this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
139 points (77.5% liked)

Technology

59118 readers
6622 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
enu@lemmy.world
139
New York’s Airbnb Ban Is Descending Into Pure Chaos (www.wired.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

New York’s Airbnb Ban Is Descending Into Pure Chaos::People are listing short-term rentals on social media and lesser-known platforms, bolstering a rental black market in New York City.

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone 274 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Make sure you keep in mind that Conde Nast (the parent company of Wired) has subsidiary companies running articles like "35 Best Airbnbs Near New York City, From Cozy Cabins in the Catskills to Beachy Houses in the Hamptons"[1]. They likely have indirect or direct financial ties to AirBnB.

So this article that is seemingly trying to present an argument that this regulation isn't working because a black market has emerged, while giving more space in the article to small landlords and AirBnB's CEO and their defence than to critics of AirBnB, as well as mentioning hotel prices rising but not how AirBnB has caused rental prices to rise... should give you pause about the bias this article is trying to hide.

[1] https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/best-airbnbs-near-new-york-city

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago

Conde Nast ruined Wired.

[–] CluelessLemmyng@lemmy.sdf.org 30 points 1 year ago

I figured as much. Without an open and easy to advertise platform to rent out spaces, people are going back to how it used to be...

It's an alarmist article. Much ado about nothing.

[–] AnyProgressIsGood@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Great catch

[–] DaMonsterKnees@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

JD POWER AND ASSOCIATES SAID BUY OUR SHIT, IT'S THE BEST!

[–] Tosti@feddit.nl 70 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Purged by creator

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Heck. Let people submit tips with proof, and split the fines with the reporters.

Then the short-term renters own customers will report the rental when they're done. And then get money. Crowdsource the snitching

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not the US, but my city actually started a snitch e-mail address.

Stuff like airbnb now need a permission, and if you suspect an address has an unlicenced one, you can ask them and they will actually tell you if it's an allowed listing.

Reported two of them, one was allowed, another one "will be checked". Not sure what happened to the latter

[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago

Not sure what happened to the latter

Believe it or not, jail.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hell, just book the suites and dont pay. If they have an issue, they can get into contact with new yorks regulatory body.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 69 points 1 year ago

The headline is alarmist nonsense that is absolutely not supported by the facts presented. There are no numbers given for how many rentals are being listed on alternate sources. The numbers for listings marked as exempt on AirBNB certainly suggest that the ban is working exactly as intended. Yes, hotel prices will go up, obviously. That's not something that anyone is surprised to hear. The rest is just anecdote presented as data. There's no "chaos" here, just life being life.

[–] skymtf@lemmy.blahaj.zone 61 points 1 year ago

It's so funny watching skumlords scramble!

[–] klingelstreich@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is paywalled

[–] Jakdracula@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can pretty much put any article into archive.ph and it gets past the paywalls.

Go to: http://archive.ph

Paste in the url: https://www.wired.com/story/airbnb-ban-new-york-illegal-listings/

Hit “save” and get: https://archive.ph/ship1

[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's even easier. Just put "archive.ph/" between the "https://" and whatever comes next:

https://archive.ph/www.wired.com/story/airbnb-ban-new-york-illegal-listings/

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Thank you so much, both of you!

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What did they expect?

All the people who are renting out some spare appartment should suddenly stop it and move in themselves again? ;-)

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 55 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A spare apartment, you say? Do people just have those lying around?

[–] beeng@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yes, they move to a bigger one and rent out their old one for profit.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 61 points 1 year ago

And, of course, it would be morally unacceptable to get in the way of them maximising the profits they’re entitled to, such as by forcing them to rent it out long-term to some poors rather than allowing them to run an unregulated hotel room, because invisible hand of the free market or something.

[–] Qwaffle_waffle@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

Ah yes, the old hermit crab monopoly.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or they move in with their period-of-life partners, and then maybe eventually back.

[–] beeng@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fine, but don't profit and offer a decent rent length.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

offer a decent rent length.

They don't take that risk.

In my city, most of the singles actually keep their own appartments when moving in with a new loved one. It isn't because of the money, it is their safety net so they can move back eventually. Very few of these appartments are actually rented out. Most are just empty.

And of course they would not want to wait for a year or so.

[–] beeng@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This number would so low I'm guessing it wouldn't really move the needle. It's like having 1 house mate instead of 2 in a 3room appt.

[–] stealth_cookies@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

That they would return it to the pool of long term rentals and help drive rent rates down. That or drove them to sell to someone that wants to live there.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 2 points 1 year ago

Probably.
A similar approach is under discussion even where I live and everyone seems to think that forbidding the "short rent" (as it is called here) will magically put all these apartament on the market for "long rent", lowering the prices.

Until it is not understood that (well, at least here) AirBnB is not the cause but the result the problem will never be solved.