaits as they call it.

PS I try to lay low from humans, defer to AI. Much smarter than us. It just is. Life got too complicated, AI seems to do just fine. The more complex and complicated, it loves that kind of stuff. And zero emotional involvement. Not perfect, but sure close.

AI should really take over managing the city. It’s inevitable.

:-)

−18

[deleted] t1_jcfp6jc wrote

[deleted]

6

ejpusa t1_jcfri3o wrote

We’re an AI startup. It’s crazy time. We have to hide out.

:-)

−6

chale122 t1_jcfz4pz wrote

fuck is wrong with you

2

ejpusa t1_jcg0zbg wrote

Yes, we’re prototyping AI systems to make city living more manageable. Also healthcare.

The new ChatGPT 4 is mind blowing.

I’ll leave with this quote from the CEO himself:

> Google CEO: A.I. is more important than fire or electricity.

Suggestion? Don’t fight it, learn it. Like today. There is no going back.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/01/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-ai-is-more-important-than-fire-electricity.html

−2

CactusBoyScout t1_jcfnpe0 wrote

500,000 people moved here in one decade while only 100,000 new units were built. Even if every Airbnb and every empty unit returned to long-term renters, we’d still have a housing shortage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_housing_shortage

16

WikiSummarizerBot t1_jcfnr70 wrote

New York City housing shortage

>For many decades, the New York metropolitan area has suffered from an increasing shortage of housing. As a result, New York City has the second-highest rents of any city in the United States. Shortage has long been usual. World War I and World War II left housing shortages that persisted in peacetime.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

9

azdak t1_jcgqlul wrote

just because you cant totally eliminate a problem doesn't mean you shouldn't try to improve things

6

CactusBoyScout t1_jcgy80t wrote

Yeah I’m just saying let’s focus on the larger issue: the shortage of housing.

The aforementioned vacant units and Airbnb units aren’t nearly as big of a problem as NYC’s chronic under building of housing.

9

theageofnow t1_jciib84 wrote

The success and profitability of AirBnB is due to the demand for lodging, temporary and permanent, shadowing the small amount of supply. If apartments (and hostels, SROs, and other options) were abundant and plentiful and easy to come by, then far fewer people would be using AirBnBs as temporary housing.

1

ejpusa t1_jcfomj4 wrote

NYC is very, very, very simple.

If you want the amenities the city provides, you need to make more money.

You can find an apartment upstate for the price of a single dinner in NYC. There’s your option.

So can we can wrap up the conversation. Just head North, to a prison town. Apartments are many.

As my friend from one of those “other cities” is fond of saying: OMG, does every girl look like a super model in NYC? How can you survive this on a daily basis? This is INSANE!

But we did drop him off in the Meat Packing District, may have had something to do with it.

Needless to say, NYC ain’t going to be cheap. The amenities are many.

:-)

−15

CactusBoyScout t1_jcfs9r6 wrote

Telling people to just move elsewhere hasn’t worked so far. Good luck with that strategy.

6

DutchmanNY t1_jcfx0d4 wrote

It's really the only answer. Everyone can't just live wherever they want. You gotta pay to play. (Unless you're seeking asylum of course)

−3

CactusBoyScout t1_jcfylhm wrote

Unfortunately virtually every major city says the same thing and that’s why this is a problem nationwide. People can’t just all move to Utica where the lackluster economy is the reason for the cheap rent.

Every city/state that saw the slightest influx of people during the pandemic is now saying the same thing: Don’t come here.

It’s not a realistic response to increased demand. Just have to build more housing.

5

ejpusa t1_jcg1lgn wrote

On Zillow my UES is a sea of rentals. The average income is well into the 6 figures.

People want $700 a month apartment, it’s unrealistic, but it’s their hill to die on for them.

NYC has the greatest amenities in the world, to have that all $0? Just don’t that’s possible. Figure that should average out to about $50 extra a day vs living in Cincinnati.

0

tonka737 t1_jci9sfy wrote

Wouldn't Dubai have greater amenities?

1

theageofnow t1_jciifd4 wrote

Upstate towns with prisons probably have higher rents than those that don’t even have any major employer like that

1

ejpusa t1_jd8539h wrote

Makes sense, but does not work out that way. These communities can be so soul crushing. Rents reflect that. It's really rural America, not many people are rushing to work in maximum security prisons, most people want to work for Apple. Those jobs just don't exist in those communities. There is nothing. Just the prisons.

1

filenotfounderror t1_jcfr9ik wrote

Thats extremely unlikely. Maybe it could theoretically rent for that it wasnt regulated, but it obviously is, so the actual rent he could collect on the unit is a fraction of that.

