You're right, it does pose a new kind of threat. And it shouldn't be able to operate with impunity.

Renters can't sublet their place on AirBnB, only owners can. And you'd select long-term tenants over short-term AirBnB'ers b/c it's less work (or should be). But your point is still valid: the presence of AirBnB can disincentivize a slice of owners to rent to locals.

I'm just saying any study on the negative effects of AirBnB on housing is myopic if it doesn't include arcane rent stabilization/control laws and the obscene price of new construction.

Operating AirBnB in a place like NYC is far more profitable than renting out long term for multiple reasons. For one, AirBnB charges have to only beat hotel prices to be an attractive alternative and that is easy because hotels are subjected to various extra fees, taxes and regulations. Also, one has higher budget while traveling for per-night accommodation compared to monthly rents (compare 150$ hotel room vs 4500$ monthly rental apartment). Third, you have to "tolerate" even the worst of AirBnB guests only for a few days and AirBnB covers insurance for truly worst cases, whereas once you are locked into a tenant in a tenant-friendly city like NYC (or SF), you are screwed for longer term.

The problem is much deeper than Airbnb. As a 27 year NYer, I appreciate the shake-up caused by Airbnb. Landlords of market rate apartments can charge whatever they want for a security deposit, so we now get landlords asking 6 months to a year of up-front security on a 2000-plus rental AND then asking for 1st and last months' rent on top of all that. This effectively turns renters into owners without the benefits of being owners. (i.e. they can't legally rent out their apartment on Airbnb at all without the landlords' consent- and the landlord will NEVER consent to even a 30 day+ sublet. Even if they do rent out their place legally on AIrbnb, an Airbnb guest can squat after 29 days,a nd the actual resident would have to take them to court to get them evicted- this is a very long process, meanwhile...) Yes, there are so-called tenant protecting laws, but it is very very difficult to get these laws enforced (basic repairs needed, mold mitigated, Certificate of Occupancy registered, leaks fixed, water provided, fire code observed, electrical emergencies addressed, and on and on) So these landlords get away with stealing from tenants, making their lives a living hell, making the tenants pay for common area heating bills when the LL chooses to use very expensive electric units without insulating the building.

Airbnb is drawing attention to these legal issues, because now, the city has to pretend it cares about legality and enforcement since the power structure has shifted under Airbnb. This seems healthy to me. Our Housing Court in NYC is a joke. On the one had, it allows tenants to represent themselves, which is actually easy to do since it operates more like a community high school principal's office. On the other hand, housing court is a slow, slow process- it is ineffective at providing timely relief to abused tenants, and entirely ineffective at helping with certain types of landlord perpetrated swindling/lying/harassment that's rampant in NYC. The reason it is ineffective for this, is that these issues aren't handled by housing court.(for example if a landlord is rerouting the heating system so that tenants pay for the heating of common areas--a landlord responsibility--that is costing each tenant on average an extra $200 a month-- these tenants can't address this issue in housing court, because housing court doesn't handle this problem. They can't represent themselves. In order for the court to order an inspection by the electric company, these tenants must hire an attorney on retainer in order to force that inspection- otherwise, the landlord will not allow the electric company to inspect.) I'm happy that Airbnb is calling the city's bluff. Hopefully, it will challenge the city to beef up its legal system in all ways. Currently, the landlords are the ones favored by the city, while the tenants are the ones "favored" on unenforceable paper.

What in the actual fuck?

By law, my state strictly limits the amount of security deposit a landlord can charge. And none of this calling it "last month's rent" nonsense - legally any monies collected beyond the first month's rent that the landlord is hanging onto is a security deposit no matter what the landlord wants to call it.

I thought this was par for the course.

I just checked and NY has no statutory limit on security deposits. Wow! That seems like a problem.

Yeah, they can charge literally whatever they want- and it keeps rising. You are right about first and last month rent. But there is no point in trying to have that law work for you, because the LL will just take you to court and you will have to pay legal fees, especially if you are then working at all especially in another city-- you will absolutely not have time to fight this in court (even though you might win it eventually) unless you are unemployed. If you are unemployed after handing over your savings, you are homeless and have much more desperate concerns.

forgot to mention that whatever you agree to in the lease re:first and last months' rent will bind you. And you have to agree if you want a place to live.

Wait, what? How can the landlords in NY be asking for 6 months of security deposit? Who the hell has 10k lying around just to rent a place? I don't even have that much in savings!

> How can the landlords in NY be asking for 6 months of security deposit?

Landlords can ask for whatever they want within the law, and people can either accept it or go elsewhere. New York, apparently, has no law limiting security deposits. [0]

> Who the hell has 10k lying around just to rent a place?

People (or, perhaps, e.g., their parents) renting in (at least certain parts of) New York City, apparently.

