Sign in / up

back to article No NY love for Airbnb

The state of New York and DIY lodging broker Airbnb are on the outs over a new state law banning short-term rentals. The law, signed last Friday by Governor Andrew Cuomo, calls for fines of up to $7,500 for anyone who rents out a vacant apartment (subletting an occupied home is allowed) for fewer than 30 days at a time. The …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *
  1. Brenda McViking
    Devil

    Having just come back from an airbnb stay in NYC (Not an illegal one, landlord was living in the apartment) I can tell you that I simply wouldn't have gone had I had to rely on hotels. The price in Manhattan was eyewatering enough as it was at $80pppn with airbnb, the hotels were more like $110pppn + tax.

    However, for that money we had a lovely host, who provided us with everything we asked for and plenty we didn't, like a welcome hamper. He gave us tips on where to go, and looked after us really well. With our friends staying in a hotel, they reported that they were forced to wait 2 hours (at 1am) for a hotel room as theirs had been double booked (despite their guarantee), wifi was $25 a day, and they were given nought but a free croissant for their trouble at check-in. Service, eh?

    Much like the NYC taxi medallion insanity has been stemmed by uber, (they don't cost $1m a year anymore - a price that was being passed to the general public), the hotel industry could do with a royal kick in the ass and buck-up their ideas. I wish airbnb all the best with their suit. As far as I'm concerned, if you have an apartment, you should be able to do whatever the hell you like with it without some encumbant hotelier sticking their noses in.

    I mean, maybe Starbucks should be able to fine you $3 every time you boil a kettle when you have friends around, because you're eating into their profits because your water supply doesn't have to abide by regulations that apply to them. Or have Subway pass a law that says you can't make sandwiches for yourself and the kids if you only do it once a week. How is this any different?

    2 1 Reply
    1. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      To point out the bleeding obvious, you can make as many sandwiches and cups of coffee as you want *provided you're not selling them*. As soon as you offer a service to the public you need to comply with all the appropriate legislation.

      2 0 Reply
  2. Warm Braw

    You should be able to do whatever the hell you like with it

    Clearly, the owners of the two flats in my block that were bought specifically for short-term rental take the same view. However, the rest of us aren't too happy about the loud late night parties, use of other apartments' parking space and dumping of litter around the corridors and open spaces that seems inevitably to stem from a business based on the premise of "I'll do what I want and sod the rest of you".

    Anyone in leasehold property (such as an apartment) in England and Wales suffering similar problems should take a look here as the whole point of leasehold property is that there is a contract with the lessor and with the other lessees which is supposed to balance individual interests against those of the community of leaseholders: you certainly cannot do "whatever the hell you like".

    2 0 Reply
  3. Charles 9

    Just curious. How do the 14th Amendment and Interstate Commerce Clause figure into this?

    0 0 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Guess it's because the 14th Amendment interpretation of "freedom to contract freely" - which may help them or not, given there has been conflicting ruling over time.

      Looks today lawyers in this cases always starts with the bigger guns.

      0 0 Reply
      1. Charles 9
        Reply Icon

        Except that's not in the 14th Amendment itself but rather a controversial majority ruling of Lochner v. New York, based on the Amendment's Due Process clause. Note, though, that this ruling was made in 1905, attitudes have changed, and to some degree the stuff that was struck down in the ruling now applies: probably because they're on the federal rather than state level. Contracts CAN be limited by law if they're shown to be unfair or otherwise in violation. Such conditions give rise to the legal term "null and void". As for Interstate commerce, that usually only gets applied when the parties to the business are based in multiple states such that the actual business being conducted crosses state lines. Something like a hotel, a person-to-person rather than business-to-business thing, usually wouldn't be considered interstate.

        0 0 Reply
        1. Swarthy
          Reply Icon
          Big Brother

          Interstate commerce Clause

          Since the Interstate Commerce Clause can be applied to a farmer growing wheat to feed their own chickens (because otherwise said farmer would be buying wheat, which would probably come across state lines), I can see it being applied to person-to-person transactions. The 14th Amendment bit is a bit harder for me to wrap my head around.

          0 0 Reply

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon