|
Post by High Priestess on Nov 12, 2015 0:50:40 GMT
Apparently Airbnb is bowing to government and/or public pressure and is removing or closing listings of NYC hosts who have more than one "Entire apartment" listing -- as described in this post: Keisha shared Nov 11 2015 Airbnb Called to Cancel My ListingsI just got a call from Airbnb that they are canceling listings in NY that have more than one primary listing that is listed as entire home. I live in the same house with my mother and I'm listing my apt and managing hers from my account and some guy called saying he has no information to offer just that they are canceling one of the listing because you cannot have two entire home listings. I tried to explain, but he kept saying he understands but he has no information to share, that's just what Airbnb is doing now in NY. Has anyone gotten that call yet? How does one person list two listings that are literally in the same house owned by the same person? I switched to list my spaces as a private room in house. Just not sure if guest looking will understand that it's a full function private apartment. Any suggestion or push back to Airbnb? Louise If one of the apartments is yours, and one is your mother's, then why not just list hers under a profile in her own name? From a tax perspective, presumably she's liable to remit taxes on any business use of her private residence? Other than the likely loss of the reviews attached to that property, it wouldn't make any difference it it was actually under her profile, surely? Lisa If you go to the Manhattan host group you'll see that this has happened to other hosts too. It's not just you. I don't have a solution though. Evelyn This is happening to lots of hosts in NY. The city is cracking down and the fine will be going up from 10k. Like Louise said. One listing is yours and the other your mothers. Is your apartment in a multi unit building (3+ family)? If it is, and you're renting for less than 30 days then you're illegal. Rosanne This is happening in Los Angeles too. Thats because realtors are now listing several of their homes on Airbnb instead of the MLS. If they allow people to have multiple listings of entire homes, there wont be any place for year round residents to live. Michele Sorry to hear. But just wondering, will listing incorrectly (ie an entire vs private) create confusion or wrong expectation for guests (as they might expect every "private" listings to be non shared accommodation?) Keisha I have her SS# and paypal info attached to her listing, but I'm already setting up her account. It's just easier to manage both accounts under one, now I have to log into two different accounts and manage two emails to make sure I don't miss an inquiry or reservation request. It's fine, just thought they should have someone call that has more info than, "this isn't good news and I don't have any info to provide, just that we will be shutting down your listings". Deborah ( High Priestess) I think this is very unfortunate. I dont' think it is good for Airbnb to cave into pressure from city governments. Also, there are problematic assumptions being made here. One is a problem with making the assumption that a listing categorized as "entire apartment" or "entire house" is actually that. Many hosts have used "entire apartment" category to list what is essentially a suite, or some arrangement that is not actually an entire, separate apartment, simply because there is no "suite" category and "entire apartment" has seemed to fit better than "private room." Second is the problem making the assumption that the person whose account has the listings, is the owner of the property. THis action by Airbnb causes problems for all those who are doing property management, and have other people's properties on their account, because they are managing those properties. I recently came across a host in Australia who has 188 listings on her account - they are not all her properties!! She is a property manager. By taking the action that they are taking, Airbnb is making it much harder for property owners to use a property manager to help them run their rental, if they choose to do that. In your case Keisha I think you can work this out by having one listing on your account and then have your Mom set up her own account and have the other listing there, and help her manage her account, which your latest post indicates you are starting to do.
