If there is demand for staying at "secret hotels" why should the regulator ban that? The only problem that I see is that this income might not be currently being taxed. Just get Airbnb to share their data with the IRS and problem solved.
And if hotels go out of business, good riddance. If consumers rather pay a bit less and stay in a house or an apartment, why should the regulator want to mess with their preferences?
As of:
>This drives up rents for residents as it reduces supply of long term housing and inflates landlords expectations on what they can charge.
Take down hotels and build apartment buildings. If as you say the demand is there, the market should take care of it. Although hotels tend to be more space efficient, so new apartment buildings could not be enough to completely offset the price surge.
> If there is demand for staying at "secret hotels" why should the regulator ban that?
The problem is they are secret from the regulators too and aren't following the regulations.
> Take down hotels and build apartment buildings. If as you say the demand is there, the market should take care of it. Although hotels tend to be more space efficient, so new apartment buildings could not be enough to completely offset the price surge.
That isn't how it works. The market doesn't magically fix things when the financial incentive is towards the decision without the "social good" of providing housing to residents. Harmful externalities are something the market blindly ignores because capital can just ignore the damage.
The "secret hotels" are not following residential fire codes, in numerous instances. Which is a danger to themselves and others.
> What harmful externalities apply to this case?
Shifting housing supply from long term housing [e.g. apartments with 6+ month leases] to hotels/AirBnB rentals [short term housing], reduces long term housing stock and raises prices for residents.
20% of NY is below the poverty line. Raising the cost of a basic necessity is really corporate welfare [because it increases costs for the government]. Much like the issue with minimum wage:
2) Raise taxes on Capital [because Labor can't afford it, they are the one that would be subsidized...] to subsidize the basic necessities for the poor. [Hmm, seems alot of AirBnb folks are trying to dodge taxes...making them share data with the IRS/State Tax boards is nice but that doesn't make money appear out of thin air].
3) Set the rules in such a way that there is enough long term housing stock that upward price pressure is kept in line with inflation and let the market sort the rest of it out.
Now you can argue I'm wrong and there is some magical 4th option [e.g. "Increased spending by consumers/capital due to more economic efficiency from using AirBNB"] the problem with this is, without a study proving this claim you don't really have a leg to stand on.
>The "secret hotels" are not following residential fire codes, in numerous instances. Which is a danger to themselves and others.
If this is true, this problem transcends Airbnb. If the building doesn't comply with those does, it doesn't matter what it is being used for.
>Shifting housing supply from long term housing [e.g. apartments with 6+ month leases] to hotels/AirBnB rentals [short term housing], reduces long term housing stock and raises prices for residents.
So if hotels produce the same kind of externalities, why are the regulators only focusing on Airbnb?
> So if hotels produce the same kind of externalities, why are the regulators only focusing on Airbnb?
They aren't. Regulators are focussed on the externalities associated with short-term tenancy operations in general, which is why they have imposed regulations imposing safety and other constraints on such operations to mitigate the externalities, as well as imposing taxes to internalize the unmitigated externalities by shifting the costs on to the operations benefiting from the activity that produces the externalities.
What you perceive as focus on Airbnb is just the general focus on short-term tenancies being made manifest in a particular way because of a high-visibility group of people flaunting the rules that result from the more general focus on short-term tenancies.
> If this is true, this problem transcends Airbnb. If the building doesn't comply with those does, it doesn't matter what it is being used for.
Incorrect. Its based on usage. Using it for short term tenancy has different requirements.
You really didn't read the OP so I'm done talking to you.
> So if hotels produce the same kind of externalities, why are the regulators only focusing on Airbnb?
...because AirBNB's hosts are not playing by the rules intend to curb the problem. For instance, zoning? Hotel taxes? Following fire codes for short term tenant buildings? Etc?
Hotel taxes don't just magically disappear when the government gets them. They are used to fund city services. City services everyone who comes to Airbnb uses and isn't paying for. They are also increasing the risk of damage to city and their neighbors property. Zoning controls the size of the short term housing and commercial property stock. Etc.
Do you really not understand what these things are for?
At this point I'm just taking the downvotes because I think the underlying issue here is...people on HN really don't understand that these things were created for very valid reasons. Oh well.
And if hotels go out of business, good riddance. If consumers rather pay a bit less and stay in a house or an apartment, why should the regulator want to mess with their preferences?
As of:
>This drives up rents for residents as it reduces supply of long term housing and inflates landlords expectations on what they can charge.
Take down hotels and build apartment buildings. If as you say the demand is there, the market should take care of it. Although hotels tend to be more space efficient, so new apartment buildings could not be enough to completely offset the price surge.