NYC seriously cracking down on AirBnb

I like that. Especially for people abusing rent regulated apartment.

This lady is getting exactly what she deserves. "Nowhere to go"? Howz about moving into the condo you OWN and stop leaching off the landlord you've been shafting with rent regulation for the past 30 years? The Airbnb stuff is just the icing on the cake. This is exactly the kind of person who does not deserve rent control and why rent control needs to be overhauled. Ridiculous that she has been able to retain the RC unit while also owning a condo. And abusing the system to boot. Despicable.

Based on an ACRIS search it looks like this was the East Village unit:
https://streeteasy.com/sale/1315864

People talk about the new economy; but Air BNB and Uber compete on an unlevel playing field. Besides this skirting the rent control laws I doubt that this apartment has commercial sprinklers, exit signs or is insured as a rental. Same way the Uber drivers tend not to be "commercially" insured.
The economy is much worse than advertised; these are essentially underground businesses. Hotels are getting hurt; medallion cabbies are getting screwed

Agree with that. And Uber drivers are contributing significantly to congestion in the city. These are a lot of extra cars on the city streets.

Hotels create employment and Airbnb does not. Besides Airbnb inconveniences other residents of the building due to late night noise, constant suitcases being dragged and banged in common areas, and potentially causes unsafe environment as you do not know who is coming in and out.

Taxi's are a pain; but they don't "wait" for patrons. Every street I drive through in Manhattan has two Black Camry's with TLC plates blocking the road

AirBnb makes investor units more profitable and makes visiting NYC more affordable. The downsides are clear but let's not completely ignore the upside. It was the hotel industry lobby that most wanted the AirBnb ban. The safely issues were a ruse.

Of course, no one should take advantage of rent protections so yes, she got what she deserved.

Yes Airbnb makes investors units more profitable, but at what social cost? I don't think I would want to buy a co-op/condo to live in and then have a substantial amount of the tenancy be Airbnb guests. I wouldn't even want to be a long-term tenant in a rental in a building with a large amount of transient tenancy.

Every coop and condo building has the right to make their own rules. However, the option to subsidize increasing carrying charges or turn a little profit has now been taken out of their hands by these anti-airbnb laws. Many owners survived past recessions when their coop boards temporarily loosened sublet rules that allowed them to keep their investments. Not every coop or condo is white glove.

Also, social costs can be created by negative investment returns or by overly strict sublet restrictions that could result in defaulted loans.

Ximon, I think you are confusion allowing 1 year rental with Airbnb daily or weekly rentals. I think all coops should allow minimum 1 year (or min 2 to reduce turnover) rentals so give owners flexibility.

>>Many owners survived past recessions when their coop boards temporarily loosened sublet rules that allowed them to keep their investments. Not every coop or condo is white glove. <<

There is a BIG difference between short-term, random rentals and board-approved sublets. I don't know any co-op, "white-glove' or not, that would be happy with tenants allowing strangers to book their apartments for short-term use.

300, I am only saying that coops and condos should be able to decide what sublet restrictions are reasonable. The anti-airbnb law was promoted by the hotel industry as a safety issue but in truth was all about keeping hotel profitability as high as possible. Banning sublets of less than 30 days has the practical effect of driving tourists almost exclusively to hotels and hurts coop/condo investors who bought thinking that they had strong income expectations.

I think the coop market is headed to more flexible subletting rules but it's their rules to change as they see fit in response to the market. The anti-airbnb law is arguably restraint of trade.

No one bought a condo and coop for Airbnb unless they were using poor judgement. Tourists belong in hotels.

Ximon,
So you are saying that Coops & Condos should be able to create their own rules even if it is contrary to law? The prohibition against sublets less than 30 days isn't some new anti-AirBnb statutute, as far as I know it has been in place for the better part of a decade. As such, I'm not sure the claim can be made that anyone who bought after 2010 had any reason to believe they could sublet for less than 30 days legally. The only thing which has changed recently is enforcement.
And enforcement has been occurring against hotels as well - https://town-village.com/2017/04/24/hotel-17-has-closed-down/

Perhaps I am confused about old v. new laws on subletting. I did indeed believe that the law passed in 2016 changed the rules not just the enforcement provisions. Does anyone agree with 30?

I think this may be it:
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S06873&term=2009&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Votes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/08/micro-subletting-thriving-new-york-it-legal/2897/

Also note that it's not just the Hotel industry. Most notably there was a significant push by the long-term residents of Stuyvesant town to crack down on Airbnb rentals.

>>>coop/condo investors who bought thinking that they had strong income expectations.<<

No one should be purchasing in a co-op for investment or 'strong income expectations". If you do, then you are an uninformed idiot.

Squid, I bought a coop in 2006 and flipped it six years later for a profit of over $1,000,000. Maybe I was lucky but you are right that coop investment are mostly for capital appreciation. Except for sponsors of course.

To be clear, I am not a fan of Airbnb but even less a fan of bullies like the hotel industry lobby and powerful coop boards that pretend to have their shareholders best interests in mind.

Not sure I would describe apartment investors as "idiots" but in retrospect they probably made bad investments given recent trends.

http://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/airbnb-owners-fined-penalty-san-francisco?xid=partner_TIME_FB

I might be wrong but the 30 days rule doesn't apply if the owner is living in the apartment and renting out one or more rooms while he/she lives there. So that seems legal to me. However I thought that a condo/coop have the ability to limit this through House Rules and sublet policies. Ximon: I am worried about my own safety since there is absolutely no record or control over short term guests. My building has a quite liberal sublet policy, but not to the point that unknown strangers are allowed to rent by the night. That's called an hotel and we live in a coop. Thoughts?

If I wanted to meet random strangers in the halls of my building, I'd live in a condo. (FWIW, I own one of each, so it's easy for me to compare).

Trying to enforce the laws of NYC and the house rules of the building pits neighbor against neighbor, and it puts the building staff in a TERRIBLE position, because they obviously know what's going on, but they fear for their jobs if they rat out those few residents who put the entire co-op at risk just to make a few thousand extra bucks. "Sharing economy" my aunt Betty. On a building scale, it's the rise of selfishness making life slightly less pleasant; on a neighborhood scale, it's gentrified areas like Bedford-Stuyvesant in a way that's been quite disruptive to this wonderful city.

john81, you are referring to the roommate law and yes, its just as you describe. I think there is a requirement to register your "guest" and at some point add them to the proprietary lease but not sure about that.

Like I said, airbnb is not an option I would ever choose for many reasons including yours. I am only saying that it should be up to each coop or condo to set these rules and not our state legislature or their lobbyists.

>>Squid, I bought a coop in 2006 and flipped it six years later for a profit of over $1,000,000. Maybe I was lucky but you are right that coop investment are mostly for capital appreciation. Except for sponsors of course.<<

Certainly one can hope to flip a co-op for a profit. But I imagine you were occupying the co-op during the time you owned, no? My point was purchasing a co-op purely for investment purposes is a bad idea since you cannot easily rent out the unit (unless it's a sponsor unit and you are able to have sponsor rights transferred to you, but that's fodder for a whole different discussion)

>>Not sure I would describe apartment investors as "idiots" but in retrospect they probably made bad investments given recent trends.<<

You're right--'idiots' was a bit harsh. But a standard co-op purchase for investment ONLY and not for personal occupancy is not a good move. A condo is a different animal completely, provided you purchase in a building that doesn't have 'co-op' rules restricting renting.

One point not touched upon enough is the fact that illegal AirBNB can raise property values in places. While we all want our property values to rise, making a property into "rental" can sometimes keep purchase prices out of the reach of "owners." The bottom line for all these services is that the law is the law. Uneven plaing fields are not fair.

Squid, agree with you on all points in your most recent post. I was trying to be all-inclusive by lumping coops and condos together which was a mistake as of course the subletting and occupancy rules can be very different.

Yes, eriegel, the law is the law. But why does it have to be a law when coops/condos can write their own rules taking into account the preferences of owners? These laws are not really about safety lets be honest.

I am not sure you can say "these laws are not really about safety". There are lots of rules and regulations on the hotel industry regarding safety that are not on residential units. Example: evacuation exit route signs must be posted on the back of the entry door.

Govt laws are much easier to enforce than coop and condo internal laws. What will a coop board to someone doing Airbnb? Fine? Collecting that is not the easiest. Govt’s primary job to ensure security of citizens. If Airbnb results in constant complaint for noise and potential crimes, it is not just the people benefiting from Airbnb who pay for the police. Hotels have extra security and staff to deter it.

Hotel staff are increasingly becoming a choke point in stopping under-age sexual exploitation. So there are cases now where the exploiters are taking advantage of the lack of any staff at a large number of AirBnb rentals.
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510138/hotels-are-key-in-the-fight-to-end-human-trafficking

As far as deterrence in Coops and Condos, I don't think collection is so much of an issue because they can simply tack it on to the owners monthly bill, but the ability to fine and setting schedules of fines has to be done by amending the bylaws which usually requires a two-thirds super majority vote. A lot of buildings have trouble getting a simple quorum at annual meetings. The effort needed to discuss and write up changes to bylaws, get them reviewed by the buildings attorney and then get them passed by a super majority vote can be enormous.

It's always been illegal to short term rent your apt, under 30 days.

"It's always been illegal to short term rent your apt, under 30 days."
Not if you sublet one or more rooms while you occupy the apartment yourself, correct?
Basically the roommate law can be used as a tool to sublet for a night or a week end, notwithstanding the coop/condo rules?

John--here's an interesting read from Habitat Mag. Part 3 deals specifically with your question. https://www.habitatmag.com/Publication-Content/Legal-Financial/2015/2015-November/Roommates-and-Subletters

Essentially: (quote) "... the 2010 law banning short-term rentals specified apartments are for "permanent" — and not transient — "residence purposes.""

thank you Squid, you have been very helpful!

Another issue is apartment building owners who use some of their apartments for airbnb, which keeps these apartments from being available to regular tenants who are willing to pay regular market rate--and which causes a security issue for the other regular tenants. This is more common than you might imagine. Rather than getting $2800/month, the landlord rents it through airbnb for 200/night.

If I had an airbnb next to my apartment I'd be livid. For one thing, hotel guests, don't act like regular residents, who have some social investment in the building. A one night guess in NYC is going to want to have fun, maybe make some noise, come in late, party, etc. And why not? It's a night in New York. But that's what hotels are for --not my apartment. Also, hotels have security, and other ways of dealing with having hundreds of random people under one roof that apartment buildings do not. I might not know everyone in my building, but I do know the people on my floor and the doormen do know all of the residents and are very good about not letting people they don't know in. I wouldn't feel safe knowing there were random "guests" in and out.