Did NYC Just Kneecap Airbnb?
"The city is treating our private property as the city's housing stock."

Have you ever stayed at an Airbnb where you had the full unit to yourself, where the owner was not present? Have you ever stayed at one with a spouse and a child, or two friends?
In New York City, such arrangements will no longer be allowed. Local Law 18 came into effect Tuesday. It effectively makes the city's roughly 38,500 Airbnb listings illegal.
"Short-term rentals [30 days or under] are only permitted if the host is staying in the same unit or apartment as the guests, and there are no more than two guests staying with the host," says the city, which dictates that hosts "maintain a common household" with guests and that they register their short-term rental with the government, paying a $145 fee. Guests must have "free and unobstructed access to every room, and each exit within the apartment."
"For this reason, locking internal doors is not permitted," reports The Washington Post, "though hosts and guests can secure bathrooms, bedrooms and other private quarters when they are in use," per the law.
Many scenarios will now be banned due to Local Law 18. A property owner who rents out their apartment for three weeks while traveling will no longer be able to do so; a family who seeks to rent a full unit, with multiple bedrooms, will no longer be able to do so.
Homeowners like Julian Ehrhardt see this as an assault on their property rights. Ehrhardt bought his home in Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood back in 2017. He restored the derelict property "with a lot of pride," Ehrhardt tells Reason, and started renting out one of the units while living in the other. Having hosted over 200 guests from all over the world, Ehrhardt talks warmly about watching foreigners experience his neighborhood. "The origins of the housing crisis are far more nuanced," he says, "than people renting out spare rooms."
"The concern for many homeowners is maintaining the mortgage payments" now that Local Law 18 has gone into effect, he says. "There were a lot of hosts who were retired, who had their homes inherited, who don't have the means" who will be affected by the new restrictions. Ehrhardt is part of a group called RHOAR NYC (Restore Homeowner Autonomy & Rights), a grassroots group that's trying to amend the law "to exempt owner occupied one- and two-family homes" and to remove the capacity limit so they can have the freedom to rent out their homes again, per their website. "The law and implementation of Local Law 18 takes away our autonomy over our homes and puts us at acute financial and personal risk," says RHOAR.
I live in Bed-Stuy, too. When my large family visits, they typically stay at an Airbnb townhouse that's 0.6 miles away from my apartment. I priced out how much they would need to spend for a comparable stay at a decent hotel—putting them two to three miles away, since Bed-Stuy has very few decent hotels—and it was double the price. Many others have chimed in with their personal stories of how short-term rentals have made trips to New York feasible for their families. If every visit becomes twice as expensive, why would anyone come to this rat-infested metropolis?
The law is a gift to the hotel industry. But hotels aren't always affordable, nor do they allow travelers to stay in off-the-beaten-path neighborhoods. (As for hostels, they were banned 13 years ago.) There's no reason why the city should let the politically powerful incumbent be locked into an advantage; facing some competition from short-term rental platforms may be a good thing in terms of forcing prices down.
"Council members are scared to vote against the [hotel] unions," says Ehrhardt. Groups like the Coalition Against Illegal Hotels have mobilized to oppose any change to Local Law 18; they cite San Francisco—which is notoriously unaffordable for both residents and travelers—as an example of a place where short-term rental regulations have snuffed out "illegal hotel activity" and as a model worth emulating.
Supporters of Local Law 18 claim short-term rentals are to blame for New York's housing affordability issues. The far greater problem is how difficult it is to build new housing stock in a city that heaps on onerous permitting restrictions and has for too long allowed lots of "not in my backyard" (NIMBY) veto power. In fact, New York is far less dense with Airbnbs than other cities, points out the Cato Institute's Scott Lincicome. And cities need all different types of housing configurations at all different prices in all different neighborhoods, not controlled by central planners, but subject to the changing needs of market participants. All this aside, even if short-term rentals were squarely to blame for a housing supply crunch, infringing on the rights of property owners is a terrible precedent to set.
