nelsonian

I e-mailed the owner, she replied, yes, due to the size of the building it is legal.

Not sure exactly what she means though.

Ackislander

"This smacks of concessions made to big hotel businesses."

Absolutely wrong. As nytraveler points out, it is for the protection of other tenants against partying, vast numbers of people showing up to stay at an apartment rented for two, and illegal activities like prostitution, drug sales and even, yes, temporary meth labs.

For ten years, we owned a condo in a high rise in Boston. After many years, the association succeeded in banning short term rentals for these very reasons. Doormen were no longer allowed to pass on keys, even to "friends" and "relatives", and we enforced occupancy limits even when the owner was present.

Because some owners depended on rental for income and found themselves needing to sublet, we did permit sublets of six months or longer. Our condo in Naples, Florida had a minimum sublet of three months. Both were enforced by fines against owners.

New York real estate law is a whole subject in itself, but New York is certainly not the only place where condo owners do not want short term, unsupervised "guests".

nytraveler

The entire state of New York comes under these rules. And either the landlord was lying to you or she just doesn't understand the rules. (There sometimes are different rules for very small building in terms of longer term rentals.)

And the problem is that everyone wants to stay in Manhattan, which has very high real estate costs, high construction costs, high property taxes and high wages versus much of the country - esp the new notell motel out by the side of some highway - where rooms can be huge because land is basically free.

doug_stallings

Actually, nelsonian, the owner of the apartment in Queens is either a) lying so people aren't dissuaded into not renting her apartment or b) mistaken ... badly and probably willfully.

Building size doesn't affect the applicability of the NYS law about short-term rentals. Only people who live in private homes or large apartments (and continue to reside in them) are allowed to rent out rooms, and I think even the ground there is difficult to navigate. If it's an apartment, then your building bylaws must allow the nightly rentals (renters are NEVER allowed to rent out nightly since there's a prohibition on sublets that are not approved in writing by the landlord in the standard NYS apartment lease).

People who own private homes and townhouses have much more flexibility.

nytraveler

Yes, they do. But the number of private homes in Manhattan is minute (Gracie Mansion?) and the number of private townhouses is extremely limited (and they generally cost from $5 million up - often way up - so few owners are interested in letting out rooms.)

There are a few townhouse owner who do this - but again - the rented needs to be sure 1) it is a legal situation and 2) it isn't a scam.

There was just a report of an apartment scam in NYC on another (nameless) travel board. Despite advice to the contrary a renter sent money in advance for the rental of an apartment. The poster believed the story of the rental agent that they were able to circumvent the law by putting together a number of people who, together would be renting for more than a month, even though each rental was for a limited time (obviously illegal under the law). Also suspicious was that the web site and emails has obviously been created by someone whose English was odd/poor, they did not provide exact address or landline phone, did not give the full name and contact info for a local contact - and the price was ridiculously low for the claimed luxury accommodation. So yes, it turned out to be a scam. The building existed - but not the apartment or the rental agent.

easytraveler

Thanks for sharing diverse points of view on this subject.

I do, however, have to take issue with one paragraph:

Ackislander: As nytraveler points out, it is for the protection of other tenants against partying, vast numbers of people showing up to stay at an apartment rented for two, and illegal activities like prostitution, drug sales and even, yes, temporary meth labs.

Partying? I've had more disturbed nights in hotel rooms with rowdy neighbors or drunken people running and shouting up and down hotel hallways. I've never had that kind of experience with airbnb rooms.

"Vast numbers of people showing up...in a room for two"? You can't have "vast numbers" if the host specifically says it's a small room (most rooms in NYC are small) and the bed can accommodate at best two people. I do a lot of research before booking a room on airbnb and I have NEVER read a single review where the owner said that "vast numbers" showed up, nor even that more than the number who applied showed up.

"Illegal activities like prostitution, illegal drugs and setting up a meth lab"

I hate to point this out but prostitution and illegal drugs can take place in hotels too. As for setting up a meth lab, I'm not too knowledgeable in this area, but it seems ridiculous that someone staying for one or two nights (and who is out being a tourist most of the day) is capable of setting up a meth lab. It would make more sense for long term renters to be setting up meth labs - no?

One major reason I started using airbnb is because of something airbnb rooms have to offer that hotels don't - the personal touch. People who share their homes with strangers are usually fantastic hosts and hostesses. One learns so much more about an area because the host/hostess is always eager to share their local knowledge. There's nothing like sitting down to a wonderful breakfast and just chatting with the host/hostess. There is genuine warmth and friendship that no sterile hotel can duplicate and I've stayed in enough sterile hotels not to want too many repeat experiences.

Too bad NYers can't share their local knowledge or their enthusiasm for their city. I still think this is a "kill the competition" move by the "hospitality" industry.

nytraveler

This is NOTHING to do with the hospitality industry.

It is a function of the fact that there is a more than 99% occupancy rate of apartments in Manhattan - and most of those that are empty are at the top of the market. Finding a decent apartment at a rental one can afford - even with rent stabilization is extremely difficult.

The purpose is to keep apartments in Manhattans available for locals by 1) preventing landlords from turning apartment houses into illegal hotels (not meeting safety standards) and 2)preventing absentee tenants from occupying apartments that are needed by people who actually live in the city.

Most cities do not have this type of problem - apartments are often a glut on the market.

There has been a shortage of apartments in Manhatten since WWII - and the one being built are mostly condos/or very high priced rentals. the city wants to protects it's middle class and working class residents by preserving their apartment buildings for their use.

Sorry - but this is more important than making apartments available to tourists - who can stay in hotels, B&Bs or hostels. Granted we get 50 million visitors a year. But they don;t vote. The millions of residents of the city do - and time and again have strongly supported rent stabilization to preserve the option of locals to live in Manhattan.

This will not change.

And if tourists don't fell chummy enough with staff in normal tourist lodgings - they can stay longer, rent an apartment and make lots of friends here.

easytraveler

Having a shortage of apartments and restrictive laws don't always go hand in hand. I live in an area with some of the highest apartment rents in the nation, yet we have an almost unlimited ability to expand in every direction (unlike NYC).

To a large extent, we're talking apples and oranges: you keep talking about whole apartments while the majority of airbnb users usually rent only one room and consider an ensuite room a luxury.

I fail to see why, if a person has been staying in the same apartment for the last 20 years and now has a grown child gone off to college, why that person can't rent out a spare room. This has nothing to do with "protecting its middle class and working class residents". Maybe that child will come back to stay with the parents again after college - especially in this economy.

I fail to see why you want to take such a hostile tone with this "We don't care about tourists, you have to fend for yourselves", seeing that NY city's budget is around $60 billion and half/more than half of the city's income is from visitors.

nytraveler

The tone is not hostile. It's simply realistic. The housing market is going to be regulated for the benefit of locals who live there all the time - and pay large income taxes to the state and the city to do so.

And the person can't rent out a spare room because either the lease with the landlord doesn't allow it or the agreement with the co-op or condo, which they signed upon purchase, doesn't allow it.

The local residents don't want a lot of transients in and out of their personal living spaces - with all of the security issues that creates. (Our building has fobs versus keys for this very reason. One can't simply make up a bunch of fobs and hand them out to random people - about whom one knows nothing. As happens with apartment keys of people who are subletting illegally.)

I completely understand that people want their residences to be private - not open to who knows how many strangers - who may keep the keys, or pass them on to others or ?

And I'm afraid your information on tourism and the budget is inaccurate. It is true that the city budget is about $68 billion. And it is true that tourists spend about $31 billion. But that isn't $31 billion of the city budget. Most of that $31 billion goes into private hands - only a small portion reaches the city as tax revenues. Most is profit for all types of private businesses, wages for staff, etc - out of the city's total economy. So I'm afraid you've grossly overestimated the importance of tourism to the city economy. It's certainly a plus - but finance, high tech and education - as well as taxes from local residents contribute much more to the city's budget.

easytraveler

nytraveler: And the person can't rent out a spare room because either the lease with the landlord doesn't allow it or the agreement with the co-op or condo, which they signed upon purchase, doesn't allow it.

I thought we had already established that there's a difference between private rental agreements are different from a city-wide government-mandated ordinance?

I completely understand that people want their residences to be private

Me, too. But does having keys/fobs/whatever to one apartment compromise the privacy of all the other units in the apartment as well? That's a pretty extraordinary concept. Besides which, if the airbnb user is going to so damage the host with noise or whatever, doesn't the HOA or the apartment have the right to evict the host? Why would the host want to run that kind of extraordinary risk? Airbnb hosts have the right to select their guests in far better ways than hotels. I've had a few situations where the airbnb hosts would hand me a couple of sheets of instructions. Airbnb guests and hosts can write one another up after a stay, so that if the guest is really that bad, the airbnb host has the right not to rent to that person. Those reviews are a far better safeguard than what goes on in hotels, where room locks can be opened with an ordinary credit card and room "safes" really aren't that "safe" anyhow.

Thank you for the correction on the stats on city budget. I stand corrected. Guess $31 billion is just peanuts for New York. What I really wanted to point out is that, as far as I can understand, the city receives no income from the airbnb rentals, so the city isn't incentivized to protect the average renter - but I got sidetracked with all the numbers I was looking at.

sf7307

ET, I think that unlike a private home, the whole building in which a renter or condo/coop owner lives is considered their "home". So yes, it would compromise their privacy as well as their feelings of safety to have strangers wandering around. We have friends who live in a relatively small doorman building on the upper west side who never lock the door to their apartment. They woukdn't be able to do that if their neighbors were renting out their apartment to transients. Sure, they're taking their chances with their neighbors' guests, but the risk is a heck of a lot lower.

5alive

I just try to put myself in the shoes of the people who live next to these illegal rentals. Constantly having strangers entering the security door or trying to figure out how to unlock the unit next to mine? That sounds stressful. Every apartment I lived in required a background check before I was approved--do these short term renters go through the same vetting? I'm guessing not. I also am realizing that I was fortunate to have had good property managers at most of the apartments I rented as a young adult. This simply wouldn't have been allowed.

Ackislander

IIRC, nothing in NY law prevents someone from renting a room to a stranger IF s/he he will be present during the occupancy. It is an unattended rental that is illegal.

On the other hand, condos and coops and rental leases may make a rental illegal as a contract. They may not. They have the right to do either, and the terms are clearly state in the coop or condo docs or the lease. The owner/lessor agreed to those terms when they bought or leased the unit. Period.

Some leases permit sublets, some not. But in all cases, the landlord needs to know.

I am not a lawyer nor am I your lawyer, but who is liable if you are injured in an illegal rental or if you damage the property? Suppose you are scalded in the shower or suppose you fail to close the shower curtain properly and let the shower run onto the floor and into the apartment below?

Ask your insurance agent whether you are covered for the damages you caused. Ask your lawyer how easy it would be to recover damages from someone whose liability policy does not cover illegal rentals.

nytraveler

Yes, but the fact is that almost all rental agreements or condo/co-op by -laws DO make short -term rentals illegal. Trying to find out if this is legal in a particular building is not really something that a tourist is able to do. And - the tenant subletting may simply lie about it. (And yes, long-term subletters are vetted just like buyers in almost all co-ops and condos - having to provide full financial and employment information as well as personal references. And the managing agents do complete credit and criminal background checks. No one is doing that for tourists staying for a week. so there is essentially no protection for other residents of these buildings.

Ad even though I always lock our door when leaving the apartment (except to go to the incinerator/recycling room on the same floor - I still don;t want to encounter strangers in the hallways, lobby, laundry room, etc - and not know if they are simply illegal subletters or outright intruders/thieves.

That's the reason it's simply better not to contemplate this - even assuming it's not an outright scam.

Lookin_Glass

"I still don;t want to encounter strangers in the hallways, lobby, laundry room, etc - and not know if they are simply illegal subletters or outright intruders/thieves."

or neighbor's friends, or family, or guests, or housecleaners, or handyman. You could learn something from a Jerry Seinfeld episode or two.

5alive

Sure. And your neighbor could be a psychopath too. Why increase the odds?

At the heart of this whole thing is zoning laws. Your argument is that the zoning laws are an undue imposition on a property owner. My county doesn't allow left-turn entrances within a certain number of feet within a major intersection. So if you have a vacant lot at a major corner, you have to show how traffic will enter and leave safely in order to get a building permit. Crummy for them, but worse for the people who've been in major accidents because of backup onto the arterial road.

My general conclusion is that I respect a city's --and a building management's right--to make limits as to who can live in a residential-zoned structure. It's crummy for me as a tourist but then again, I'm only there a week, not 52 weeks.

sf7307

I don't like it for me as a tourist, either, but I certainly understand it.

nytraveler

Sorry - that simply isn't the case. Workmen or housekeepers in the building have ID passes (and workmen have to be approved by the super).

And delivery people are - well - delivering something.

Visitors or guests wouldn't be in the laundry room - or hanging around in other public areas - but would be on the way in or out - often with the person they are visiting.

Yes, it is possible that I might meet a legitimate visitor in the elevator. But not groups of them hauling their luggage in and out on a regular basis.

Sorry - we pay a lot for our privacy - and don't want it intruded upon.

easytraveler

Ackislander: IIRC, nothing in NY law prevents someone from renting a room to a stranger IF s/he he will be present during the occupancy. It is an unattended rental that is illegal.

If that's the case, then this NY ordinance doesn't apply to quite a majority of the airbnb rooms-to-let. A lot of the really cheap ones in NYC are "come sleep on my couch" type of lodging - one step up from a hostel and two steps up from couchsurfers. There are also plenty of "sleep in my second bedroom, share my bathroom". Apparently these don't come under the NYC ordinance.

As for what is on a private contract between the HOA/apartment owner and the long-term tenant, that's a private arrangement, so it'll be really ridiculous to expect airbnb to know in advance what each individual rental contract provides anywhere in the world.

There's also the assumption somehow that the average airbnb renter is going to be a drug dealer, a partier, or the proverbial Fodors axe murderer. The exact opposite is the usual case for both airbnb renter and host. That's what the mutual reviews are all about. If you don't want to run the risk, don't rent from/out to someone with no reviews. Period. Simple.

I just don't buy it that there aren't other forces at work behind (enforcement of) this ordinance: those of the city not collecting any taxes on the airbnb rentals and the hotels fearing loss of business, as a couple of examples.

nytraveler

The NY ordinance might not apply - but the standard NY apartment lease agreement does ban this type of sublet. As do the rules of almost all co-ops and condos.

So in almost all cases it is either against the law - or against the contract governing the occupancy of the apartment.

I don;t know why it is so hard to believe that legitimate tenants don't want strangers wandering around their private residences.

As for a devilish plot by NYC hoteliers - the occupancy rates are extremely high - except in Jan/Feb when rooms are given away for practically nothing - and the market is so underserved that there are new hotels being built or converted all the time. There is no lack of guests for the hotels in NY - as perhaps there are in other parts of the country where the economy is still weak.

According to the Fed the NYC economy is growing strongly - and the number of employed is at an all time high - while that of the state is also growing, although not as quickly. Most recent hotel occupancy rates are more than 90% for NYC, despite the fact that the supply of hotel rooms continues to grow at a significant rate (more than 26K additional rooms in the last 10 years).