Bill Could Make Vacation Rentals Illegal

All this bill would do is strengthen a law that’s already on the books but was too poorly worded. The bill would close those gaps and make it illegal for building owners to use their buildings illegally has hotels, a tactic that is used to harasses tenants from their homes. Wish this reporter would have done her homework.

As a member of the coalition who works to stop illegal hotels, this bill is aimed directly at landlords and property managers who are taking affordable housing units from an already tight housing market and renting them as hotel rooms. My organization, Housing Conservation Coordinators, (http://hcc-nyc.org/), has received countless complaints from tenants in these buildings about noise, harassment, crime, and decreases in services as landlords convert empty units into hotel rooms. Additionally, many tourists are not aware that they are renting units in buildings that do not conform to fire safety standards that are designed to protect transient occupants. Overcrowding, no secondary means of egress, and illegal construction violations are often found in these buildings—all creating serious fire hazards! The Mayor’s Office that oversees this is small and will be focused on the big violators who have illegally converted apartments building into hotels, like Hotel Toshi who one of the many big operators using AirBnB. Tenants in one of Hotel Toshi’s buildings, for example, did not get packages for months because the “hostel staff” that replaced their super, would throw them out. Further, the bill does NOT take away a person’s right to sublet or rent out an extra room or bed in apartment is important. I repeat, subletting is not made illegal with this bill.

Wait....so they conform to safety standards for people that want to live in them for a year... but not overnight? Sounds like those safety standards need to be re-addressed if you ask me.

I'm glad this won't effect subletting, but I don't understand the "problem" you're trying to solve, and I seriously hope we're not paying you with taxpayer money.

Would this legislation apply to house swaps, where no money changes hands (like in that bad Cameron Diaz / Kate Winslet movie)?

If someone stays in my home while I stay in theirs, and neither of us collects money from the other, how is that different from letting your friend crash for a couple of nights while you're away?

I love in a nice doorman building with my spouse and two kids. To rent in this building, I had to submit to a credit check, produce pay statements, and list my prior landlord so my references could be checked.

I've got a problem with my neighbor potentially renting out their apartment by the week or night to unscreened strangers who could be pedophiles for all I know. Don't go on vacation if you can't afford it without subletting your space.

You've got a problem with your neighbor renting their apartment out? Take that up with your landlord. Most leases prohibit unapproved sublets, no matter how short the duration is.

Did they run a check on your criminal history? Did they run a drug test? No, they really only care that you can probably pay them in order to live there. Not that you're a good person around kids. Though, I do respect your concern, I grew up in a building with plenty of nut-jobs. It's just part of NYC. Move to the suburbs if you want to shelter them.

This is typically where the doorman luxury would come in, right? He just flat out won't let anyone not on the lease into your apartment.

This is New York. Legislation is meaningless when money is involved. All parties, from renters too lessees to landlords to illegal hotel conversions will find a way around some stupid law passed by bribed officials. All you need to do is go to Bide-a-wee and get a cat.

Every damned day the busybodies in government dream up new ways to intrude on your life and take away your liberties.

Fuck off!

The bottom line is that our unconscionable pols are trying to wring every last dollar out of us peons.

Wouldn't you say that raising the tax rate (BTW, comparatively lower than yours or mine to begin with) on Wall Street bonuses of 180 billion (paid from our tax dollars) for their outstanding performance in 2009 may be a more effective solution?

Ain't gonna happen my friends because the deck is stacked against. We "citizens/constituents" could never collectively come up with the campaign financing cash contributed by a single multi-national corporation.

Is this seriously the only answer anyone has to ANYTHING anymore? TAX WALL STREET! TAX RICH PEOPLE! It's never fire the government officials we're paying to draft this legislation, a.k.a cut government spending.

I agree that it's unconscionable that these banks racked up records profits (upon which they will pay taxes and interest on TARP) in 2009, but that is OUR FAULT (the taxpayer). We never should have (allowed our elected representatives) bailed them out to begin with, and should have just let them fail like they deserved to.

And somehow, our smart legislators and their legal staffs can't figure out a way to word this bill so that it targets landlords treating apartments as hotel rooms but lets individuals do an occasional vacation rental.

"The hotel industry, obviously."

It'd be interesting to look at lobbying reports and campaign contribution records in the wake of this thing.

"The city is not going to knock on doors."

In other words, another useless bill that is arbitrarily enforced, most likely at times when the city needs to drum up cash.

About as useful as the "No spitting on the sidewalk" law in Chinatown.

I'm all for making a few bucks by renting out your room.

At the same time ""If you can save $150 a night on your visit to New York City, who is harmed?"

The hotel industry, obviously.

Spending any amount of time drafting legislation like this is a waste of taxpayer money.

The fucking government is useless. Bow to market forces.

The taxpayers include hotels so obviously not a waste.

And, yes, I believe this is a complete waste of money for any taxpayer, even a hotel, because it's putting government restrictions on allowing the market to determine real prices.

If this type of stuff could economically put the hotel industry out of business... then the hotel business is overpriced and should fail.

And the people subletting their apts are not part of 'the market'.

They're not real businesses (ie calculating costs and services into price), which is why hotels can't compete.

Sure they are. They may not be organized LLCs, but you have costs (landlord rent) and services (electricity/cable/internet), you pay taxes, etc. They deserve to compete just like anyone else. The difference in this case is that the hotel is looking to profit, and the individual subletting their apartment is just looking to lose less money than they normally fork up in the ass-raping dead end system we call "The Rental Market".

The hotel business will survive in the long run, whereas the individual will eventually want to stop losing money.

That's not a valid argument.

Renters don't justify rent based on income form the apartment.

Landlords don't justify their mortgage with short-term users either.

Both are just looking to make a quick buck with an empty room, and can take any price and make a profit.

Hotels are in the business of short stay, and have costs associated with that business, that have to be factored in.

It's the same reason why people are able to sell 'loosies' on the street and make a profit right next to the store selling packs.

Why isn't that argument "valid"?

I really don't understand what point your making.

"Renters don't justify rent based on income from the apartment."

A person who sublets somebody's apartment typically pays less money than the person on the actual lease. If they charge more than the market, nobody (smart) will pay it normally because they sacrifice too much to be in some strangers apartment short term. Orrr, maybe it's summer and you live on the ocean, in which case, you can find people who will pay above market in the summer, but below in the winter. So, they don't justify rent based on the "income" from the apartment, but they justify it based on demand....which is sorta income, no? Is this what you're talking about?

And, Landlords absolutely justify their mortgages based on however many in place tenants they have leases with. So, even if somebody sublets their apartment for a month, they're still on the lease for a year, and the landlord justifies his mortgage based on your year long tenancy.

The only person "profiting" from this scenario is the Landlord who presumably pays less for his mortgage than he charges his tenants.

Hotels ARE in the business of short stay, and the only difference between them and the "landlords" we just described is they have a new rent roll (tenant base) every day. So, they have to be better at fluctuating prices based on the market to attract "tenants". What type of cost is unique to a hotel? I guess franchise costs, and you pay more employees, food and beverage maybe (but you should profit off of that).

People stay in hotels for guaranteed quality, standard furnishing, not having to clean anything, etc. If they're willing to pay less and stay in a strangers apartment with their weird cats and no room service, they absolutely should have that option.

And if people don't want to save money by buying a whole pack of cigarettes (leasing an apartment), but want to pay a premium for one cigarette (one night in a hotel), they can. That is a business. If somebody buys a pack of cigarettes that go stale, and want to sell each for a discount (subletting their apt) they should be able to do that too. Then the person with the stale pack just loses less money.

It's not valid because they're not a business!

You're really missing the entire business model.

I own my apt.

If I go on vacation and rent out my apt, I can do so for $1 and make a profit.

I also don't have to obey any zoning or city laws or pay taxes or permits with regards to operating a hotel.

Hotels do.

If someone wants to operate a business then they should be treated like a business, and held to the same standards.

Then they will be on equal ground with the competition.

You own your apartment free and clear? You don't pay a mortgage? You don't pay maintenance? Even if you did own it free and clear, and paid nothing, you did pay something for it at some point, so charging $1 is not a "profit", you're still losing money. You're just lowering your cost basis and losing less money. This is a "business model"...it's just one that results in loss, not profit...unlike (most) hotels.

And, you pay taxes on that apartment. Regardless of zoning or permits or whatever (government created restrictions), you deserve to rent out your place for a day if you want at rates that are competitive to hotels. You won't be able to provide anywhere near the quality, security, and, you can't conceivable do this all year long because, again, you're not "profiting", you're losing money, and you need to live there at some point cause you're paying to live somewhere else while they're in your apartment. Profit = positive Net Operating Income.

You're way off base.

If they're not a business, they're not doing business accounting. There is no market rate for such a plan, all income is pure profit.

If they are a business they need to comply with the rules for such a business.

Alright, whatever you say.

You need to go look up the word "profit", then look up the word "loss", and we can continue.

Right after you look up the word business.

If they want to be hotels then they should have to play by the same rules, taxes, zonings, and regulations that hotels do.

I'm sure the hotels, as taxpayers, are pleased with this attempt to close a hole in their pocket.

It has nothing to do with going out of business, or failing.

Oh yeah, no, I'm sure they are happy.

It doesn't have anything to do with going out of business or failing...but it should.

This legislation is textbook anti-competition. This will benefit nobody in the long run.

Then they need to lower their prices

That's not the answer.

A regular citizen, to whom ANY income off the unit while away is a profit, will always be able to go lower.

Wait, sorry, that second response was supposed to be a general comment and instead was a response.

I don't understand your argument:

"A regular citizen, to whom ANY income off the unit while away is a profit, will always be able to go lower."

You usually sublet the space you already rent for less than you rent from your landlord (unless you have a particularly stupid tenant).... so, where is the "profit"?

Maybe I'm missing something there.