You're skipping the one very good and valid point he makes in the article, which is that the bill actually has an exemption which pretty much permits services like AirBnB to exist, if not thrive. Basically, short term rentals are acceptable as long as the owner is present... this means less competition for your average AirBnB user.
Given this exemption, it makes me question why exactly AirBnB was so up in arms about this, especially with their rhetoric being centered on protecting the little guy. That being said, I love the service, though if I had more cash I'd take a hotel every time.
it makes me question why exactly AirBnB was so up in arms about this
Well, one obvious problem is that losing a big subset of your business is always bad.
But another problem, which I just found, is that these fine points of the law, if they exist, are nowhere to be seen on the web. All the immediately obvious Google hits paraphrase the law as "AirBnB and Craigslist short-term rentals now illegal in NYC". So that's a first-order marketing problem.
It also adds fuel to the FUD fire, as we are seeing right here in the linked article. Suddenly every AirBnB host is being accused of running a flea-infested, credit-card-scamming, fire-hazard rat trap. That's a second-order marketing problem, but it could prove even worse than the first-order one: The law only applies in NYC, but FUD can spread everywhere.
Finally, there are the legal problems. This law gives the cops, and whoever tips off the cops, a lever with which to hassle AirBnB guests and hosts alike. Just because you're ultimately going to be found innocent doesn't mean that being hassled by the cops is a barrel of fun. If it happens to any extent it's bound to hurt the reputation of services like AirBnB, especially among foreign travelers, who are probably damn scared of American police as it is.
And, of course, to prevent a raft of lawsuits AirBnB must now carefully educate its NYC hosts about the law, and pay a lawyer to draft an airtight agreement for the hosts to sign to indicate that they understand the law, and defend any lawsuits that spring up when people get busted in NYC and blame AirBnB anyway despite all those precautions...
I don't remember any particular public comment from AirBnB. Speaking generally, I think any business would react negatively to having a powerful competitor convince the government to rule a segment of their business illegal. After all, all it takes is a quick amendment to the law later to eliminate "the loophole being abused by vagrants, drunks, and foreigners" and suddenly you're guilty of Felony Interference With Business Model.
One's marketing and PR posture does not necessarily mirror the totality of one's business. If I was planting an article in the New York Times, it would focus on a poor Hispanic girl learning at a NYC school which has a number who loves school now rather than on a middle class white boy learning at a suburban Illinois school which has a name who got a candied apple at the Halloween party last year. Two true stories, but the one which pays the rent is not the one that gives NYT reporters weak knees.
In one of the past AirBnB articles about NYC the author mentioned that many landlords owning multiple apartments are making money on their vacant apartments by renting them on AirBnB. Maybe a bulk of AirBnB revenue comes from these operators who are doing hotel rentals on scale?
That part had me puzzled - does 'owner' include renters?
This does seem to alleviate any legitamate concerns about the bill, as long as renters count as owners (ie, if I have a free room in my apartment, I can put it on AirBnB)
If its only _owners_, though, its quite draconian, as most NYC building owners don't live in their buildings.
Notice how this 'valid point' has nothing to do with all the other 'safety' red herring nonsense. Forcing the owner to be present cripples the opportunity to sublet, which is exactly what the hotels want.
I think the chances of people doing an apartment 'swap' for their out of town/country vacation is pretty slim.
2 people going in the exact opposite direction and wanting to living in the other person's home. Seems slim chance to me unless those people knew each other in advance.
add - bluesmoon, learn something everyday. Though I think not all everybody wants to open their own apt for swap and instead would rather rent someone's for a week or 2.
It actually happens fairly often on couchsurfing. Couple A from New York wants to spend July in San Francisco and swaps with Couple B from San Francisco who wants to spend July in New York. I've seen it happen with entire families too.
Less likely to work internationally, but domestically, it happens. It's the key exchange that's the hard part, but the safest is to leave the key with a neighbour and then call them from the other side to give them the okay.
There are companies, like homeexchange, that have been in businesses for decades doing exactly that. Swapping, vacation rental, subletting have all been around far longer than sites like airbnb. Even craigslist has had a home swapping section for as long as I can remember.
Swapping homes is far more common than renting a room for a week. It's more common outside the US sites like gumtree, leboncoin, etc. have been doing this for years
Given this exemption, it makes me question why exactly AirBnB was so up in arms about this, especially with their rhetoric being centered on protecting the little guy. That being said, I love the service, though if I had more cash I'd take a hotel every time.