This year, New York City expects to receive 61 million tourists, up from 56 million last year and inching much closer to pre-pandemic levels (66.6 million in 2019). But city officials are biting the hands that feed: both the tourists who help power the economy—whether residents like it or not—and the taxpaying landlords who provide housing options to willing buyers at rates all parties accept.
"I think the hotel lobby has done a very effective comms job—labeling us as wealthy landlords was very effective," says Ehrhardt, who seeks to comply with the law.
"The city is treating our private property as the city's housing stock."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A. Of course it's a violation of property rights.
B. My bet's on these people voting for the politicians who want these laws. I have zero sympathy.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Zero sympathy, aye, and an evil sense of schadenfreude upon them too. They (New Yorkers) deserve every bit of what their pandering elected representatives foist upon them, and in yet another way, they're getting it "good and hard".
One thing I don't understand about the article: Why does it matter, because who in hell wants to go visit in New York? For the benefit of readers who are thinking, what is this "New" York of which you speak, New York is the place you go to, after you die, if you have not been a nice person!!
Airbnb has always supported the authoritarians so let them eat cake.
Elections have consequences.
In Soviet Russia, consequences have elections.
I’am making over $200 an hour working online with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 18k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless .And best thing is..It’s so Easy..Copy below website to check it………….
———————————————-➤ http://Www.Coins71.Com
My first response was snark about webcam shows, but out of respect for the supposed 2 kids at home, I'll withhold comment. If you've read my previous comments to crap posting like this, your mind can fill in the blanks.
No prob, Airbnb just needs to find a “retired” high level Democrat to help them get an exemption, like Lyft did with Babs Boxer out in CA.
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/459306-ocasio-cortez-blasts-former-senate-dem-for-helping-lyft-fight-gig-worker/amp/
But but, Democrats are more Pro-Freedom!!!11!
"If you can afford a $500 a night hotel - we don't want you", sincerely N.Y.
Homeowners like Julian Ehrhardt see this as an assault on their property rights. Let me zee yore papers pleaze, i.e. your voting papers, i.e. who do you vote for?
New York gets what New Yorkers vote for.
but but but we voted for you ...
[Julian] Ehrhardt bought his home in Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood back in 2017..."The city is treating our private property as the city's housing stock."
Rent Control was formally enacted in New York City in 1943. What did Ehrhardt expect from a government that had gotten away with trampling on property rights for almost 75 years before he bought in?
Property rights are a very blurry issue when there are hundreds of “owners” stacked up in ten or more stories with ten or more apartments on each floor sitting on one acre of actual land – condo rules notwithstanding. Anyone who “owns” such property should have expected “complications” like these when they chose to buy – or keep their apartment after “inheriting” it.
trampling on property rights for almost 75 years before he bought in?
"I didn't sell out, son... I bought in..."
Ehrhardt doesn't strike me as the kind who pulled a 4.0 in Damage.
Try looking at what Larimer County Colorado has done. STR's where the owner is present needs a license that costs thousands and requires multiple inspections, sign off on any impacts it could have on nearby national parks and/or national forests, state water board potentially making wells be commercial wells, land line phones, and loads of idiotic diagrams to tell people where to park, how to get out of the driveway, where the main water and electric shut-offs are located. Oh, and notice to the entire subdivision so they can yell if it pisses them off. All this and, in our area, an extra 2% tax to pay for affordable housing for someone else's employees. I could have 20 people stay here for 30 days and noone could say anything, but have 2 people overnight - god (and country) forbid!
Oh, so like hotels do?
Imagine that- regulations applying to businesses.
The road to prosperity is paved with rules and regulations
Well, the hotels sure are happy if they can get the same regulations foisted on a business run out of one apartment, as one that takes up half a city block and houses, feeds, and provides city utilities to hundreds at any one time.
Leave it to Dems to defend taxi cab medallions and the hotel lobby (not the place where you check in, the hotel industry lobbyists who funnel cash to politicians).
Maybe . . . hotels shouldn't need to do that?
Why is it whenever someone points out how one group is hobbled your kneejerk response is that is justifies hobbling everyone else - not removing the hobbles?
You're assuming he doesn't view freedom as a hobble.
Strangely enough, I'm inclined to agree with Raspberry. There is no reason in the world that (non-entitled) individuals should be able to run a business, and especial evil is involved if they try to make a profit off of the same. The government, when suitably empowered, will provide housing and a universal basic income for us all as long as we carefully follow the rules. Isn't it amazing how unicorn farts don't stink if they have enough flowers in their diet?
""Council members are scared to vote against the [hotel] unions," says Ehrhardt."
Somehow I just knew instinctively that this was not just a "gift to the hotel" industry but ultimately centered on organized labor. Just because the hotel owners and hotel unions find themselves on the same side of the corruption in this case doesn't mean that it's not pretty much all about the unions.
The city is treating our private property as the city’s housing stock.
Psst...don't live in NYC. Or any city for that matter.
Hilarious. NYCucks.
Next do Uber. You can only take on passengers if you're going to the same place for the same reason, like a drive by shooting.
Well, it is called a “ride share….”
So the excuse is that moving people around occupies more space? If someone isn't staying at a short-term rental, they're still somewhere, taking up just as much space. And until a long term occupant is found, the space is taken up by thin air.
I haven't read the article's details, but I've read plenty of others, in plenty of other publications, and I assume the presumption is, the AirBnB is an "empty house" that occasionally has a paying renter in it... and depending on the AirBnB, that's a housing unit that doesn't have a permanent occupying family. So people are buying properties that would normally have a permanent family and may have a temporary, out-of-town tourist in it 75% (or less) of its existence. Therefore, wasted space.
So they think there are many landlords who'd have a good chance of getting a long-term tenant who instead eschew that prospect for a possible succession of short-term ones? This is mind-boggling. My assumption was that most of these units are owned by people who had no intention of getting into formal landlording, but live there themselves and are away on a long trip, or who have just bought or sold it and know there's going to be a long delay moving in, and are therefore trying to take advantage of time the place would otherwise be vacant. People who want to be landlords would rather avoid the headache of churn of tenants moving in and out quickly.
STR's can be extremely profitable.
And keep in mind that NYC has rent control - you *don't want* a long-term tenant. Because then you're stuck with only city-allowed rate increases over the decades that that tenant will be there.
The new rules are worse though. If a New Yorker owns a house and vacations a few months a year, now they can't recoup any of their investment by renting it out to tourists. So the space sits empty, and is thereby less efficient.
Ultimately, this is why no one wants to "solve" the homeless crisis. People don't realize how powerful and useful this homelessness crisis is. It's used as an excuse to disrupt all kinds of norms of private property, land use, housing density, immigration battles... the usefulness of the disruptive power of tearing things down cannot be underestimated.
All of this makes a lot more sense once you understand that politicians are not interested in making housing more affordable or more available; in fact, that politicians simply are not motivated by helping voters.
The magical thinking is that the city is short of housing, so these rentals, no longer being profitable, would be sold to someone to live in full-time and that would magically solve the housing issue.
Of course, that just displaces the short term visitors - and you can't build another hotel any easier than you can build another house so . . . . you're still short housing.
And the answer is more regulation - on STR's here - and never 'let's reduce regulation to make it easier to build more housing' which would reduce prices for buyers and introduce more competition for STR's - reducing those prices also. Even hotels would have to drop their prices if there were more housing stock.
Everyone except the landlords win here - but their solutions are always the ones that *empower* the biggest landlords that they claim to hate.
What percentage of people operating STRs in NYC do you think will change their mode of operation to accommodate the new edict? Air BB says they'll list only those who register.
Outside of NYC, what percentage of STRs already operate this way?
