What Airbnb Did to New York City • Hacker News Board

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#61

Post by sotojuan » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:39 PM UTC

ironjunkie wrote: post #9

ForHackernews wrote: post #2

Manhattan should probably just admit that it's going to become the Venice of America: a playground for tourists and the ultra-rich, with virtually no residents. There's nothing wrong with that. They can tax the hell out of it and use it to fund services in the rest of the city where real people live.

Kind of agree with you. Don't even think living in Manhattan if you don't pull at least 150k$. (Or be ready for some of those roomshare situations). I'm also amazed by the average night price at Manhattan hotels. Even during normal weeks, the cheapest is well above 300$/night.

There are many neighborhoods in Manhattan where the median income is less than half of that.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#62

Post by sevensor » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:39 PM UTC

phil21 wrote: post #53

Spooky23 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nooo. Trailers are the country ghetto. Unlike houses they are depreciating assets. So if you are fortunate enough to own your land and dwelling, unlike a home the value curve trends towards zero. The land value is the only asset, and doesn’t build much wealth. Expensive rent in a rural area means people get pushed further away. In the medical practice that my mom worked at, employees commuted as far as 100 miles.

Housing structures don't (rarely) appreciate. In fact the opposite is true, as witnessed by my tax return each year. The land as you state is a different story. I love the idea of a disposable trailer home I could replace every 20-30 years with new technology, unfortunately due to social attitudes prefab homes are almost exclusively marketed and built for lower incomes.

Isn't that the idea behind the tiny house? Upscale trailers?

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#63

Post by nemo44x » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:41 PM UTC

ohgodmorecow wrote: post #29

ordinaryperson wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By trying to force them out any way possible: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/opinion/sunday/how-to-for...

"upon completing the work, rented the place out for $2,900/month." Oh my god, how is it possible for anyone to pay that much? 2800$ is about the general income / month here.

To be fair the potential to earn a high salary is much higher in NYC than many other places. All those huge towers are full of executives, VP's and highly skilled workers. There are many hundreds of thousands of people making 6-figure salaries here and tens of thousands making over a million.

However, many people in NYC do not make big money and it comes down to living further away from Manhattan and having roommates. Depending on the industry you're in you can have a huge range in salaries based on experience, your reputation and simple luck.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#64

Post by devit » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:41 PM UTC

peg_leg wrote: post #11

Air BnB is terrible for smaller, more touristy towns as well, like Traverse City, MI where housing prices and rents have skyrocketed. Used to be able to rent a granny flat as a service worker...those are all Air BnB'd now.

That seems a good thing economically.

Imagine there's a place on Earth that is somehow truly amazing and fills you with happiness for a long time for just visiting it.

Obviously, it makes sense to have as many different people as possible be able to appreciate it, which requires having them visit only one or a few nights.

Clearly, people should not be able to monopolize a flat there for 365 days a year, and if they do they should pay a fortune since they are denying other 364 people access to the place.

This also works for less amazing but still touristically interesting places.

Also the best solution would be to have enough housing to meet needs both from one-day-per-year demand and for 365-day-per-year demand, but if that's impossible tourists should definitely be the priority over wanna-be residents.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#65

Post by MisterTea » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:41 PM UTC

stevenking86l wrote: post #31

ironjunkie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of agree with you. Don't even think living in Manhattan if you don't pull at least 150k$. (Or be ready for some of those roomshare situations). I'm also amazed by the average night price at Manhattan hotels. Even during normal weeks, the cheapest is well above 300$/night.

Lived in Manhattan for 6 years 2011-2017 in The East Village. Made about half that. 1 roommate. 2 bedroom. Occasionally worked a side job (tutoring) but was for extra cash more than necessity. I was working in the live music industry so I had free access to a lot of live shows around town which allowed me to save money but still do the things that make living in NYC Great. It’s very possible. Was kind to my landlord,…

> "Lived in Manhattan for 6 years 2011-2017 in The East Village. Made about half that. 1 roommate. 2 bedroom." "It’s very possible."

Did you pay the rent yourself on that ~75k? Of course not. You paid half and your roomate the other half. Your answer is not really valid as you proved your income at the time was not enough to afford the apartment.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#66

Post by del82 » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:42 PM UTC

ForHackernews wrote: post #5

CPLX wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> virtually no residents Seeing as how there are 1.6 million of those now that would be quite a turn of events.