|
|
|
Post by High Priestess on Nov 12, 2015 3:49:20 GMT
More replies to this post: Rosanne I have a realtor friend that has been looking for a place for me and also for several of her snowbird clients. She said there is nothing to be had in the way of permanent housing in empty condos or homes. She doesnt know about Airbnb. I looked it up an there are 212 listings for rent in this area. They are all empty condos. The owners are charging by the night = $ 125 to 150. That is over $ 1000 for one week and $ 4000 for a month. My condo was renting for $ 1200 a month. Why get $ 1200 when you can get $ 4000. It crazy out there. Deborah ( High Priestess) In my area, 2 bedroom condos or apartments rent for $2700 to 3700 a month, so one would not actually be earning much more at $125-150 a night renting those short term --- even having 75% occupancy would not necessarily give one much more income than a long term tenant. Rebecca And this is the crux of the problem and why people get so angry with Airbnb. In my city (very high tourism) there are hosts who have been buying up 3-4 bedroom appartments and renting them out hostel-style. Their reviews are not so great but clearly they make so much money that they keep buying new properties and adding them to their Airbnb "portfolio". These are appartments that previously would have been rented to families or young professionals who can't yet afford to buy their own place. I don't like it. Rebecca Bottom line - it's nothing to do with a 'sharing economy'. It's pure, unadulterated capitalist greed. Juliet and Ed And perhaps in the end what will happen is that local authorities will crack down on hosts who have more than one listing, which would be fine with me. There are hosts in my city who have 10 listings, all of them apartments in condos downtown. As Rebecca says, their reviews aren't always so great, but they are just out to make money. Rosanne I dont think Airbnb started out that way. But, as soon as people smell money they think of ways to make more. The whole thing is going to come to a crashing halt when Cities impose hotel taxes and permits on properties. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years. Aaron & Tara When we were in New Orleans earlier this year there was a citizens movement related to there being so many airbnb's but no place for year round residents to rent. I recall a yard sign in that said in x amount of area there are x dozens of airbnb's but no apartments to rent. I notice sometimes there are people who rent multiple empty apartments that nobody lives in. It sounds like this is where the crackdown is occurring. Deborah ( High Priestess) Yes, what you are saying Roseanne, Rebecca and Aaron are things that do concern many. More and more cities are working on developing short term rental regulations, and in many of the large urban centers in the US, there is concern about preserving long term rental housing. So what this translates to is that regulations on short term rentals in these municipalities tend to prohibit people doing short term rentals of places that are not on the property where they have their primary residence. Yet I still feel that it should be the cities enforcing such laws that they may pass, rather than Airbnb being involved in law enforcement. I also think though that there is not an infinite demand for short term rentals, and at some point, there can only be so many Airbnb condos or apartments in a given area, and then there is a supply glut and the prices will have to drop based on the oversupply. At that point long term rentals will make more sense. I think that any person looking at buying investment real estate in most large urban centers in the USA (eg a property they would not live in) with the primary thought of doing short term rentals in it, is shortsighted, both in terms of the trend in city regulations, as well as the inevitable bubble-burst we're going to see when too many people get on the short term rental bandwagon with the result that prices for short term rentals are driven significantly downwards. I have had a couple friends of mine interested in doing Airbnb rental for their apartment or a room in their house, who decided against it when I helped them consider the numbers, and they realized that it would be much more work and probably not more income to do short term rentals.
|
|
|
Post by lambada on Nov 12, 2015 8:28:58 GMT
It's Basic Economics 101, i.e. Supply vs. Demand. Why don't people understand this simple logic? If people are buying houses left right and center to be rented as STR, it is really THEIR risks to take, during the slow time. I really doubt that this is the case, as unless you have unlimited funds to buy and take that risks and feel ok if you end up losing $$, then you're not a good business person to begin with. So all this talk about greed, doesn't sound that logical to me. I have a few suites in my large, family house that I rent thru Airbnb (Suites, so I listed as Entire Apartment). In July and August, I may make double than Long Term rent. HOWEVER, in other months, I'd only make as much as long term rent. And from November thru April, I may get much less. With lots more work than having long term. So why I am doing STR? Because I am planning to sell the house in April next year! I can't just get long term renters for a few months, most people rent long term to stay for at least a year! Now, this house is in the Bay Area, but not in San Francisco, so it is not rent controlled. However, if you own a rent controlled unit in San Francisco, things get even more complicated as once you rent it out long term, you may never get it back! It is really up to the tenants to leave, if they wish. So for example, you can't just change your life plans, i.e. take a break from your job, rent out your place and travel for 2 years and come back, since if the tenants do not want to leave YOUR home, you'll end up being homeless.
Juliet and Ed wrote: "And perhaps in the end what will happen is that local authorities will crack down on hosts who have more than one listing, which would be fine with me. There are hosts in my city who have 10 listings, all of them apartments in condos downtown. As Rebecca says, their reviews aren't always so great, but they are just out to make money."
Well, you can't keep making money unless people want to rent from you, can you? If the reviews are terrible, soon enough the business will die. That's the beauty of the review system. It will eventually weed out the bad apples.
Rebecca wrote: "And this is the crux of the problem and why people get so angry with Airbnb. In my city (very high tourism) there are hosts who have been buying up 3-4 bedroom appartments and renting them out hostel-style. Their reviews are not so great but clearly they make so much money that they keep buying new properties and adding them to their Airbnb "portfolio". These are appartments that previously would have been rented to families or young professionals who can't yet afford to buy their own place. I don't like it."