I fully support this law. Immigrants will destroy NYC according to the mayor. Anyone with a spare room without a Venezuelian in it should be ashamed.
Good- airbnb can get fucked. Cities are meant for the citizens- not profiteering assholes buying up all the supply simply to be a hotel.
Renting out a room or your unit while on vacation is one thing but airbnb has long been coopted by people just buying up entire units just for the sole purpose of renting out. It distorts the market and hurts the people who actually live there.
People are just upset that the same regulations that applied to hotels and other businesses are starting to apply to these shitty silicon valley startups.
Two big thumbs up for NYC doing something sensible.
Cities are meant for the citizens-
Check out mr build-a-wall over here.
Is there anything you aren't a retard about?
And an angry retard to boot.
Apparently, they are also for the homeless, drug addicts, and illegals; the citizens are expropriated and exploited to pay for the upkeep of those groups.
Nothing sensible about it. This will simply reduce the housing supply and increase rents.
And cut down on tourism, further crippling the economy.
It will increase the housing supply as the illegal BnBs get returned to the housing market
What about the actual hotels? Should we tear them all down to build more apartments, in your view?
If pressed and given the opportunity, I wouldn't be surprised if Raspberrydinners would tear it all down and replace it all with work camps á la the Khmer Rouge with the cities in Kampuchea. Then replace the Statue of Liberty with a big sign saying: "To Keep You Is No Benefit, To Destroy You Is No Loss!"
Hotels are used to house illegal aliens, silly.
You mean, finding the highest economic value of a property, through voluntary transactions?
What about the citizens who want to sell their house to the highest bidders, some of those bidders being investors looking for short term rental properties?
Relaxing the restrictions on building new housing stock is the root cause of everything you are complaining about.
Increase housing stock by building new - more competition for STR's drives prices below the floor for people renting out one unit but hotels, leveraging economies of scale can still make money.
That loss then puts units currently up for STR out on the sale market, freeing up more housing stock.
Every issue is solved - including your hatred of small-time landlords (though you love you some big corporations) - by relaxing housing contruction restrictions.
The issue you are whining about is caused by previous government action - and you use this to justify more government action?
Airbnb and all who use it are part of the marketplace for living space! Dummy!
Sanford Dummy Reel
https://youtu.be/moYdbNXBwvk
Some time back, I took the family and some friends to NYC for a 10 day trip. The only way we could have afforded that was to rent a townhouse in the suburbs (Queens). Between the need for multiple rooms, beds, and a place to park our car, I had calculated that we could have stayed only for a long weekend if we had stayed in an equivalent hotel.
From what I understand about this law, that arrangement is now illegal. Too bad. If the choice is between spending a weekend in the city vs. ten days elsewhere for the same cost, that's not a very difficult decision.
I suppose this doesn't completely blank out vacation rentals, provided the landlord lives in the same building. There are a lot of flats there with basement apartments. But of course those will soon become very expensive given the limited supply.
The upshot is that this is just another reason to avoid NYC. I heard that the place is quite distressed, so maybe it's for the best not to even think about visiting.
Not just in the same building, but in the same unit. The rentiers have to become part of the household.
"Rentiers" are very different from "renters".
With no locked doors. Full bedroom and bathroom access. Sounds cozy.
Eww
Elections have consequences, suckers.
Something about..."with your own rope".
Reason could make me consider caring about this if the authors advocated removing the onerous regulations for hotels thereby putting them on even footing with unregulated b&bs. Without imposing the same regulations on b&bs as it does on hotels, government is picking winners and losers, which is not a good thing.
I'm all for that deregulation of hotels too. Floor polish and desert topping FTW!
I am an NYC YIMBY and I support both this law AND zoning changes to encourage more hotels and residential housing. There has been some success with this in the city thanks to De Blasio and Adams buy the suburbs are All NIMBY All The Time.
Wait, you have to say in the house with your guests, and you can't even lock your frickin' door? How many dead landlords do they want, all of them? And if you have five or ten short-term rental properties you bought at the top of the bubble, how are you supposed to stay at all of them at the same time?
NYC wants you to sell them.
This rule is going to reduce the value of residential properties in NYC and reduce their property tax revenue. So its doing the exact opposite of the purpose of zoning laws. So the different land use regulations are undermining each other's purpose. NYC will find itself hoisted by its own petard if this is allowed to continue.
It may reduce the "value" of certain properties, but you can safely bet your ballz it won't reduce the tax assessment.
Restrictive Zoning laws artificially keep prices high. Reducing the value of residential housing is a good thing. We have an affordable housing crisis in NYC.
Has there ever been a modern city so bent on its own suicide?
Jonestown?
Very cleaver!
🙂
NYC is doing great and this law is a good thing.
It is a private property violation, yes. So is restrictive zoning that doesn't allow me to develop my private property and build a higher multi-story apartment on it.
If we got rid of residential density restrictions, there would be plenty of homes and a few AirBnB rentals would not be a problem.
That and build man-made coral atolls and seasteads offshore. If these become more widespread, they could mean the end of zoning boards, land use planners, and the Not Ready For Prime-Time versions called Home Owner's Associations and their affiliated HOA-mongers.
Yep, Mark Twain, maybe we can "make more land" after all.
🙂
you are saying density restrictions are the probelm in NYC?
REally?
Just silly
Yes.
A. Whenever demand outstrips supply, density restrictions are a problem.
B. NYC density (37,345/sq mi) is less than the density of Paris (63,320/sq mi). Further, NYC has built relatively little and steadily made zoning more restrictive over the last 60 years.
Finally, if the urban cores of all American cities were upzoned, the population would more readily distribute over other cities as well. In short, the US has plenty of land to redevelop into higher density housing of the sort many Americans would prefer to live. Those that don't prefer living in denser environments will still benefit as suburbs and rural areas remain an attractive option.
"Density restrictions are a problem", "if the urban cores of all American cities were upzoned, the population would more readily distribute over other cities as well", "higher density housing of the sort many Americans would prefer to live" -- there is zero evidence for any of those assertions.
In actual fact, Americans prefer larger homes than Europeans and are more urbanized already.
I live in NYC and yes they are a major problem.
Neither zoning nor AirBnB restrictions are legally a "private property violation" under US law. Furthermore, zoning restrictions were generally already in place when people bought their homes, so they certainly are not a private property restriction even in a libertarian sense.
Says the man who thinks that different branches of Science are just social clubs and that the STARS camps in Utah are voluntary and yet that nothing that happens outside of his little Stepford is any of his business.
Thank you.
And yet prior to airbnb the world turned
Writer lives in Bed Stuy, but when landlords can make as much money buy renting to out of towners for a few days rather than rent to actual residents, how long does that neighborhood remain affordable?
Or viable?
When no one lives there anymore, it is not a neighborhood anymore.
While profitable, short term rentals do not support the community at large
The world is not a hotel
You know what really destroys a community and a neighborhood? Restricting the rights of small property owners. Because if I don’t control my property as a property owner, I’m going to sell (even at a loss) and leave.
Ultimately, you end up with neighborhoods consisting only of rental properties operated by large corporate slumlords who don’t give a f*ck about you or the neighborhood. And when things aren’t profitable for them anymore, even they leave and you end up with Detroit.
People who live in decaying progressive cities full of people with your kind of attitude get what they deserve.
New York City has rent control.
They will never be able to build enough housing stock.
NOw they have driven out air B & B.
So the few tourists that want to visit that crime ridden hell hole will have to stay an expensive hotels.
Keep shooting yourselves in the foot New Yorkers.
Soon the millions of illegal immigrants will drive all normal people a way
Cutting off AirBnB is a "taking" per the 5th amendment, and the city government will owe the AirBnB hosts compensation for their lost revenue.
-jcr
You're welcome to test that legal theory in court. Good luck!