Support NeoGAF

[hawkshockey11]

AirBnB is amazing. I was able to stay in Manhattan for a weekend for the cost of half a night at a hotel. Fuck that. Regulation my ass.

And I every single time I take a yellow cab in the city, the scumbag driver tries to charge me off the bookd (so I can't use my card and it costs much more) every single time. I'm always tempted to just get out and not pay each time it happens.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

Uber has been a great way for some people around here to make side cash, and I'm not a big fan of regulating things. Though I can see why transportation and lodging need some level of regulating.

Why do you think regulation exists in the first place? It's not to protect incumbent monopolists, like some people seem to think, it's to protect the market as a whole, consumers, and everyone else in society.

With taxis, medallion systems artificially restrict supply. Anyone who's done Econ 101 knows that restricting supply will raise prices. So it sounds like a bad thing. Well, no. Here's why:

1. Taxi drivers only get to keep their medallions when they do things the city wants. That means inspections, safe driving, cameras, tracking, etc.
2. Lower supply means less competition over fares. It means drivers aren't going in circles trying to find people to pick up because there are too many taxis, which is hazardous for pedestrians and other drivers. It less likely for two cab drivers to fight each other for a fare.
3. Lower supply means higher fares but this means drivers have a better quality of life. If fares were lower, drivers would skip bathroom breaks, speed (even more often than they do), drive while tired, etc

Try to understand why regulation is in place in the first place before assuming its a bad thing. In 99% of cases its there for very good reasons, especially things like hotels and taxis which have similar regulations in basically every city.

 

[DoktorEvil]

I'm looking for a place to stay in New York for a weekend. AirBnB is fast approaching the only way to do that for under $200 a night.

They can't can that shit without also doing something about the insane prices of accommodations.

Manhattan is one part of NYC. Find someplace else to stay if you're going cheap.
Otherwise, COL has to match the crazy costs of buying goods and services in NYC.

 

[mentallyinept]

Right, but those rental protections exist to keep people in rent controlled apartments and to keep landlords from booting everyone to build a more profitable building where they rent.

So to accommodate airbnb we are going to gut tenant restrictions that took decades to put in place?

I'm not suggesting we add a blanket "No AirBnB" clause retroactively to existing tenant agreements. This would only allow landlords to take faster action against people who are directly violating the tenant agreement in the first place.

I guess I don't see how the change I proposed "guts tenant restrictions".

What am I missing here?

 

[StoOgE]

AirBnB is amazing. I was able to stay in Manhattan for a weekend for the cost of half a night at a hotel. Fuck that. Regulation my ass.

And I every single time I take a yellow cab in the city, the scumbag driver tries to charge me off the bookd (so I can't use my card and it costs much more) every single time. I'm always tempted to just get out and not pay each time it happens.

1) It's not "off the book", they typically own their cab already.

2) That typically only happens on rides to JFK because it's a fixed amount of money to the airport. Otherwise their light stays on the roof and they appear to be an available cab. Running the meter is the only way to shut the light off unless they go out of service and they would get hit with a 1000 dollar ticket and lose their badge if a cop caught them doing that.

I travel via cab at least 10 times a week and have never had a taxi try to not run the meter.

 

[entremet]

AirBnB is amazing. I was able to stay in Manhattan for a weekend for the cost of half a night at a hotel. Fuck that. Regulation my ass.

And I every single time I take a yellow cab in the city, the scumbag driver tries to charge me off the bookd (so I can't use my card and it costs much more) every single time. I'm always tempted to just get out and not pay each time it happens.

He's charging you off the meter?

You should report him.

 

[numble]

I'm not concerned about zoning violations for single domicile listings. Hell, half of the Outer Banks, NC is rented in the same way as AirBnB.

Owners of a property (without a binding HOA agreement) should be allowed to do what they want with their property.



I suppose it comes down to what AirBnB want their service to be. Do they want it to be a way for hotels to list their rooms or do they want it to be a service for individuals to list their homes when they are away? The former skirts the law/taxes in major metropolitan areas, the latter does not (usually).

As for multiple accounts, you still have to provide contact information do you not? A permanent address/PO Box? Pretty easy to check for duplicates.

They want their business to make money. Allowing both private hotels and individual listings makes more money than just doing one.

It is not in their interest to get rid of revenue generating accounts. I've stayed at AirBnB provided places in Boston, New York and Hong Kong and they were all businesses where you never met the actual AirBnB account holder.

 

[dionysus]

I think the best outcome would be for these services to exist under the same regulatory and tax structure as the established law abiding companies, but also reform the licensing and regulations to the bare minimum needed to ensure a functioning market and protect the consumer.

Unfortunately that is probably a pipe dream. I expect that these upstart services like uber and airbnb to be outlobbied by the existing players, banned in most jurisdictions, and no resultant licensing or regulatory reform. But since there is obviously high demand for this, a black market will develop which will be selectively cracked down on but largely ignored because it is impossible to enforce.

 

[B-Dubs]

AirBnB is amazing. I was able to stay in Manhattan for a weekend for the cost of half a night at a hotel. Fuck that. Regulation my ass.

And I every single time I take a yellow cab in the city, the scumbag driver tries to charge me off the bookd (so I can't use my card and it costs much more) every single time. I'm always tempted to just get out and not pay each time it happens.

I've literally never seen this before since that could very easily result in losing their medallion. No one is going to risk their livelihood for a couple of extra bucks.

 

[mentallyinept]

They want their business to make money. Allowing both private hotels and individual listings makes more money than just doing one.

It is not in their interest to get rid of revenue generating accounts. I've stayed at AirBnB provided places in Boston, New York and Hong Kong and they were all businesses where you never met the actual AirBnB account holder.

My suggestion is to make these concessions in the face of possibly having their service banned in areas which currently make them lots of money. Obviously they are going to lose revenue by doing this, but they could lose more by not doing it.

 

[Futureman]

Will be using Airbnb for the first time next month in DC. Seems this lady owns the house. The first reply in this topic is something I didn't really know was going on (renting out a room in an apartment building... seems that could definitely be abused).

 

[MetatronM]

Uber is a way for drivers to avoid paying for a Taxi Badge in most cases, and with a taxi driver they have rules they have to follow and will lose their badge for accidents or tickets.

Whose car are you getting into with Uber?

I don't know, I've used Uber outside of NYC (not really necessary here) and have had good experiences, and had another where I had to kick someones trash away from my feet.

95% of all NYC cabs I have gotten into (and there have been a lot of them) have had a driver blatantly breaking the rules. Usually by talking constantly on hands free cell phones.

I don't necessarily agree with this completely.

If the owner/landlord does not want this stuff to happen, then they should put a no-sublet clause into their tenant contracts. People who do AirBnB would therefore be in violation of the agreement and subject to eviction.

For people who own their property, they should be able to do what they want (assuming there is no HOA agreement in place that precludes it).

Most apartments generally have no sublet clauses, as far as I know. Extremely YMMV when it comes to enforcement, though. Many buildings really don't care as long as you're being responsible about it and not bothering anyone. The no sublet clause is usually just a way for them to shrug off any liability if something did actually happen.

 

[TheDrowningMan]

My understanding is that the state government's problem is mostly with people who are off-premises and treat it as a lucrative money spinner rather than people who rent their spare room or whatever. Is that correct?

 

[Timeaisis]

I think AirBnB is great in theory but sketchy in practice. I've never used the service, but I see a new story almost weekly of some bad publicity.

I'm not sure what the execs of AirBnB expected, but they're pretty dense if they didn't realize their service was going to be used illegally sometimes. The problem, I think, is you don't really need credentials to rent out your place. Well, you do, to a degree, I'm sure, but it's clear that in practice I could rent my apartment out for parties on the weekends, even though my complex wouldn't necessarily allow that.

I'm not trying to say regulate the shit out of New York, as there's definitely a place for these services, but be smart about it, y'know? Realize that your service is going to be used for sketchy stuff sometimes, and be proactive to avoid it. If stories like this keep popping up, it's only a matter of time before some city makes some law banning the service altogether. AirBnB needs to be smart about it. The "sharing economy" is cool and all, but they gotta realize not everyone has the same values as them, and is OK renting out their apartment for parties while their neighbors are sleeping. And they'd claim "well, that's none of our business" or they had no way of knowing or whatever. Yeah, well, it's kind of their responsibility. Someone's going to come after them at some point. If it's not some angry customers, it's going to be the city of New York.

 

[DoktorEvil]

I think the best outcome would be for these services to exist under the same regulatory and tax structure as the established law abiding companies, but also reform the licensing and regulations to the bare minimum needed to ensure a functioning market and protect the consumer.

Unfortunately that is probably a pipe dream. I expect that these upstart services like uber and airbnb to be outlobbied by the existing players, banned in most jurisdictions, and no resultant licensing or regulatory reform. But since there is obviously high demand for this, a black market will develop which will be selectively cracked down on but largely ignored because it is impossible to enforce.