Its sealed up because the cost to renovate the unit is likely so much higher than the rent he could legally charge that he would never recoup the cost.

and having someone in the unit that may not even be legally habitable, or just barely habitable, to collect bread crumbs and field 20x service calls a week is not worth the hassle.

He likely bought it with an understanding that the laws likely will change at some point. But he could also be wrong and they might not change, or at least not in a time frame he can take advantage of.

10

ejpusa t1_jcfry95 wrote

It’s a mega real estate developer, they build skyscrapers. They can wait years until the numbers work out for them. They’re in no rush.

It’s a family thing. They look ahead generations.

My sink gets stopped up? A phone call and a full plumbing crew is at my door, usually in an hour. I got lucky.

;-)

−2

jay5627 t1_jcfwrw4 wrote

How many of the 80k apartments are in liveable shape?

7

ejpusa t1_jcfzyba wrote

Who knows? My last apartment, now totally sealed up almost 4 years now.

People are freaking out that they want to pay no more than $700 a month for a NYC apartments. Anything else is robbery! And blame it all on Airbnb.

Just think that’s unrealistic.

What is your number? 1 bedroom, UES, awesome neighborhood, pretty much zero issues.

What should be the rent?

−5

jay5627 t1_jcg1m2a wrote

People throw out large numbers to make a point, but a sizeable amount of those units are in really bad shape, and financially not worth it for the owner to fix since they won't be able to recoup the costs because of the rent control/stabilization laws.

People freak out about a lot of things, doesn't make them right. I do think we're mostly aligned, though.

Current market, if it's a walk up, no doorman, around $2500. With amenities, I'd say $3500

9

sketchingthebook t1_jcizg2l wrote

Honest question from a setting where I cannot easily Google: don’t landlords have some leeway to un-stabilize a vacant apartment?

1

jay5627 t1_jckbqkn wrote

high rent and high income used to be two big ways they would become unregulated, which is no longer a possibility after the changes in 2019. 421-A abatements would have to expire, or owners would have to combine units to deregulate them. I believe they can also put a lot of money into renovations and then raise the rent a % of the money they put into the reno

1

ejpusa t1_jcg2thv wrote

I agree, but there are MANY people posting away about real estate that think anything over $700 is INSANITY! And are you on meds?

New Yorkers love to fight about real estate. We’ve been doing it 1640.

;-)

−2

sbenfsonw t1_jcgzelm wrote

$700 will never be realistic, more people will just move over if prices drop to keep demand high enough

6

theageofnow t1_jcihcfu wrote

There are 3.5 million units of housing, there should be more, so much more that vacancy rises above 10% and rents start to collapse like they did in Fall 2020.

1

Spirited_Touch6898 t1_jczq289 wrote

The real story, that old rental needs a shit ton of renovations if it cost $700. So after 80k in renovations, you can raise rent $50 to 750$/month of rent. You can invest same 80k in a savings account at 5%, and get half of that income with no risk of a deadbeat tenant, or risk of servicing the apartment, I'm guessing the hitting costs alone cost $100/month. You could also get more $$ investing into the dozens of REITs trading in the stock market. If I was a landlord, I would only rent out those apartments as a favor to somebody I know. Remember how the tenants during covid were braggin on Reddit they were screwing over the landlords, well its payback time. One scumbag, who prolly makes over 100k working an office job, stopped paying his rent "in solidarity" with all the other neighbors who stopped paying rent cause they were laid off.

1

mowotlarx t1_jcfiwdt wrote

I was under the impression all Airbnbs under a 30-day stay were already banned a long time ago. So I'm always surprised when I see headlines like this.

53

DaoFerret t1_jcfolnk wrote

All “short term rentals” (under 30 days) without the official renter also staying there (renting a room is a completely different story) have, and continue to be, illegal according to the city law.

Doesn’t mean people don’t do it anyway.

41

grandlewis t1_jcfwoi9 wrote

Haven’t you heard of “move fast and break things”? Tech lords need to make a few billion without worrying about things like laws and neighborhoods.

24

upnflames t1_jcg8myz wrote

Airbnb is becoming a catchall term for STR's these days - truth is, you really don't need Airbnb to stay booked anymore. All you need is a direct booking website and a small budget for Instagram ads. That's how I get about half of my bookings. My rental is legitimately registered with the town it's in, so I'm fine either way, but there is literally no enforcement of anything on the direct side. It would be damn near impossible for a city to catch it if that's the only place you listed.

13

HonestPerspective638 t1_jcgcr0s wrote

they can make the fine and penalty so punative you would reconsider taking the chance... eventually they will find a way to track. Itnot that hard without giving away too much

3

upnflames t1_jcgff3o wrote

I mean, they could. They probably won't though. They can barely do it when it's handed to them through a multi billion dollar company, the odds of them tracking a direct booking through a private site is slim to none.

The person doesn't even have to be a US citizen to pull this off. Create a US LLC, rent the apartment through a broker, hire a shady property manager under the table and run the whole thing remotely. The only reason people use Airbnb is because it's easy. If they made it harder, people would just go around.

3

lickedTators t1_jcf5n3x wrote

This seems like landlords signing up in the official registry. That implies they've already banned Airbnb on an individual basis. This isn't freeing up any rental stock in the short term. It can lead to more signups or better enforcement if a tenant is secretly trying to run an Airbnb.

38

STUPIDNEWCOMMENTS t1_jcfljz2 wrote

Yes this is exactly what it is. My building has always prohibited, now we can register with city so it’s know by the companies

17

sammnyc t1_jcg7ef7 wrote

A friend group of mine recently visited the city for a week, there were six of them. They managed to find a brownstone on Airbnb which, because it's the whole building, is within compliance of rentals under 30 days.

There's only so many of those, though. They looked at hotels, of course no rooms had space for the whole group, no kitchen, etc. Add on resort fees (sorry, 'urban destination' fees), and rooms are easily over $350 a night.

I don't know what the solution is, and sadly don't have one to offer. But saying pricey hotels or bust is a disappointing future imo.

9

seenew t1_jcyzw7t wrote

there are plenty of hotels that are not $350 a night. Fuck Airbnb. We have too many homeless in this city to treat our housing like this.

0

HonestPerspective638 t1_jcgc3bg wrote

It should be citiwide ban and fines starting at 10K for AirB you don't live in. Here in NYC

9

TheSuburbs t1_jcfvrv8 wrote

Our landlord/real estate agent decided to rent the apartment above us as a an AIR bnb. We are in a small 3 unit building in queens. Fuck air bnb

8

IntoTheWest t1_jchhf5o wrote

Unpopular opinion the solution isn’t to ban Airbnb it’s to build more housing

2

amy_mighty_travels t1_jcgfk7u wrote

That's a fantastic picture! NYC has had a long and interesting history that's worth exploring. I remember visiting the Tenement Museum in the Lower East Side with my family — it's a great snapshot into what New York City life was like in the past.

1

ninbushido t1_jch9o4p wrote

sigh. Does nothing to really address the massive housing shortage — AirBnBs are such a tiny sliver of the total stock and reflect a lack of affordable hotel space (which we also de facto banned the construction of in 2021 for stupid reasons). There is so much empty space above our buildings for more housing and instead we’re stuck in the mentality of rationing scraps while we are at the lowest rates of housing per-capita housing construction rates in 50 years. Extremely bleak.

1

katarinamightytravel t1_jciorzj wrote

Interestingly, I lived in one of those buildings that banned Airbnb rentals - it was a great way to find a balance between a safe living environment and protecting property values. That said, it's not a bad idea for those who live in buildings without the ban to be aware of their own leases.

1

shep_pat t1_jcj4j8d wrote

Why should they tell you what you can do with your incredibly overpriced apartment?

1

katarinamightytravel t1_jclm5n8 wrote

It appears that this trend is becoming increasingly popular, as many landlords are trying to avoid the hassle of dealing with tenants who are only in town for a short period of time. I had a similar experience when I moved to NYC; my landlord initially refused to lease to me because the rental wasn't for a full year. But luckily, I was able to work with the landlord and find a solution that worked for both of us!

1

Pkytails t1_jcgj9j7 wrote

NYC hotel lobby has God like powerS

−4

ELONGATEDSNAIL t1_jcgqb4s wrote

This is a good thing. You don't want airbnbs in the city. Imagine your "neighbor" is a revolving door of tourists and people visiting nyc to party. You could complain to your landlord but he dosent give a shit because he just made in a week what you pay monthly.

10

Pkytails t1_jcgqrke wrote

Nah I disagree. How people know their neighbors today, or who lives in the apt next to you? Airbnb majority of the time just people trying to enjoy a city without being ripped off by hotels. But what does it matter.. it’s NYC we are prey!

−7

ELONGATEDSNAIL t1_jch2fb2 wrote

From my experience not knowing your neighbors is a good thing. The only neighbors i knew were a complete pain in my ass. If you don't want to get ripped off don't come to nyc.

2

MarbleFox_ t1_jcn45qi wrote

Sometime lobbies do things that are a net positive, like this.

1

Sun_Devilish t1_jci2hoz wrote

Only the ruling class is allowed to use capital to generate income.

−4