In NYC, Airbnb’s largest market, with tiny exceptions, it is illegal to rent out an entire apartment (i.e. host not present) for less than 30 days.

NYC is crazy expensive. The govt will go after landlords first and then the subleases nest.. So if everyone in a building is airbnb but not directly owned by the landlord then forget it.

I don't think NYC is Airbnb's largest market.

The New York Times claims NYC is Airbnb's largest US market[1]. And CityLab claims NYC is Airbnb's 3rd-largest market worldwide.[2] However, with respect to whether "the overwhelming majority of its facilitated transactions are illegal":

Speaking strictly for NYC (the town I live + Airbnb host in), I think the more relevant metric is- what percent of Airbnb's revenue comes from the illegal kind of rental (i.e. rentals of the entire unit for more than 90 days of the year) vs the legal kind (whole-unit rentals totaling less than 90 days per year, as well as shared-unit rentals of any length)? According to Gothamist, 75% of its NYC revenue came from whole-unit rentals.[6] How much of that was legal is anyone's guess, but this is one reason why Airbnb was fighting tooth and nail to stop the recent city council legislation.[7]

NB- Another reason is that, once the city collects hosting data, it will likely use its housing inspection mandate to shut down most if not all Airbnb rentals in the city (not just illegal ones) at the behest of the local hotel employee's union. But that's me speculating, so take it with a grain of salt.

Keep in mind that Airbnb made $140 million in NYC in 2018[3], had $2.5 billion in 2017[4], and over $1B in revenue in Q3 of 2018 alone[5]. So the percentage of revenue it contributes is likely between 4-4.5%. If this went away overnight, the company would probably be fine as long as the damage ended there. But there's no guarantee of that, since other cities are considering similar legislation and are looking to see what the outcome of the above battle will be.

In the end, NYC will probably succeed in approving a permit system similar to San Francisco's, which will be enough to get the city the information it needs to shut down any Airbnb host it wishes.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/nyregion/new-york-city-ai...

[2] https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/03/what-airbnb-did-to-ne...

[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-24/airbnb-s-...

[4] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbnb-results/airbnb-had...

[5] https://www.pymnts.com/earnings/2018/airbnb-third-quarter-re...

[6] http://gothamist.com/2018/06/28/city_council_takes_on_airbnb...

[7] https://ny.curbed.com/2018/7/19/17590164/airbnb-nyc-law-prop...

Cities all over Europe have restricted or banned short rentals and many more are considering it. It will be messy and probably the results difficult to measure. On the other end Airbnb is collecting tourist taxes on behalf of some cities. This is particularly interesting because you have a corporation helping a city in something they struggle with (collecting taxes) and making themselves irrepleaceable. Smart move.

> whole-unit rentals totaling less than 90 days per year, as well as shared-unit rentals of any length

The multiple dwelling law does not allow any whole units to be rented for less than 30 days. There’s no exception for less than 90 days in a year total.

From the MDL: A ‘class A’ multiple dwelling is a multiple dwelling that is occupied for permanent residence purposes… ‘Permanent residence purposes’ shall consist of occupancy of a dwelling unit by the same natural person or family for thirty consecutive days or more and a person or family so occupying a dwelling unit shall be referred to herein as the permanent occupants of such dwelling unit.

Per your own link that means 75% of nyc Airbnb revenue is derived from facilitating illegal transactions.

Yep, I stand corrected about the legality of whole-unit rentals less than 30 days. Looks like I was mixing up NYC and SF laws on that point.

I am curious if Mayor Bill de Blasio will go after landlords who permit or partake of this following his recent declaration they will confiscate property of landlords they consider abusive or failing to maintain property to new standards. Of course he plans to turn them over to non profits which is code for politically connected groups which support him, but the idea that they don't put an Airbnb clause into the abusive category isn't baseless.

AirBnb is going to get knocked down a peg or two once the states get involved, they are able to dance around many cities and their attempts to reign it in but once a state level attorney comes for them it won't be simple.

however as with uber this comes down to private property rights, who do you choose to side with. Me, I am with the property owners as a Libertarian but I am with government regulation so that it is not abused to the injury of others. Specifically the idea of evicting people or requiring them to vacate during high profile events in town

> however as with uber this comes down to private property rights, who do you choose to side with. Me, I am with the property owners as a Libertarian

What about the property rights of the landlord? The co-op? Fellow condo owners? In addition to violating state law most of these units in NYC are being rented in violation of signed agreements (leases, proprietary leases, condo rules incorporated into purchase agreements).

Here’s one recent lawsuit seeking $21 million: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet...