Given this exemption, it makes me question why exactly AirBnB was so up in arms about this, especially with their rhetoric being centered on protecting the little guy. That being said, I love the service, though if I had more cash I'd take a hotel every time.

Well, one obvious problem is that losing a big subset of your business is always bad.

But another problem, which I just found, is that these fine points of the law, if they exist, are nowhere to be seen on the web. All the immediately obvious Google hits paraphrase the law as "AirBnB and Craigslist short-term rentals now illegal in NYC". So that's a first-order marketing problem.

It also adds fuel to the FUD fire, as we are seeing right here in the linked article. Suddenly every AirBnB host is being accused of running a flea-infested, credit-card-scamming, fire-hazard rat trap. That's a second-order marketing problem, but it could prove even worse than the first-order one: The law only applies in NYC, but FUD can spread everywhere.

Finally, there are the legal problems. This law gives the cops, and whoever tips off the cops, a lever with which to hassle AirBnB guests and hosts alike. Just because you're ultimately going to be found innocent doesn't mean that being hassled by the cops is a barrel of fun. If it happens to any extent it's bound to hurt the reputation of services like AirBnB, especially among foreign travelers, who are probably damn scared of American police as it is.

And, of course, to prevent a raft of lawsuits AirBnB must now carefully educate its NYC hosts about the law, and pay a lawyer to draft an airtight agreement for the hosts to sign to indicate that they understand the law, and defend any lawsuits that spring up when people get busted in NYC and blame AirBnB anyway despite all those precautions...

One's marketing and PR posture does not necessarily mirror the totality of one's business. If I was planting an article in the New York Times, it would focus on a poor Hispanic girl learning at a NYC school which has a number who loves school now rather than on a middle class white boy learning at a suburban Illinois school which has a name who got a candied apple at the Halloween party last year. Two true stories, but the one which pays the rent is not the one that gives NYT reporters weak knees.

This does seem to alleviate any legitamate concerns about the bill, as long as renters count as owners (ie, if I have a free room in my apartment, I can put it on AirBnB)

If its only _owners_, though, its quite draconian, as most NYC building owners don't live in their buildings.

This means people that go on vacation cannot take in renters.

(Sorry, your point was a bit lost in all the FUD that was in that article.)

2 people going in the exact opposite direction and wanting to living in the other person's home. Seems slim chance to me unless those people knew each other in advance.

add - bluesmoon, learn something everyday. Though I think not all everybody wants to open their own apt for swap and instead would rather rent someone's for a week or 2.

Less likely to work internationally, but domestically, it happens. It's the key exchange that's the hard part, but the safest is to leave the key with a neighbour and then call them from the other side to give them the okay.

Swapping homes is far more common than renting a room for a week. It's more common outside the US sites like gumtree, leboncoin, etc. have been doing this for years

All the same. There's a reason that hotels have to be licensed, and it's because people occasionally die if they're not.

Do you consider the board of health restaurant inspections to be a bad idea?

Show us something that backs up your statement. People die all the time. Even from things that are heavily regulated and licensed.

I never said that or implied that.

We are talking about places to stay, not restaurants(food). Don't change the topic.

If someone were to visit and stay in your apartment for a few days, then somehow it becomes unsafe?

Stop with the black/white nonsense, everybody in this whole thread agrees that it shouldn't be a big deal to sublet for a couple months or have a house guest. That's qualitatively different from running an unlicensed hotel.

I was never arguing what to call 'short term rentals' or whatever you want to call it. I am questioning why it's unsafe and why the FUD (in the article) and where is the proof.

If you have lots of friends and you let them visit often, does your apartment become unsafe? Or is it really when you start charging them money that it becomes unsafe? (I am NOT referring to trying to cram all your friends into your apartment and having a wild party. I mean 1-4 friends visiting at a time.)

Such an idea probably won't happen because of the aformentioned hotel lobbyists, though.