New York City @kbin.social Very_Bad_Janet @kbin.social 1y ago

Airbnb reshaped these Bed-Stuy blocks. What happens when it’s gone?

gothamist.com Airbnb reshaped these Bed-Stuy blocks. What happens when it’s gone?

NYC is set to start enforcing new requirements for short-term rentals next week. Thousands of Airbnb listings could be on the chopping block.

4 comments

“Airbnb, for someone like me, has become a very valuable way to subsidize my financial situation since I'm fully retired,” said Frankie Scott, who worked as a construction administrator for the Parks Department and has owned her Hancock Street brownstone since 1984. "I've had tenants before and it was hell. It cost me a lot of money to have them evicted for nonpayment of rent. I don't want to go that route anymore.”

Then sell the place. You don't have to be a parasitic landlord. You don't have to own it if you don't want it. You can't choose to not do work and still get money - you want money, you do work. If you don't want to do that work, you give up the housing you're hoarding to someone who deserves it.

People who own land but don't live on that land are cancer. Airbnb should be banned, country-wide.
- I mean, by that argument, we should ban hotels too. They don't really do work besides cleaning (which Airbnb people have to do after renters). Hotels could give up that land that they're hoarding and make apartment buildings. Give that up to an apartment rental agency that deserves it. I guess hotels and vacation home rentals are cancer too. Or is there an exception in your argument for those?
  
  Should we get rid of renting entirely? Where do we stop? Do we ban vacation home rentals, so no more beach trips for anyone? What about people that have to move every few years. Do I have to buy and sell a house every time my work requires me to travel for months or years at a time? Renting has a lot of pros for a lot of people.
  
  Apologies mate, but I don't think Airbnd's are the issue. There's plenty of people that rent out basement spaces, spare rooms, and guest houses in order to gain extra money, and if people want to pay for that then it sounds like there's a market for it.
  
  The issue is people that own dozens or even hundreds of properties. Not some mom and pop renting out their spare room to someone travelling for a few days.
- Are all landlords parasitic? Or is renting apartments a valuable service?
  
  I have two friends who bought a townhouse and rented out one of the units. Their tenant decided to not pay rent (even though she was employed for the entire period she refused to pay). It took several years to get a portion of the money owed and were not able to evict her. So I have sympathy for the retired lady in the article- being a landlord can be tough.
  
  I also have sympathy for tenants in this city. I found myself dealing with a terrible landlord for years until we were able to move. And even if you have a great landlord, rents are sky high.
  
  Re the Airbnb situation, I understand that some people only rented out their homes while they themselves were on vacation or they rented out rooms, as Airbnb had originally offered. But now people have taken it too far and have turned short term renting out houses and apartments into a mass popular business. I couldn't count how many YouTube videos feature Airbnb-ing a place as a side hustle and promote buying up dozens of properties to Airbnb them as a surefire recipe for success. This Airbnb bubble is starting to pop. At the very least I hope they make it illegal for LLCs to buy up single and multi family houses.
  
  Yes, by their very nature landlords are parasitic.
  
  Ground rents are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Ground rents are, therefore, perhaps a species of revenue which best bear to have a particular tax imposed upon them.
  
  As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.
  
  A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground.
  
  The sea in the neighbourhood of the islands of Shetland is more than commonly abundant in fish, which make a great part of the subsistence of the inhabitants. But in order to profit by the produce of the water, they must have a habitation upon the neighbouring land. The rent of the landlord is in proportion, not to what he can make by the land, but to what he can make both by the land and water. It is partly paid in sea-fish.
  
  Those are all quotes from the literal father of capitalism, Adam Smith.
  
  Landlords are not owed anything from that land. They did not work to build it. They can maintain it, if only because of their own self-interest in that a well-maintained property has a higher resale value and allows higher rents. Most months, they get rent without needing to pay anything or incur any labor. Every year, they increase rent - yet their basis didn't necessarily go up proportionally. They have no right to demand more, yet they do.
  
  And of those you say "decided to not pay rent" even though they were "employed for the entire period" - employed where? How many hours were they getting? How much was rent?
  
  Why do landlords think they can deny a roof over someone's head? How callous would you be to think someone deserves to be thrown out onto the street?
  
  Yes, they entered a contract. Landlords can use legal means to enforce that contract, if they desire. They can garnish their wages or whatever, and if the tenants truly are able to pay rent - but simply aren't - then the legal system can enforce that. But the audacity to say "well, they had a job so therefore they must pay me" without knowing their personal (private) situation is absolutely ridiculous.
  
  What gives you the right, as a human being, to go to another human being - a family, perhaps - and say "You deserve to live on the side of the road, begging for scraps"?
  
  For what? For a landlord to line their own pocketbook? How greedy is that?
  
  Everyone has a right to live. Everyone has a right to housing. Saying "well, I demand that I get paid for doing nothing and if you don't pay me you deserve to be on the street" is downright selfish. And no, "I maintain the property" isn't an excuse. Otherwise, tenants could improve the property and deduct it from rent - but you rarely see that arrangement. (Not that it doesn't happen - but it's rare.)
  
  And what gives landlords the right to own more land than you need? Family money? Exploiting the fruits of other workers? Why on earth should someone be allowed to own 2 places to live, when others can't even have one? What gives them the right?
  
  At least we're in agreement about banning LLCs. I can get behind that, to start with. But I firmly believe that property can be better kept by people who own it and have an interest in improving it.
  
  Landlordism not only depresses this tendency (better maintenance = higher property value = higher taxes = higher rent, so tenants are encouraged to not maintain buildings), but it also denies people of basic human rights, because landlords think they know their personal living situation, just because the tenants are "employed" without any clue as to what else could be happening in their lives.
  
  Sorry, I mean nothing personal about it - this just absolutely infuriates me, and it makes me even angrier that literally the God of Capitalism says the same thing.