[0] Several other jurisdictions do; California, for instance, limits them two months rent for unfurnished units, three months for furnished units, and increases the limit by half of a months rent for if the tenant brings in a waterbed -- and note that "last months rent" is treated as part of the security deposit limit, so if you break it into "first, last, plus deposit" the deposit part is limited to one months rent for an unfurnished unit, etc.

It's basically an 'are you wealthy/old enough' filter. The wealthy enough usually do not miss rent payments, are less likely to destroy units, will not make your life hell in eviction court because they have jobs to do, make them into party houses, have a bank account you can take money from in judgements from large damages and so on.

and consider too, that when offered a 2 year lease, a tenant is apt to take it under these circumstances, so they know they have a place to live that won't be taken from them. (as the landlord can decide to not offer a lease again, especially to a tenant who reports a lack of services to an authority- yes there are harassment laws against retaliation, but good luck with getting them upheld-- so a tenant is forced to pay whatever for whatever and never open their mouth if they have no water, no heat, or if there is dangerous construction going on- unless said tenant is cool with being kicked out and not getting that deposit back) And remember too, that the LL can raise the rent to whatever at lease renewal even if the tenant is offered a renewal. The problem with this is: what if the tenant gets a job in another state and it actually pays well with benefits? Now, how does the tenant pay two rents at once? They won't be allowed to sublet - very few landlords even respond to such requests- and if they break the lease, they owe the remainder of it to the LL and won't get their security back. This is the kind of thing Airbnb's presence is challenging. But, I don't see these issues discussed at all.

This is spreading too. I've seen similar expectations in Seattle, and i've heard this story from multiple friends in NYC

I know. It is a wholly unreported outrage. I'm still trying to figure out if there is any worth to writing an article about it, at least to just 'raise awareness' for whatever that's worth these days, in the face of many uncomfortable truths being shouted down because they are so uncomfortable. But this goes way beyond uncomfortable. It changes the employment landscape in NYC. I've been trying to figure out what is going on that this is even possible. I live in a building like this. I happened to talk the landlord down to three months plus first and last months' rent due to the fact that I understood the law and could point to several violations of it by his company, right out of the gate at the lease signing. One might ask why I signed such a lease, and one would be wise to do so. The reason is that this is all there is in NYC anymore (I spent several months looking for a clean, upkept, affordable, market-rate apartment) and I'm an experienced renter of NYC apartments now. My building (and many many others I know of) is filled with young people with no or next-to-no employment. These new NYers can afford to take half-time work for years on end until they land an actual full-time job. This makes the future economic landscape hard to strategize for NYers who have already used up their savings trying to stay afloat in this time of underpaid underemployment. So much is hidden from view and it is difficult to get an accurate read on really any aspect of the employment-housing conundrum. I can only speculate about just how they are paying their rent, let alone their security deposits at this place. None of these young people are originally from NYC. After conversing with most of them, at least here in my building, and after meeting many of their parents as they drop them off and help them move in, I have learned that they came here because they felt there was no opportunity for work for them in their place of origin or education. A broader study needs to be undertaken as to what the real deal is. Security deposits need to be capped. My security deposit nearly wiped out my savings. So far, my landlord has not returned a single security deposit of those who have moved out without legal action on the tenants' part over the past four years. This is the usual thing. I know this because I've been in housing court and seen the equivalent of a river bottom sample of a square foot of the city's slimy underbelly. The exhaustion on the face of these judges at the sight of these landlords would be humorous if it were not tragic and deeply affecting to the lives of regular New Yorkers who are not among the city's richest. I've sat for hours (because one must to wait one's turn) and heard the judge yell at these landlords' representing attorneys for wasting her time again with this stuff. This is where we are at here. It is absolutely outrageous, and I really wish a study could be done and published and some legal protections could be made and some enforcement mechanisms could actually be available to tenants. I can tell you that these judges desperately wish the same. It would be great if there were some way for the housing market to reflect the actual job market's temporary or partial commitments. If the tenant housing could respond to this growing lack of stability and certainty with a complementary flexibility/financial lack-of-long-term-commitment, this would be a positive. A few of these temporary apartment complexes have sprung up for tech people, but the rents start at around 2500 a month for a shared space and studio room with a locked door. This is why Airbnb is helpful for some. But Airbnb is making moves to become more like a regular landlord. This is why we need better legislation and better enforcement.

Maybe extend the a hassle of tenant law to short term rentals? Or eliminate some of the hassle, if it is unnecessary. But even without any changes, there is only so much of a market for short term rentals. At some point, the market will balance out, so long as supply is not artificially constrained.

Supply is naturally constrained. New York is a coastal island city with decades old infrastructure: no room to build out, can't support much more by building up. The population density if NYC much higher than any other city of comparable size in the U.S. There's no reason to keep straining capacity.