|
Post by High Priestess on Oct 28, 2016 14:27:13 GMT
So says the columnist Brett Arends www.marketwatch.com/story/new-yorks-new-law-against-airbnb-is-a-total-disgrace-2016-10-28He says (and I LOVE his writing style): "Who do the people running the state of New York think they’re kidding? The draconian new law they just passed against Airbnb isn’t intended to protect the middle class, or the working class, quiet neighborhoods, respectable homeowners, or out-of-state visitors who don’t want to die in a firetrap. The entire purpose of the law is to protect New York’s rich and greedy hotel operators at the expense of everybody else. It is to shore up their fat profits by banning a strong and growing competitor. That’s it. Thanks to this law, you and I will pay even more money for that lousy shoe-box in Manhattan with the rattling radiator the next time we visit the city. The extra money we pay will go to those poor, hard-up people who own the big hotels. Some of them are down to their last billion." Okay here's the part I really like:
|
|
|
Post by lambada on Oct 28, 2016 23:25:49 GMT
I just read thru the NY STR Law on Evelyn Badia's blog yesterday. Somehow I thought the law was reasonable: OK to STR SFR and Duplexes as entire units, but for any units in buildings with 3 or more the hosts need to be present at all times. The only thing I'd question is, for larger buildings, don't they normally have HOA anyway? So as long as the hosts follow the HOA rules, I didn't think the City/States need to do anything either. But overall NY law is much better than SF law.
|
|
|
Post by High Priestess on Oct 29, 2016 4:05:23 GMT
It's not the NYC STR law that is the problem, it's the law that would fine people for their speech. The law that makes it illegal to do certain kinds of advertising. I agree -- the STR law itself is better than the direction that SF is going at present...but the law saying you cannot engage in certain types of speech -- is fascist and disgusting, and violates the US Constitution in my opinion.
|
|