I didn't say it would happen overnight. That real estate is apparently more valuable as hotels and vacant investment properties than it is as housing stock. New York should embrace and exploit the fact that billionaires will pay high property taxes on empty condos, not try to fight it.

Alas, the billionaires pay almost no property taxes on those condos:

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/05/why-billionaires-dont...

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#67

Post by ordinaryperson » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:44 PM UTC

untog wrote: post #60

wilde wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s nice that you’re benefiting, but rent control is relatively well studied and it doesn’t achieve its aims. https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/e...

You're ignoring the OPs point. Rent controlled apartments are a rounding error in the grand scheme of making NYC apartments affordable. It's also been around for a very long time, so its effects are well known. As the article outlines, Airbnb is something new.

Rent controlled and rent stabilized two very different things but both decrease housing inventory.

According to this there are 1 million rent stabilized (not controlled) units in NYC: https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/13/15264890/nyc-apartments-guid...

If that's accurate, it's a little bit more than a rounding error.

Ultimately there has to be a balance. Throwing out long-time renters isn't a great idea but nor is capping prices to decrease inventory.

Personally I favor construction reform -- I mean, look how expensive that 1 mile of the 2nd Ave subway was. It shouldn't be that expensive to build in NYC.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#68

Post by ordinaryperson » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:47 PM UTC

lr4444lr wrote: post #38

ordinaryperson wrote: post #6

Easy to blame lack of affordable housing on AirBnB and not, say, rent control laws or the difficulty of building new housing stock in the city. I get not throwing grandma out of the $250/month 4BR she’s been living in for 50 years, but it means something like 200,000 rent-controlled/rent-stabilized units are also raising everyone else’s rent by decreasing inventory. The endless red tape in new construction makes non-…

Yes, but AirBnB poses a completely different kind of threat. If it's allowed to operate with impunity and turn the entire residential housing market into de-facto hotels, then landlords are going to start to ask why they should put up with tenants acting as their middlemen who reap all of the profit, tenants who are protected by strict and very generous regulations that make eviction and raising the rent difficult in…

You're right, it does pose a new kind of threat. And it shouldn't be able to operate with impunity.

Renters can't sublet their place on AirBnB, only owners can. And you'd select long-term tenants over short-term AirBnB'ers b/c it's less work (or should be). But your point is still valid: the presence of AirBnB can disincentivize a slice of owners to rent to locals.

I'm just saying any study on the negative effects of AirBnB on housing is myopic if it doesn't include arcane rent stabilization/control laws and the obscene price of new construction.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#69

Post by visarga » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:49 PM UTC

nugi wrote: post #54

techservative wrote: post #41

AirBNB and Uber are the least racist companies on the face of the earth. No other companies on earth have opened up the avenues for direct social interactions across race and class lines the way these two companies have. Before Uber and AirBNB, how many opportuinities could you name for white Americans to do the following: 1. Get in a car with a black person for an hour and have a conversation about the election 2. G…

All 4 happened with regularity before uber. Are you literally 12? And how did mentioning that minorities were disproportionately affected become calling either company racist? The only racisim i see is buried in the assumptions made in your comment.

I think the grandparent poster was right - AirBnb opens up a way for people to see life in communities that were difficult to access before. That's what I appreciate most about it - how natural it feels to live like a local person. Living in a hotel while travelling feels artificial now.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#70

Post by svantana » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 2:50 PM UTC

ordinaryperson wrote: post #34

svantana wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The density of NY is the cause of the high costs of living, making it even denser is unlikely to bring costs down long term. It would make more sense just to accept that living centrally is a luxury not everyone can afford, and instead channel the revenue away from the rent-seekers and into the hands of the public (i.e. by increasing property taxes).

From Crown Heights and Bed Stuy (two of the neighborhoods singled out in the article) it's about a 45-60 minute commute into Manhattan via the subway -- not exactly "living centrally." Are people supposed to live 2 hours out? > instead channel the revenue away from the rent-seekers and into the hands of the public (i.e. by increasing property taxes) Good luck getting that passed. And while I'm in favor of higher taxe…

> Raise taxes on them enough and they move to NJ or CT and it's actually a net loss for the city.

Theoretically, increased taxes shouldn't affect the cost of living, because the supply is fixed, and the market price is way above maintenance costs. The revenue will simply shift from the banks and landowners to the public. At least that's the theory, but it should work for a gradual tax increase.