They won't. Uber and Airbnb rely on the existing and well established legal structure to offer the prices they do, collect the revenues from those transactions, and avoid regulation. Both of these business models aren't new or novel, they're simply well advertised and promoted.

It stuck me that this has been an ongoing issue pre-smartphone when the veterans of the New York Tech Meetup on the email lists discussing how there were local newspapers that were doing ride sharing and illegal hostels before AirBnb and Uber existed.

 

[B-Dubs]

95% of all NYC cabs I have gotten into (and there have been a lot of them) have had a driver blatantly breaking the rules. Usually by talking constantly on hands free cell phones.

Talking on a hands free phone or playing music is completely different than not running the meter. To equate the two is just silly as the punishments are vastly different, the former is a slap on the wrist and the latter is an immediate loss of their taxi licence.

 

[entremet]

My understanding is that the state government's problem is mostly with people who are off-premises and treat it as a lucrative money spinner rather than people who rent their spare room or whatever. Is that correct?

This is a good assessment on the struggles of AirBnB in NYC.

New York is the obvious business case for a service such as Airbnb: a dense city where a lot of people want to visit, and hotel rooms are limited in number. You’ve got a population of educated professionals who travel a lot, leaving their apartments empty. You’ve got insane housing costs in desirable areas, leaving renters open to making a few extra bucks on their abode. Unsurprisingly, almost 30,000 NYC units are available on the site.

It turns out, however, that New York is also one of the most challenging environments for Airbnb. You’ve got a powerful hotel lobby that likes the shortage of affordable rooms for rent. You’ve got an extremely high percentage of renters rather than owners, most of whom probably have leases that forbid subletting without permission. You’ve got a lot of apartments, whose fellow tenants may object to your giving strangers the keys to the front door. And don’t forget the well-organized affordable housing groups who object to landlords converting rental units to short-term stays. All of which has culminated in a law that effectively outlaws the majority of Airnb rentals in the city by making it illegal to sublet a New York apartment for less than 30 days. Yesterday, the New York State Attorney General, having demanded data on the city’s top Airbnb landlords, declared that three-quarters of the rentals appear to be illegal.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-17/why-new-york-hates-airbnb

Remember the hotel lobby wants to limit the number of available rooms so they can keep prices high.

 

[DoktorEvil]

This is a good assessment on the struggles of AirBnB in NYC.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-17/why-new-york-hates-airbnb

Remember the hotel lobby wants to limit the number of available rooms so they can keep prices high.

They have every right to. They exist because NYC is a popular tourism spot, but you don't need to stay in Manhattan to experience NYC and that's what tourists fail to understand. I have no sympathy for someone who pays to stay in Manhattan. They know the prices are extravagant and there's always a chump out there paying a ridiculous number larger than the other..

But, you have a case about there being so many renters breaking the no sublet clause in their lease. If the City of NY decided to go after LLs as well as renters, there might be significant legislation that increases the housing stock while driving prices down and offering more rent regulation/controls. We have scores of abandoned industrial spaces not being utilized for housing stock and I'm upset that those same LLs keep holding out for a larger market price.

 

[TheDrowningMan]

So even for a small-time rental (not the myriad listings that are basically hotels / hostels) it's in large part down to the owner being on site?

For instance: Owner rents room(s) and is on-site = okay by the state.

Owner rents room(s) when they travel = illegal.

 

[entremet]

They have every right to. They exist because NYC is a popular tourism spot, but you don't need to stay in Manhattan to experience NYC and that's what tourists fail to understand. I have no sympathy for someone who pays to stay in Manhattan. They know the prices are extravagant and there's always a chump out there paying a ridiculous number larger than the other..

But, you have a case about there being so many renters breaking the no sublet clause in their lease. If the City of NY decided to go after LLs as well as renters, there might be significant legislation that increases the housing stock while driving prices down and offering more rent regulation/controls. We have scores of abandoned industrial spaces not being utilized for housing stock and I'm upset that those same LLs keep holding out for a larger market price.

Sure. But most first time tourists are going to want to stay in Manhattan.

 

[B-Dubs]

So even for a small-time rental (not the myriad listings that are basically hotels / hostels) it's in large part down to the owner being on site?

For instance: Owner rents room(s) and is on-site = okay by the state.

Owner rents room(s) when they travel = illegal.

It also depends on their rental agreement, most have a no-subletting clause of some kind.

