Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 161 posts

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#141

Post by bogomipz »

busterarm wrote: post #140
bogomipz wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Or instead, how about I tell you about my time working for a real estate tax certiorari firm in NYC and how landlords with multiple properties will deliberately underutilize their buildings for tax advantages." When in the 1980s? Was Ed Koch the mayor? Market rate on a modest(500 sq foot plus) apartment is worth close to $3K a month or 36K a year. Please provide a citation this tax break which is worth more than 36…

2000 and 2001.

So during the dot com boom when the city's economy was doing gang busters and the vacancy rate was less than 2%? I don't think so.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#142

Post by busterarm »

bogomipz wrote: post #141
busterarm wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2000 and 2001.

So during the dot com boom when the city's economy was doing gang busters and the vacancy rate was less than 2%? I don't think so.

I can only tell you what I saw from the two seasons that I spent error-checking the tax returns they were sending to the IRS.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#143

Post by conanbatt »

dragonwriter wrote: post #126
conanbatt wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it will also increase occupants and the experience of occupants. If you put a fancy restaurant that sells gourmet popcorn, you raise the price of popcorn in general, and you can also increase the amount of people that eat popcorn.

> Yes, but it will also increase occupants It will increase mobility of occupants, but it probably won't increase occupants (which is equivalent to decreasing homelessness) much, though the decrease in short-term rental pricing could reduce transitional homelessness (but the increase in long-term residential prices could also increase the more durable kind of homelessness)

> increase occupants (which is equivalent to decreasing homelessness)

I will not increase permanent local occupants, it will increase number of occupants in general. Thats because airbnb's are out of towners using under-utilized housing stock.

Airbnb's increase homelessness, but its not about market efficiency, its about use of land. Any office building will also increase homelessness.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#144

Post by lend000 »

alonmower wrote: post #32
lend000 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt these factors are statistically independent -- the most popular neighborhoods for tourists and yuppies have always seen prices grow faster relative to the overall metro, and more popular/high-growth/expensive neighborhoods will naturally attract more Airbnb hosts to take advantage of their location. In any case, assuming people travel the same amount, it is zero-sum (Airbnb saved NYC visitors 616 million doll…

Don't 'limit' tourism but yes, don't allow tourists to get price breaks at the expense of residents that rent in a city. As it stands property owners and tourists are coming out on top. Property owners can now easily make more money renting short term than long term, this raises property prices (because, hey, i can buy that house and make a bunch of money renting it on AirBnB) while also reducing the rental housing s…

There's certainly an argument to be made that such freedom benefits all but the poorest (those who neither travel nor own real estate), but is restricting this convenient, popular, voluntary service a reasonable way to approach the much broader income inequality problems? That's a stretch. Seems to me like it's a natural consequence of a more connected world, and like you mentioned in another comment, there are more significant issues such as zoning and nimbyism that should be ground-zero for real estate prices in most cities.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Airbnb increases equality by democratizing travel for the lower middle class in a way that was inaccessible before, at the biggest expense to hotel owners. I'd also like to see numbers on real estate usage in NY (defined as the percentage of each unit occupied per unit time) before and after Airbnb -- I would wager that living quarters are being used more efficiently as a result. And of course how much people travel now vs. before (which I think could be considered a quality-of-life metric).

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#145

Post by bdcravens »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #18
bdcravens wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would be true regardless of AirBnB's presence, right? So the "AirBnB inflation" is still a thing.

But what about the things that aren't true because of AirBnB's presence? Maybe prices for short term stays went down, tourism went up, and there is more tax revenue that can be used to improve the city for the renters. If we only look at one part of the picture we may miss that an overall trend is different. Is it really beneficial to talk about how many died because they were wearing a seat belt without also conside…

I'm only one datapoint, but every AirBnB I've stayed in merely reduced my expenses while traveling. It didn't encourage me to change my habits while I was there. If anything, it just kept more money in my pocket for discretionary spending once I got home.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#146

Post by bobthepanda »

sdhgaiojfsa wrote: post #106
toomuchtodo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy there with terms like “better real estate utilization”, which could be conflated with “more efficient rent seeking at the expense of housing consumers”. The end goal is not always maximum profit extraction. NYC is served best by balancing the needs of both long term and short term renters, while ensuring investors reasonable compensation/rates of return on capital invested for services provided.

This is not what people traditionally think of as "rent-seeking." Rent-seeking behavior is doing something to get more money without providing any corresponding value. AirBnb hosts do provide value -- just not to the people who live in the neighborhood. But it is fine to argue that, based on their willingness to pay more, out of town visitors provide better utilization of the housing resource. TL;DR: Extracting rents…

Short-term, In a democracy it makes sense that a city would prioritize the needs of the citizens who live and vote there over short-termers and people looking to make a quick buck.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#147

Post by loeg »

noirbot wrote: post #88
loeg wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, I didn't realize OP was arguing the $68/mo was insignificant . My mistake. I see $68/mo as a decent chunk of change (that's enough to pay for a new computer every two years or so) so that's probably where the confusion stems from.

Some quick googling says that the average apartment rent in Manhattan is ~$4000/month, so at that sort of rate, $64 is only about a 2% increase. The 100/year is barely noticeable to most people when you're already paying nearly 50,000/year. It's a tangible amount, but if you're paid enough to live in that area, it's likely not a huge burden. And again, this is an change that is likely disproportionately raising rents…

Yep! All good points.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#148

Post by sidlls »

jedberg wrote: post #139
sidlls wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rule is a residential rental is only worth the risk or has a good return if the property can be rented at about 1% of the value per month or more (e.g. a $100k home should rent for $1k/mo). I generally try to get an annual cap rate of 9% or more (1%/mo less expenses).

Wow. That rule must only apply in smaller cities. I can't think of a single residential property in the Bay Area that would even come close to that. On the other hand, all the properties I manage do 0.5% per year and have all been profitable, not even including the appreciation on the property.

Not smaller, just different areas. It's fairly easy to achieve that in the Midwest and larger urban areas in the southeast. I typically got ~0.8%/mo or more.

I'd go so far as to say that if single family residential is your strategy it's better to take the multi-million dollar investment in a single home in the Bay and make one in 5-7 (or more) homes elsewhere. The appreciation is drastically lower but the cap rates are amazing (much higher cash flow) and the risk is spread out. Of course, with that kind of investment it's better to go multi-family or commercial anyway.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#149

Post by bernawil »

conanbatt wrote: post #119
bernawil wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's relevant to compare popcorn to positional goods like housing.

What would be the difference

They are radically different. Corn is the textbook example of a commodity while land is the textbook example of a positional good.

You could sell any realistic amount of gourmet popcorn without affecting the supply of corn nor the price of other popcorn products, while selling housing affects the supply of land and the desirability of that housing stock.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#150

Post by busterarm »

bogomipz wrote: post #141
busterarm wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2000 and 2001.

So during the dot com boom when the city's economy was doing gang busters and the vacancy rate was less than 2%? I don't think so.

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf/NYC-comp-16....

Also, this data does not agree with you. Lowest vacancy rate of any borough was 2.3% in Queens in 2000 and between 3.1 and 4.2 in every other borough.

The economy is doing even better in NYC right now and the vacancy rate is over 11% right now. https://www.6sqft.com/nearly-250000-nyc-rental-apartments-si... Hrmmm....

Post reply on HN