Does the City own those properties? Or are they owned by private citizens, who pay for the mortgage, under their names? If the latter, why can't we let those private owners to decide what's best for them? They probably have their own situation, ie.: old age parents, sick family members to take care of, etc.? It shouldn't be their job to take care of renters, as charitable as they may want to be.
Anyway, I just wish some people would see the obvious. Don't just judge people, calling them greedy etc., without knowing their situation. Otherwise, probably a good idea for these those charitable folks to buy properties and rent them for free, for a change.
|
|
|
Post by High Priestess on Nov 12, 2015 15:32:51 GMT
Yes, I fully agree Lambada, that it isn't the job of private citizens to address any given regions' housing crisis or affordable housing needs. I think it is very unfair to put that on the back of private property owners. However, the politics in some regions, such as the Bay Area (particularly in cities with rent control like San Francisco) is such that property owners come under very heavy attack for what tenants' rights groups call "taking units off the rental market and renting them out on AIrbnb." In the cities with rent control where short term rental regulations are discussed, this is a very big issue, and those advocating short term rentals end up needing to show sensitivity to these concerns, because the cities take these concerns so seriously. (SF, NYC, LA, Berkeley, among other places) So the politics in such contexts make it quite difficult for those advocating for short term rentals, to advocate for the right of those who own multiple properties to do as they please with them. THat is my orientation, but I would be ineffective arguing from this position in these large urban centers which have both rent control laws and housing crisis issues. (In other cities that have neither rent control nor a housing crisis, one might have more potential to argue for property rights)
In fact, many AIrbnb hosts themselves (like the ones you quoted) are opposed to those renting out whole apartments on AIrbnb, particularly if it isn't their primary residence, so this too makes it difficult to advocate for property rights. Hosts can become vilified by other hosts! The situation is made much more difficult when hosts think other hosts are breaking local laws, and believe that the hosts who are breaking the laws are the "bad actors" who are making the city much more opposed to short term rentals across the board, and increasing the likelihood that they themselves will see severe restrictions (eg proposition F in San Francisco) due to the city's zeal to curtail the activities of these "bad actors" but being unable to do so without across the board measures. Such enmity towards other hosts certainly was notable in the posts on the San Francisco group.
BUt, when we talk about "taking rental units off the market," Ironically, it's RENT CONTROL itself that causes property owners to "take units off the market."!!
See these threads on the effect of rent control on housing in SF:
globalhosting.freeforums.net/thread/554/effect-rent-control-on-housing
globalhosting.freeforums.net/thread/537/where-sharing-loses-control-prevails
THe report in the latter thread suggests that 31,000 units have been taken off the market in San Francisco, due to the rent control laws in that city.
If I were an owner of any property that came under rent control laws (I am not), I would never want to rent it out to a long term tenant, who then gained rights under rent control laws, because among other things, that would mean that I could potentially NEVER get that tenant out of MY property. I actually think this is the worst part of rent control -- worse than the absurdly low rents that some tenants are paying. To be stuck with a bad tenant, potentially for the rest of their life or yours, is absolutely twisted. Clearly, rent control would not work if tenants could be evicted for no cause at any time, but I dont' believe in rent control. I would like to see all forms of rent control abolished, and property rights restored that have been severely mitigated by these unjust laws. I think rent control is an outdated approach to affordable housing. It provides affordable housing for a select few, by placing the property owner into an untenable and unfair position of being forced into being a charity organization. Rent control does nothing for all those newcomers who now need affordable housing -- and those are the ones we need to be creating a solution for.
WHile I definitely believe in the need for cities, states and nations to provide more affordable housing, I think providing that is the government's responsibility, not that of any particular property owner.
Some ways to create more affordable housing:
(1) Actually build more housing. Cities are not building enough housing. THere was a letter to the editor that I read recently, which indicated that almost no new housing has been built in Oakland or Berkeley. San Franciscans just voted against a nonsensical ballot measure that would have created a moratorium on building market rate housing in a part of San Francisco. Trying to get more housing by passing more extreme rent control laws and creating more extreme fines and penalties for property owners, is not the solution. You can't get blood from a turnip. Stop beating up property owners, and start building more housing.
(2) Loosen zoning and building codes so that it is much easier to build homes for much less. Encourage 2nd unit contruction, straw bale home construction and contstruction of homes from recycled materials, as well as streamlining electrical and plumbing connections, and greywater plumbing. Make it easier to get tiny houses set on city lots. There is a considerable tiny house movement, and tiny houses are much more affordable than big standard homes. If people just had a place to put tiny houses, they could own their own home for a fraction of the price for a standard one.