 

[Vivalaraza]

Visited NYC a couple of years ago using a similar service to Airbnb - I think we found the place through TripAdvisor actually. Was a 3 bed apartment that we rented for 10 days. Was great - more cost effective than staying in a hotel but also a lot more comfortable which was the best thing about it really. Being able to cook your own dinner and chill out in lounge space etc.

Also using it when I visit Brazil this XMas/New Year.

Can see the obvious risks attached to it but I think there should be a place for these services. They're very useful in more ways than just price.

 

[DoktorEvil]

Sure. But most first time tourists are going to want to stay in Manhattan.

Then they have to pay the price that the hotels are charging.

They have overhead and costs they also have to maintain as well, which includes paying for other fellow residents to service them.

Those same hotels also know that prices can't be so high as to discourage visitors either.

There's a delicate balance always maintained between demand and revenue. Hotel owners aren't stupid. Erecting/Maintaining those buildings, like the Plaza, cost quite a bit to keep proper.

 

[Ingueferroque]

Airbnb is great for both guests and hosts, and a nice shakeup to the system. I hope it stays in NYC.

Then they have to pay the price that the hotels are charging.

They have overhead and costs they also have to maintain as well, which includes paying for other fellow residents to service them.

Those same hotels also know that prices can't be so high as to discourage visitors either.

There's a delicate balance always maintained between demand and revenue. Hotel owners aren't stupid. Erecting/Maintaining those buildings, like the Plaza, cost quite a bit to keep proper.

Aw, poor hotels.

You must understand that Airbnb doesn't necessarily undercut Hotels' revenue. A lot of guests would not have travelled to NYC if it wasn't for the opportunity Airbnb gave them.

 

[TheDrowningMan]

It also depends on their rental agreement, most have a no-subletting clause of some kind.

Of course, though isn't that between tenant and landlord? I'm just curious as to what the state considers "illegal" - I've used the service to stay in places before, never leased anything myself (and couldn't).

 

[PumpkinSpice]

Airbnb is great for both guests and hosts, and a nice shakeup to the system. I hope it stays in NYC.

But it's bad for basically everyone else. Bad for neighbors, bad for neighborhoods, bad for the hotels that are playing by the rules and following regulation.

 

[Miletius]

Visited NYC a couple of years ago using a similar service to Airbnb - I think we found the place through TripAdvisor actually. Was a 3 bed apartment that we rented for 10 days. Was great - more cost effective than staying in a hotel but also a lot more comfortable which was the best thing about it really. Being able to cook your own dinner and chill out in lounge space etc.

Also using it when I visit Brazil this XMas/New Year.

Can see the obvious risks attached to it but I think there should be a place for these services. They're very useful in more ways than just price.

This, although I will say my own experience with AirBnB has been less than stellar. The problem with AirBNB from a consumer standpoint is that there is on guarantee of quality. I stayed in Chicago for a couple of nights about a year and a half ago with an AirBnB apartment and the place with dingy, the sheets and blankets were dusty (and for me, that's a big deal since I have a huge dust mite allergy).

I still think they have a right to exist and operate, though. Probably gonna need to pay some hotel taxes though, which might drive the prices to about what you'd pay for a hotel anyways. In which case, might as well not exist since I'd opt for a hotel every time just to make sure I'm getting quality control with the package.

 

[Coffee Dog]

But it's bad for basically everyone else. Bad for neighbors, bad for neighborhoods, bad for the hotels that are playing by the rules and following regulation.

Doesn't that depend entirely on your neighbors and neighborhoods?

Yeah, if you're an asshole and do it against your neighbor's wishes you suck, but what if nobody gives a shit?

 

[DoktorEvil]

Aw, poor hotels.

You must understand that Airbnb doesn't necessarily undercut Hotels' revenue. A lot of guests would not have travelled to NYC if it wasn't for the opportunity Airbnb gave them.

What an ignorant statement. You can say this for certain?

Just realize the hotels do hire concierge people, luggage handlers, valets, restaurant waiters/chefs/cooking staff, and room cleaning/maintenance all lose, not just the hotel holding company itself.

By paying for Airbnb to be a cheap bastard and avoid paying those hotels in Manhattan, you're saying that one supposed resident, who most likely is doing it illegally, is worth more money than the hundreds of service professional who do work hard to maintain those hotels.

Not to forget, the other hundreds of people being pissed off because their neighbor turned their apartment into a revolving door.

Doesn't that depend entirely on your neighbors and neighborhoods?

Yeah, if you're an asshole and do it against your neighbor's wishes you suck, but what if nobody gives a shit?

That's what condos are for. Co-ops and regular renting arrangements are not designed for one person to pawn off the cost to a stranger.

Condo owners assume that risk vs the LLs who pay to protect their building.

 

[ZedIndyLil]

Anti-airBnB sentiment is growing in cities here in CA as well. I can honestly see both sides of the debate. I think in the long term the regulations don't matter, in the sense that the laws are there to serve the people, and if this service is truly preferable, the laws need to adjust. AT THE SAME TIME, the laws as they stand must be followed. If airBnB goes away and there is an outcry, maybe airBnB 2.0 can benefit. It would be dumb to put a ton of VC into it right now, though, considering all the opposition.

 

[demon]

I don't like the idea of a neighbor in an adjacent apartment turning the place into an unregulated hotel occupied by non-tenants who aren't accountable to the apartment management. That's not what the building is for. I have no problem with this shit being banned at least without some regulations being put in place.

 

[Vivalaraza]

What an ignorant statement. You can say this for certain?

Just realize the hotels do hire concierge people, luggage handlers, valets, restaurant waiters/chefs/cooking staff, and room cleaning/maintenance all lose, not just the hotel holding company itself.

By paying for Airbnb to be a cheap bastard and avoid paying those hotels in Manhattan, you're saying that one supposed resident, who most likely is doing it illegally, is worth more money than the hundreds of service professional who do work hard to maintain those hotels.

Not to forget, the other hundreds of people being pissed off because their neighbor turned their apartment into a revolving door.



That's what condos are for. Co-ops and regular renting arrangements are not designed for one person to pawn off the cost to a stranger.

Condo owners assume that risk vs the LLs who pay to protect their building.

:lol

 

[dallow_bg]

I don't like the idea of a neighbor in an adjacent apartment turning the place into an unregulated hotel occupied by non-tenants who aren't accountable to the apartment management. That's not what the building is for. I have no problem with this shit being banned at least without some regulations being put in place.

I have to agree.

 

[Vivalaraza]

But it's bad for basically everyone else. Bad for neighbors, bad for neighborhoods, bad for the hotels that are playing by the rules and following regulation.

It is also beneficial to the City I would imagine.

A place like NYC probably has dozens of thousands of people visiting via Airbnb a year, all adding to the tourism economy.

 

[pj]

Airbnb is great for both guests and hosts, and a nice shakeup to the system. I hope it stays in NYC.

It's not great for the neighbors of hosts.

Can't afford a hotel? Don't come here. Hotels generally cost way more than rent so I don't know why people expect NYC to be any different. A room in Bumfucksville upstate NY where I'm from is $60 a night, in a town where you can rent a 1br apt for $600 a month. Why shouldn't you pay $300+ a night in NYC where rents are EASILY $3000?

 

[DoktorEvil]

It is also beneficial to the City I would imagine.
A place like NYC probably has dozens of thousands of people visiting via Airbnb a year, all adding to the tourism economy.

Airbnb and Uber also don't pay for the regulations used to certify and maintain those services.

Also, according to the Times regarding the AG report:

But the attorney general’s report says rentals in three areas in Manhattan — Lower East Side/Chinatown, Chelsea/Hell’s Kitchen and Greenwich Village/SoHo — accounted for 40 percent of private stay revenue, or $187 million.

Reservations in Queens, Staten Island and the Bronx accounted for only 3 percent, or $12 million.

The report also indicates that an increasing number of units were being rented out on a more or less permanent basis. While still small in absolute numbers — about 2,000 units are rented for six months of the year or more — affordable-housing advocates have warned that this trend could push up prices for long-term residents as units disappear from the housing stock.

So people who're choosing to pay to stay in Manhattan via Airbnb also conveniently avoid the other 4 boroughs that also offer short stay lodging, which does have cheaper accommodations.

 

[whatsinaname]

I'm not concerned about zoning violations for single domicile listings. Hell, half of the Outer Banks, NC is rented in the same way as AirBnB.

Owners of a property (without a binding HOA agreement) should be allowed to do what they want with their property.

Airbnb is great for both guests and hosts, and a nice shakeup to the system. I hope it stays in NYC.

Aw, poor hotels.

You must understand that Airbnb doesn't necessarily undercut Hotels' revenue. A lot of guests would not have travelled to NYC if it wasn't for the opportunity Airbnb gave them.

This isn't just a concern about 'poor hotels' and tax revenues. You also have to consider protection for both sides. There are risks involved in taking a taxi, renting a car or renting a room/house. Those are usually priced into the equation based, by using commercial insurance.

If you rent a room in NY through AirBnB and find all your clothes are infested with bed bugs, who pays for that? If you get into an accident and find out the Uber driver doesn't have commercial insurance, who pays for any medical expenses you have.

 

[Vivalaraza]

Airbnb and Uber also don't pay for the regulations used to certify and maintain those services.

Also, according to the Times regarding the AG report:



So people who're choosing to pay to stay in Manhattan via Airbnb also conveniently avoid the other 4 boroughs that also offer short stay lodging, which does have cheaper accommodations.

I know they're not paying for the regulations.

They can still be adding to the tourism economy though.

I visited NYC in what was essentially, to my knowledge, a private agreement. Some lady owns a flat and I paid her to let me stay there.

We then went on to spend $1000s when we were there. There is a benefit in that.

Of course I understand the problems which arise when these services are run free of any serious regulation but it's not as black and white as it being good for cheap people and bad for everyone else.

 

[jamesinclair]

Why do you think regulation exists in the first place? It's not to protect incumbent monopolists, like some people seem to think, it's to protect the market as a whole, consumers, and everyone else in society.

With taxis, medallion systems artificially restrict supply. Anyone who's done Econ 101 knows that restricting supply will raise prices. So it sounds like a bad thing. Well, no. Here's why:

1. Taxi drivers only get to keep their medallions when they do things the city wants. That means inspections, safe driving, cameras, tracking, etc.
2. Lower supply means less competition over fares. It means drivers aren't going in circles trying to find people to pick up because there are too many taxis, which is hazardous for pedestrians and other drivers. It less likely for two cab drivers to fight each other for a fare.
3. Lower supply means higher fares but this means drivers have a better quality of life. If fares were lower, drivers would skip bathroom breaks, speed (even more often than they do), drive while tired, etc

Try to understand why regulation is in place in the first place before assuming its a bad thing. In 99% of cases its there for very good reasons, especially things like hotels and taxis which have similar regulations in basically every city.

You live in a hell of a planet man.

That's not what happens in the real world thigh

 

[Coffee Dog]

This isn't just a concern about 'poor hotels' and tax revenues. You also have to consider protection for both sides. There are risks involved in taking a taxi, renting a car or renting a room/house. Those are usually priced into the equation based, by using commercial insurance.

If you rent a room in NY through AirBnB and find all your clothes are infested with bed bugs, who pays for that? If you get into an accident and find out the Uber driver doesn't have commercial insurance, who pays for any medical expenses you have.

Aren't those risks inherent to using a low cost low quality service? Yeah, if something goes wrong, you're shit out of luck. People that care are going to stick to hotels and cabs.

But a lot of people know the risks and choose to do it anyway.

 

[DoktorEvil]

I know they're not paying for the regulations.

They can still be adding to the tourism economy though.

I visited NYC in what was essentially, to my knowledge, a private agreement. Some lady owns a flat and I paid her to let me stay there.

We then went on to spend $1000s when we were there. There is a benefit in that.

Of course I understand the problems which arise when these services are run free of any serious regulation but it's not as black and white as it being good for cheap people and bad for everyone else.

There's a benefit to both existing TBH. Hotels have to get more competitive, but AirBnb as a $10 Bil dollar business? Absolutely not, since all it'll take is a ruling from the AG's office to render their business null and void.

Anything that forces hotels to compete is good. It drives down costs. Good for the consumer and good for the bloated hotel. But I'm not so cool with having a neighbor who has random people coming in and out of their apartment at odd hours of the night.

All it'll take for Airbnb to be gone in NYC is serious crime issues as a result of using those services and it'll scare away even the most honest of renters.

Tourism also doesn't exist in a vacuum. Tourists are not obligated to stay in Manhattan and Manhattan isn't the only borough that has tourist attractions. The subway fare is cheap enough to accommodate even the most budget conscious of travelers. If you're insistent on visiting NYC on a budget, know that Manhattan isn't the cheap person's option of short stay.

 

[Syriel]

Most cab companies have similar apps as well that allow you to request a ride.

Most cab companies only bothered to get those apps after Uber became a thing. Even now though, there is no guarantee that you'll get a cab in SF when you request one from dispatch.

Yellow/Green cabs have them in NYC.

Thanks to Mayor Di Blasio, he has pushed MTA service back and gave more leeway to the Taxi companies floating around the 5 boroughs to gain more fares.

He's trying to keep Uber from being a common choice in NYC. I'm glad he is, even if it means crappier MTA service in the outer boroughs.

Uber has become the common choice in SF, not because of fares, but because of service.

When you call Uber here:

1) You are guaranteed that the car that is dispatched, will actually come get you and not randomly pick up someone else along the way.
2) If you are in an outer district, you are guaranteed that a car will come pick you up.
3) Uber cars are cleaner, newer and nicer than cabs.
4) Uber drivers won't lie to you and say "the credit card reader is broken."

I would never use UBER, I don't feel safe getting into a car with some random person and their random ass personal car. Here taxis are super inspected and dudes are keeping it clean and functionnal. They have their bosses to slam their asses if something happens, there's a whole liability thing going on.

Uber is safer than a "regular" cab. And as noted above, cleaner.

I was hit once by a Yellow Cab here in SF. Want to know what happened?

1) Yellow Cab denied it.
2) Yellow Cab claimed if it did happen, it would be all the driver's responsibility, not theirs (since the cabs are leased to the drivers).
3) Yellow Cab claimed they had no GPS record for that night (even though every car is advertised as GPS tracked).

Eventually we settled and I got my bills paid for, but not until after I hired a lawyer and filed suit.

The official Yellow Cab policy for an incident was DENY, DENY, DENY.

I'm not concerned about zoning violations for single domicile listings. Hell, half of the Outer Banks, NC is rented in the same way as AirBnB.

Owners of a property (without a binding HOA agreement) should be allowed to do what they want with their property.

Property owners knew what the zoning laws were before they bought. If someone buys in a neighborhood with zoning restrictions (knowing it is all residential) and then gets pissed when a neighbor turns their house into a hostel, how is that any different than if it happens in a condo where it is prohibited by the HOA covenants?

If you don't like the law, change it. Don't just break it.

Why do you think regulation exists in the first place? It's not to protect incumbent monopolists, like some people seem to think, it's to protect the market as a whole, consumers, and everyone else in society.

With taxis, medallion systems artificially restrict supply. Anyone who's done Econ 101 knows that restricting supply will raise prices. So it sounds like a bad thing. Well, no. Here's why:

1. Taxi drivers only get to keep their medallions when they do things the city wants. That means inspections, safe driving, cameras, tracking, etc.
2. Lower supply means less competition over fares. It means drivers aren't going in circles trying to find people to pick up because there are too many taxis, which is hazardous for pedestrians and other drivers. It less likely for two cab drivers to fight each other for a fare.
3. Lower supply means higher fares but this means drivers have a better quality of life. If fares were lower, drivers would skip bathroom breaks, speed (even more often than they do), drive while tired, etc

Try to understand why regulation is in place in the first place before assuming its a bad thing. In 99% of cases its there for very good reasons, especially things like hotels and taxis which have similar regulations in basically every city.

Taxi medallions are simply a taxpayer giveaway to a blessed few.

Again, speaking of SF, but medallion owners are rarely actual taxi drivers.

Medallion owners here simply lease out their medallions to drivers. They don't make their money by driving a cab. It's all about the lease payments.

 

[StMeph]

I think cities/states have a legitimate complaint, if just because these services are profiting by avoiding or subverting taxes and fees, and it isn't totally fair competition.

That said, it would be awful for the consumer to take them away, because they are often better or cheaper services, and it still IS competition. Removing those would produce higher prices, and in the cases of taxi services, a near monopoly again. It's not good for users.

There should be some way for AirBNB or Uber to pay taxes/fees and remain in business.

 

[StoOgE]

1) You are guaranteed that the car that is dispatched, will actually come get you and not randomly pick up someone else along the way.
2) If you are in an outer district, you are guaranteed that a car will come pick you up.
3) Uber cars are cleaner, newer and nicer than cabs.
4) Uber drivers won't lie to you and say "the credit card reader is broken."
.

1) That's not true. I once tried to use Uber to get to an airport and had 6 drivers cancel on me, so I called a limo service.

2) See #1, it also assumes a car is nearby, but Uber drivers can decline any route they don't want to take since they are independent contractors.

3) Maybe that's the case in San Fran, but I've had Uber cars run the gamut. Really nice Lexus SUV to a total heap with trash in the backseat floor. Heard a friend in Austin had a pizza guy pick him up with a Papa Johns sign on the hood.

4) That might happen in SF, but in NYC they have to run the meter for the top light to come off and the risk (a million dollar medallion) to going off duty isn't worth it if they are caught with someone on a fair. I've never seen that happen. NJ is a different story with their dumb taxi system.

That said, I get Uber. Outside of NYC I've had better luck with Uber than cabs, but that tends to be because the cabs are cash only (NJ) or not enough of them (almost every city in America). That said, Uber needs to own up to the fact that they are a taxi company in everything but name and legal wrangling.

 

[B-Dubs]

1) That's not true. I once tried to use Uber to get to an airport and had 6 drivers cancel on me, so I called a limo service.

2) See #1, it also assumes a car is nearby, but Uber drivers can decline any route they don't want to take since they are independent contractors.

3) Maybe that's the case in San Fran, but I've had Uber cars run the gamut. Really nice Lexus SUV to a total heap with trash in the backseat floor. Heard a friend in Austin had a pizza guy pick him up with a Papa Johns sign on the hood.

4) That might happen in SF, but in NYC they have to run the meter for the top light to come off and the risk (a million dollar medallion) to going off duty isn't worth it if they are caught with someone on a fair. I've never seen that happen. NJ is a different story with their dumb taxi system.

That said, I get Uber. Outside of NYC I've had better luck with Uber than cabs, but that tends to be because the cabs are cash only (NJ) or not enough of them (almost every city in America). That said, Uber needs to own up to the fact that they are a taxi company in everything but name and legal wrangling.

Yup yup.

 

[DoktorEvil]

1) That's not true. I once tried to use Uber to get to an airport and had 6 drivers cancel on me, so I called a limo service.

2) See #1, it also assumes a car is nearby, but Uber drivers can decline any route they don't want to take since they are independent contractors.

3) Maybe that's the case in San Fran, but I've had Uber cars run the gamut. Really nice Lexus SUV to a total heap with trash in the backseat floor. Heard a friend in Austin had a pizza guy pick him up with a Papa Johns sign on the hood.

4) That might happen in SF, but in NYC they have to run the meter for the top light to come off and the risk (a million dollar medallion) to going off duty isn't worth it if they are caught with someone on a fair. I've never seen that happen. NJ is a different story with their dumb taxi system.

That said, I get Uber. Outside of NYC I've had better luck with Uber than cabs, but that tends to be because the cabs are cash only (NJ) or not enough of them (almost every city in America). That said, Uber needs to own up to the fact that they are a taxi company in everything but name and legal wrangling.

Doubtful. The day Uber owns up to being a taxi service, that valuation goes out the window and they're worth much less money than 10 Billion dollars Market Cap.

 

[StoOgE]

Doubtful. The day Uber owns up to being a taxi service, that valuation goes out the window and they're worth much less money than 10 Billion dollars Market Cap.

Oh, I totally understand why they *wont* do that, but they are a cab company.

 

[onken]

I'll cross-post this.

I think AirBNB is probably going to wind up going away in NYC in it's current capacity. I think Uber isn't far behind.

My neighbor got kicked out of her apartment for renting it on airbnb.

I liked her and felt bad, but I don't blame the owner. A top floor apartement was turning the roof of our building into frat daddy party central every weekend.

We were somewhat lucky in that we have duplexed bedrooms and the bedroom directly under the roof is an office. So, our actual bedroom had a buffer of our office. Could still hear music and jumping sometimes.

I didn't say anything, but it was getting old. I live in the UWS to avoid that kind of stuff. I'd move to Kips Bay and save money if I didn't mind parties.

Then there is the question to how much damage was this causing to the apartment. I would walk out in the hallway and there would be trashcan bags full of empties just sitting there. The owner rented to a single tenant who passed a background and income check. Who knows who these people were who were coming into our building?

I went from leaving my door unlocked while walking my dogs to having to lock my apartment and worry about packages in the entryway. 15 units means I know everyone in the building.. until one became a revolving door.

Sorry but how is this AirBNB's fault? In an alternative reality, what was stopping the party loving sub tenant from being the original tenant?

 

[The Elite]

Where am I going to have my crazy orgies now?

Had one experience with the service and thought it worked out pretty well. NYC.

 

[Gallbaro]

Uber is a way for drivers to avoid paying for a Taxi Badge in most cases, and with a taxi driver they have rules they have to follow and will lose their badge for accidents or tickets.

Whose car are you getting into with Uber?

I don't know, I've used Uber outside of NYC (not really necessary here) and have had good experiences, and had another where I had to kick someones trash away from my feet.

Every Uber vehicle operating in NYC is a TLC registered vehicle.

All its drivers have hack licenses in NYC.

Your statement is flat out wrong.