Live data from Hacker News

What Airbnb Did to New York City

citylab.com

221–230 of 240 posts

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#221
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I get not throwing grandma out of the $250/month 4BR she’s been living in for 50 years Sorry, but not when the 2BR across the hall is renting for $4,000/mo and is on the market for 4 hours before someone gets it. Grandma doesn't have a right to live in the exact same apartment for the rest of her life at the expense of everyone else.

To me, that's like saying grandma doesn't deserve to keep $2 million house she bought many years ago for $20 thousand because someone with $2 million wants her property.

How much sympathy should we have for Grandma McMoneybags here when people making in situations just like hers are helping drive a housing crisis?

In California, this isn't a hypothetical. Especially because she pays property taxes as if the thing is worth a number much closer to $20k than $20mil.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#222
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it really so implausible that for a house in a scenic rural area, a succession of people renting it for a week or two each over the summer might end up getting more out of it (between them) than someone wanting to live and work in it for a whole year? Are you really suggesting that just because you live and work in your local (scenic) rural community you couldn't possibly enjoy the surroundings just as much, if…

> Are you really suggesting that just because you live and work in your local (scenic) rural community you couldn't possibly enjoy the surroundings just as much, if not more, than as a few fleeting transient warm bodies with suitcases could? There's got to be diminishing returns on beautiful surroundings, surely - seeing a mountain for the hundredth or thousandth time can't compete with seeing it for the first time.…

Sigh....I'm not even going to grace this comment with even a half thoughtful response.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#223
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luxury condos reduce demand on other buildings, helping keep rents down. Without them you'd have more rich people bidding on regular stuff. That said, if the new buildings are less dense than what they replace, it would raise rents.

> Luxury condos reduce demand on other buildings, helping keep rents down. Without them you'd have more rich people bidding on regular stuff. Luxury condos attract rich people that otherwise might not be in the local market, both directly (to live in the condos) and indirectly (by stimulating a local increase in services catering to a rich clientele, making the area, not just the condos themselves, more attractive to…

Attract rich people from where? If the presence of rich people is a problem then solving the "problem" by keeping your neighborhood shitty just means the problem becomes someone else's to bear. It doesn't actually solve it. And notice that if they "solve" it too then you get rich people in your neighborhood driving up your rent and you live in a shitty neighborhood.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, they have stopped offering tenants money to move out unless they get a crop of tenants who know their rights and have some kind of leverage to enforce them (these are usually more affluent tenants who hung onto stabilized lease who band together). Instead, they silently declare war on existing tenants by demolishing their homes while they live in them. Then, tenants who understand this to be classic slum lo…

I have no problem with anyone down-voting my comment. I would really welcome some substantive critique. I'm offering my perspective of what is going on in NYC in order that it might help someone who is going through something similar, or that it might cause someone to offer a possible plan to make things better. So please, down-vote, but could you then actually offer a critique? I would like to learn why this is grat…

How about this sentence:

> they silently declare war on existing tenants by demolishing their homes while they live in them

That's nonsense. You're clearly speaking with hyperbole but other people can't argue against hyperbole. You spent the whole paragraph detailing clever ways landlords mess with tenants to get them to leave because the tenants know their rights. Those rights are the problem. The rentee/render relationship should be mutually beneficial. At the end of a lease, perhaps with 3 to 6 months of warning, the person should have to move out. With weaker tenants rights laws, those tenants would have an easy time finding and getting approved for another apartment.

Your second paragraph details how market rate renters are harassed with lack-of-services which I just don't believe. I bet others don't either which is why which is another reason you are being downvoted.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#225
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Houses appreciate. Trailers do not. Trailers are like cars. Sorry my comment was ambiguous

Houses never (read: rarely - exceptional cases exist) appreciate. Period. Full stop.

The land itself does.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Operating AirBnB in a place like NYC is far more profitable than renting out long term for multiple reasons. For one, AirBnB charges have to only beat hotel prices to be an attractive alternative and that is easy because hotels are subjected to various extra fees, taxes and regulations. Also, one has higher budget while traveling for per-night accommodation compared to monthly rents (compare 150$ hotel room vs 4500$ monthly rental apartment). Third, you have to "tolerate" even the worst of AirBnB guests only for a few days and AirBnB covers insurance for truly worst cases, whereas once you are locked into a tenant in a tenant-friendly city like NYC (or SF), you are screwed for longer term.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#227

The article should have mentioned this at the very top: "It’s also worth noting that Wachsmuth’s research was funded in part by some avowed foes of home sharing—the New York City Hotel Trades Council—and was cosponsored by housing and tenant advocacy organizations."

You need big money to fight big money. So as long as they are not lying, I am fine with it. If they are lying (or even "selectively telling the truth"), AirBnB should fund research to expose them.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nobody on Earth knows how to "split it up". You can get preferred treatment for preexisting apartments, but how would you manage that for newly built ones? USSR tried to, they failed and made lifes miserable. China tries and it's not helping.

I'm not saying I have the exact solution but it would look something like a democratic process that has representation for both community members and new entrants. People that want to move into the city can participate in decision making. Once your in, your interests change so then you're eligible to be on the community side.

People buy property for commercial rates just like they buy anything. Do you get to participate in dairy decision making?

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#229
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So because of the accident of your birth, you have more right to live there than I do? I worked hard (and was fortunate in various ways and was supported by the social system) to earn what I have, but my money isn't good enough?

It's pretty easy to turn that around and say that people with cash can displace and kick around anyone they want. I don't think you have less right to live there, I just think it shouldn't be money that is determinate. For instance, you could apply for placement that is need-blind. This does preference people that already live there, but that seems elementary that the economic system should not have an inherent tende…

> It's pretty easy to turn that around and say that people with cash can displace and kick around anyone they want. I don't think you have less right to live there, I just think it shouldn't be money that is determinate. For instance, you could apply for placement that is need-blind.

The bottom line is that there aren't enough homes for everyone who wants to live there, so it comes down to how we allocate what there is. "Auction it to the highest bidder" has its issues but has a lot to recommend it: it's transparent, understandable, nondiscriminatory in a lot of respects, gives people a way to care more or less strongly, and means we get a market price for homes in that area that tells us where we should be building more homes.

We could use something like a lottery but that would mean a) houses would go to some random set of people who wanted to live in NYC, not the people for whom it makes the biggest difference b) we create a bunch of incentives for corruption - both the lottery itself and then people doing sublets/fake family transfers/... if they find someone who wants the place more than they do. Of course it's possible to fight that kind of corruption and for some things the principle is important enough to be worth it, but it's better if we can design the system so that it naturally doesn't happen c) we wouldn't be incentivising developers to build the homes that people most want.

(All that said I do think there should be a land/property value tax, to ensure that people only buy expensive land/buildings if they're going to actually use them, and to compensate the rest of the country who's priced out)

> This does preference people that already live there, but that seems elementary that the economic system should not have an inherent tendency to split up communities.

I did not fit in the "community" of the town I grew up in, and was very unhappy there. The city I moved to has been a lot better for me. So I feel quite strongly that everyone should get a fair chance at that, regardless of where they happened to be born.

> People should be able to move when they want to, not when they are forced to. The reason everyone wants to move to NYC is for economic reasons. Maybe if more places weren't destitute, fewer people would need to move around as much.

True as far as it goes, and I'm all for e.g. building much denser (NYC-like) neighbourhoods in other cities to help them gain the same advantages. But in the meantime we still have the question of who gets to live in the city that a lot of people want to live in.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Money for schools, roads, subways, police etc has to come from somewhere, and if high-income earners flee (because of being overtaxed) to nearby low-tax areas then taxes go up on everyone else to cover the shortfall, or services are cut. I favor a tax increase on the wealthy but I'm just saying implementing such a policy is more difficult than it sounds, especially because NJ and CT are so close by.

That makes no sense, high earners are the least sensitive to (fixed) costs and are more likely to choose location based on attractiveness. Who would move in if a high earner moved out? Supply and demand have a way of taking care of these things.
Post reply on HN