(3) SImplify and streamline Tenants-in-common and Housing Co-op purchases so that people's ability to buy property collectively is facilitated, which again helps create more affordable housing for more people.
|
|
|
Post by High Priestess on Nov 12, 2015 16:59:54 GMT
I just read this article, which suggests that Airbnb itself may be taking more of a role in "policing" the listings on its site, in response to the public pressure to protect long term housing. THe article is entitled, "AIrbnb pledges to protect long term housing. BUt will it work?"
fortune.com/2015/11/11/airbnb-community-compact/
"On Wednesday, the San Francisco-based startup published a “Community Compact” that included pledges to work with city officials and help curb any harmful impact of its business on housing. The company has been under fire in certain cities for helping hosts create illegal hotels and exacerbate housing shortages.
Instead of renting homes and apartments to long term tenants, some landlords list their properties on Airbnb to tourists. The practice reduces the amount of available housing in an area and potentially drives up rents for local residents.
The compact marks an effort by Airbnb to adopt a more conciliatory strategy with cities. In the past, the company has aggressively resisted regulation and sharing information with government officials.
As part of its compact, Airbnb promised to do three things: pay taxes, share some data, and impose limits on rentals to reduce the impact on long-term housing stock.
On taxes, Airbnb has already proven it can cooperate with some cities. Its latest promise would expand that policy nationwide.
In San Francisco, for example, Airbnb collects a hotel occupancy tax for hosts on every booking and then funnels the money on their behalf to the city’s tax collector. In the past, Airbnb had been reluctant to do so because it said it could infringe on its hosts’ privacy. However, the company changed its mind after being assured that the city’s tax agency would not share that information with other departments. Presumably, Airbnb will work to create similar procedures with other cities.
As for sharing data, Airbnb said it would release annual reports detailing its customers’ economic impact in at least 50 cities worldwide. On Wednesday, it said that its hosts and guests would account for $1.96 billion in economic impact in New York City this year, $890 million in Los Angeles, and $510 million in San Francisco. The company defines “economic impact” as their hosts’ earnings in that city and an estimate of the amount of money guests spend during their stays.
Additionally, Airbnb said it would share data with a number of city departments—not just tax collectors—about its hosts. As we’ve written in the past, Airbnb has been reluctant to do so. Instead, it plans to give cities anonymous information. Officials be able to get a fuller picture about home-sharing in their cities and regulate the practice accordingly.
The kind of data will vary by city, Airbnb told Fortune. The company added that it’s open to working with “any city interested in working with us.”
In terms of helping cities reduce Airbnb’s impact on long-term housing, CEO Brian Chesky said that the company wants to ensure “hosts agree to a policy of listing only permanent homes on a short-term basis.” However, it’s unclear what exactly this “short-term basis” means.
Would it mean limits on the number of nights hosts can rent their home? And how would the company enforce it? An Airbnb spokesperson offered no specifics other than the company will “work with every city individually on what makes the most sense for them.” In the past, Airbnb has shied away from policing its hosts by saying it’s unable to track whether they also rent their properties through other services like HomeAway and Craigslist.
On the topic of enforcement, Airbnb pointed out its commitment of releasing anonymized data to help cities as much as possible. It also said that Airbnb’s community of hosts and guests is relatively effective at policing violators through reviews and online tools for reporting violations.
So while Airbnb’s Community Compact is a first step that shows its willingness to work with city governments and communities, it remains to be seen how much of this will truly be effective at curbing its impact on long-term housing shortages."
My take on this: I am not in favor of Airbnb doing any "policing" of hosts' listings, vis a vis protecting long term housing or in any other way, but I also see these kinds of Airbnb policies/community compacts as politically expedient, and perhaps even politically necessary in some regions. There is just so very much political pressure in certain areas to protect long term housing, and so very much anger and rage about property owners "removing units from the rental market and putting them on Airbnb." Regardless how adamant I or any one else is that property owners should be able to do what they want with their property, in some cities (like San Francisco in particular), the politics are such that it is pretty much impossible to argue this point. The political view is so heavily against this perspective.
What I hope is that eventually cities will realize that heavy and heavier regulations on property owners is not what is going to solve their affordable housign crisis. THey can get some mileage at present out of bashing property owners and bashing Airbnb, but these beatings aren't producing housing, and eventually they will have to face up to those facts and do what is needed -- start building more housing. Oh, and also face the fact that there is a little problem called overpopulation on our green and blue planet, and if we dont' address that problem, we certainly won't be able to solve the housing problems that result from it.
|
|