Short-Term Apt Rentals Now Illegal in NYC
 

To get rid of any confusion, the New York Legislature just made apartment rentals for less than 30 days illegal. The governor signed the law in a surprise move (many thought he would veto it, as he had threatened). This is very welcome news for NYC residents since it should free up some apartments that have been used by fly by night "B&B"s. If you have been using VRBO or Craigslist to find cheaper, larger accommodations in the city, I'd really urge you to cancel any reservations and book a hotel room. I suspect the city will start cracking down on illegal rentals now, and buildings will be more proactive in banning them.

Interesting. Thanks.

It's now more likely than any such listings are scams - and the potential for problems in those apartments that exist are greater. (A couple of months ago the police closed down an illegal, unlicensed hostel in the late hours of the night - summarily evicting all of the dozens of guests - who then had to find a hotel at the last minute - or take one night lodging in emergency shelter - cot in an armoury - before looking for one).

It's really just not a good idea to try short-term rentals in NYC any longer, There are plenty of hotels with suite accommodations - including many with kitchenette that you can book instead. And that way you know the place actually exists.

The building I lived in several years ago, one tenant would rent out her apartement all the time and we had an interesting "mix" of visitors, one started a fire and of course there were several loud parties and a few calls to the police. The thing that bothered me was security, we never knew who was living in the building.

I read an interesting article recently that the City of Paris was having similar problems with short term rentals as well, even by apartment owners and it is now illegal in Paris to rent out apartments for a short term as well.

Well, I'm glad my next one booked for May 2011 is for the whole month -- 31 days and it is allowed by the condo it is in.

I happened to catch that news story and Paterson first thought he had aleady vetoed it...

Well, if he thought he had already vetoed it, I can see how it was a "surprise move" when he signed it into law. Duh!

"I vetoed it the first time, but approved it the second time"

"<i> . . it is now illegal in Paris to rent out apartments for a short term as well.</i>"

That isn't true -- there has been a crack down/changes in the rules and registration, but there are still hundreds of legal short term/holiday rentals in Paris.

The effective date of the law is May 1, 2011.

http://travel.usatoday.com/destinati...n-nyc/101054/1

Where are all the "it's their property and they should be able to do whatever they like with it" people?

Not talking about renters subletting, talking about those who actually own the apartments.

Their own "home" is fine, but in a building where other people live and people come and go, it's a question of security.

When you buy an apartment in a co-op or condo you sign a lease with very specific requirements concerning subletting. You wouldn't be allowed to purchase without agreeing to those terms.

It's just like buying a house. If you live in an area in which only single-family houses are allowed, or overnight parking on the street is banned - you have to follow the rules - you don;t get to change them just because you bought a dwelling and feel like doing whatever you want.

When people have firm beliefs, their sense of logic seems to go out the window. nytraveler if you want to compare renting out an apartment you own to parking on the public street in front of a house you own, you'll have to do better than that. You need to compare the condo renter to setting a bed up in the hall or perhaps on the sidewalk and sleeping there. (Since you want to talk about changing laws of property that the owner doesn't even own or control). Actually sleeping in the hallway wouldn't even be the same as parking on a street in front of a house, as in most condos or coops the owner of an apartment does at least partially own the hallway -- unlike a homeowner who does NOT own the street in front of his house. What does parking on a street off property even remotely have to do with the issue at hand? I know you have STRONG feelings about this, but lets not get carried away with such convoluted logic or comparisons!

By the way, the wording of the new law is very strange indeed, since it mainly talks about "hotel" type living as being transient. Don't be surprised if many people don't start "beating" the new law with allowing "new" friends to stay in their apartment for a week or two -- or letting them care for their pet or plants, something which is rarely covered by individual condo or coop laws.

And by the way, I'm not saying the above to run down the law or to say people shouldn't follow it -- but rather to make what should be an obvious point to everyone -- wherever there is a rule, there are plenty of people who figure out a way to break that rule (and often, legally via loopholes).

Neo, I believe nytraveler's point had to do with breaking rules you agree to when you purchase your home (whether single family/condo/coop) whatever those rules might be.

BTW, our homeowners association DOES own the street in front of our house.

Doug, thanks for posting this - I suspect there will be many people who rent via vrbo or other sites who have no idea that they may be illegally renting.

I believe she said "It's JUST LIKE buying a house. If you live in an area in which only single-family houses are allowed, or overnight parking on the street is banned - you have to follow the rules."

No, it isn't "just like" it. A much better comparison would have been "even if you buy a house, you can't make so much noise that it disturbs your neighbors." That would be a more logical comparison -- and a correct one. But changing the rules of the street you don't own in front of your house? Why not say, changing the rules about voting in your state?

Actually a very few homeowner's do own the streets, but that is extremely rare -- more often than not they may only be responsible for maintaining it. But the rule about parking on a street has to do with anyone -- the general public -- not just the owner of the house near it and in most circumstances it isn't the owner of the home that sets those rules to begin with -- unlike the rules of condo or coop ownership and what happens within their own property.

Neo, I beg to differ. I think what 321go said is exactly what nyt meant. Many single-family homes are in communities with rules determined by the homeowners' association, which is no different from condos or coop in a building with rules determined by the homeowners' association. If you buy into such a community, or such a building, you are subject to its rules. In a building, those rules might include not renting for less than 30 days, or not having more than 10 people in the apartment at any one time. In a community, those rules might include not parking on the street, or not having two 10 unrelated people living in the same house. If you buy in such a community, you're bound by the rules of the association, and if you fail to comply, action can be brought against you. Just because a condo or coop is within one building doesn't make it any different from private homes in a community with a homeowners association.

We'll continue to disagree. I do agree with everything you say, sf7307, but I do NOT agree that abiding by the rules of condo association in what you do inside it is JUST like abiding by the rules imposed by a city on public thoroughfares. Of course people in condos must abide by public laws outside their homes too just like homeowners -- maybe that's what she meant. But one has to do with the other, still escapes me. You can choose to think they are "just alike" if you want to. That's your choice. It's a silly argument that I started, I'll agree. But I was amused at the very, very odd comparison saying the two things are "just alike" -- that's all. I'm done here.

NP, I just don't see where she anything about violations of "rules imposed by a city on public thoroughfares". Like I said, I believe her reference to not being allowed to park on the street had nothing to do with public laws and everything to do with HOA rules.