Cannot reinforce too strongly that short-term rentals are illegal in NYC. And the City is cracking down.

From the article:

And that law says you cannot rent out single-family homes or apartments, or rooms in them, for less than 30 days unless you are living in the home at the same time. [bolding mine]

Does this mean that as long as the NY family is living in the apartment, it can rent out one room for one/more nights?

"Does this mean that as long as the NY family is living in the apartment, it can rent out one room for one/more nights?"

Well, who is to say that these "renters" aren't "friends"?

Actually I suppose this same rhetorical question applies even if the person who is renting is not in the apartment. Are they prevented from leaving their keys with friends when they are away on a trip so their friends can stay in the apartment?

I saw the article a few days ago and thought the punishment was quite harsh. But now that I think about it, can't people get around it somehow (as above)?

"And that law says you cannot rent out single-family homes or apartments, or rooms in them, for less than 30 days unless you are living in the home at the same time. [bolding mine]

Does this mean that as long as the NY family is living in the apartment, it can rent out one room for one/more nights?"

Yes, but...

The NYC law, (on the books for a long time but redefined and being enforced more) is just one thing that disallows most situations.

Assuming the situation you mention, it would probably be allowed IF not otherwise prohibited. So what else could prohibit it?
The landlord --if you are a renter like the guy in the article.
The co-op or condo board if you live in one of those other kinds of buildings. Very few would allow these situations.

So between the outright illegal according to NYC law and the ones that are not allowed by the building and its owners, there are very few "legal' situations left.

People who own an entire building could theoretically allow someone to rent out a room while they are living there. But with the price of NYC real estate, it's unlikely. Plus as the person staying there, you have no way of knowing if the building is "safe" according to fire laws, or whether the person you're renting from has proper insurance in case of problems.

So, as a practical matter. it can't be done legally here. You may agree or disagree with the laws or their reasons, but they do exist

There are quite a few rentals available in single-family-owned townhouses, which are presumably legal. I know 2 sets of owners who do this--one in the East Village and one in Harlem. I posted a link here for one of these apartments (in West Harlem) last year, but will not do so again since I got so much nasty feedback from one particcular poster here who all but accused me of shilling for the owners. But a search on any of the large rental sites will find quite a few offerings, particularly in Harlem townhouses.

While it may not be illegal for the tenant to rent out a spare room while still living there - it is extremely likely that

1) if it is a rental it's not allowed by the lease and the renter can be evicted (landlords are always looking for ways to evict current tenants from many apartment that are rent stabilized so they can raise the rent)

2) if it is a condo or a co-op - a huge number of buildings - the by laws most probably do not allow this - and the owner of the apartment can be fined - or forced to sell if they continue to rent against the corporation rules

As for people renting a room in their private house - yes, there are some of those. I would not say quite a few - but in that case one would need to determine that the person you are subletting from is actually the owner of the townhouse.

Apparently, this guy went away and didn't stay around to hear his renter's snores - and that's a no-no under NY laws.

It's one thing if a long-term renter violates the rules set forth by the condo association or apartment owner.

It's a totally different thing for a city to pass ordinances forbidding one night rentals. This smacks of concessions made to big hotel businesses.

"This smacks of concessions made to big hotel businesses."

I completely agree. And have felt that it was the lobbying of the hotel/hospitality industry that lead to such severe crackdown.

Of course there is a need for regulations but NYC has gone overboard. In this case, the roomate, a full time tenant was present, so where is the problem? Considering the history of boarding houses in this country, and this city, it is a gosh darned shame, and shame on the legislators that fell for the lobbyists argument that such stringent laws were to the benefit of the residents of all of Manhattan and its burroughs.

No - it's nothing to do with hotels.

It's a function of the apartment rental market.

NYC operates under a system of rent stabilization. Under this system the rents the landlords can charge for many apartments (I believe those less than $2000 per month are controlled by law.) If one tenant leaves and a new one rents the apartment the landlord can then increase the rent accordingly. So - for people to sublet their apartments is actually taking them artificially off the market - if the renter isn't living there they should move out - so another renter has a place to live and the landlord can collect the higher rent.

So - it is done to be fair to both the landlords and the renters (there is a major shortage of lower priced apartments in NYC - and someone subletting an apartment they aren't using - is a problem for everyone.)

Whatever the reasons, the laws are there, enforceable, and everyone who is considering these kinds of stays needs to know about it.

Some people won't be swayed by the knowledge that they might be scammed, or stay in a sub-par place, or be out of luck when an apartment is raided and have to find some place to stay at the last minute. But some of those same people (including those who think it should be legal) might be swayed by the risk they pose to the people whose apartment they are staying in.

For other people, the opposite is true. They just want to know if they would be considered guilty of any crime if they are the short term renter, and they don't worry about the person from whom they rent.

"In this case, the roomate, a full time tenant was present, so where is the problem?"

Both tenants are apparently renters.We don't even know if the roommate is considered a tenant (his/her name is on the lease) or if they're fudging that too. But in any case, renters in most places do not have the right to do absolutely anything they want with an apartment, just the right to rent the space.
In many apartments, even minor renovations are not allowed. Renting to someone else, subletting, for whatever period of time) is generally not allowed--certainly not without prior permission.

Now if the landlord specifically allowed it (in writing) and the other roommate (if he/she is legally considered a tenant)stayed in the apartment and actually consented (the article says something like "he was OK with it", which could mean he felt like he couldn't say no or risk being thrown out himself), then maybe you'd have one of the uncommon legit situations.

Do most people going on vacation really want to look into all these things and get the guarantees they need? I suspect not.

I think the key thing is that the real estate market in NYC is very different from most of the country - and there are a host of rules that apply to many aspects of it.

People from other places may not understand, or like it - but it is what it is. (In most of the country it is not difficult to rent a decent apartment for less than $1500 per month - to the point that people sublet illegally to try to hang onto one if they leave for a period of time.)

And not following the law is accepting the risk of being removed and/or scammed.

nyer and nytraveler, you have both gone completely off topic. Subletting does not happen on a 3 night minimun. The transient laws are about rentals for less then 30 days.

One need not condescend to people outside your neighborhood that we don't understand the housing market or the real estate market in NYC, which are connected but two different subjects.

Yes there are many issues, but legislation, rather then address those issues chose to broad stroke a ban on short term rentals. If you want to believe that the hospitality industry was not involved intimately in that legislation, well then that is your perogative to be naive. The industry was and is very much involved.

lookin_glass,I think you are misreading me.

I use "subletting" just to mean you are the renter, and you are renting it to another person, whether for one night or for months. The law in question deals with short term so is the most relevant, but I was using an analogy to say that renters just don't have certain rights, including the ability to let other people pay to stay in "their" apartment.

I have not expressed an opinion on whether the law is just or not, or whether there are lobbying groups asserting unnecessary influence.I'm sure there are both good and bad reasons for the law.

I've just pointed out that people need to know that laws are in place and can cause all sorts of trouble on both ends. I did not talk about whether my building does this or that or any personal experiences with the situation. Nothing about "condescend(ing) to people outside your neighborhood that we don't understand the housing market or the real estate market in NYC"

It's a heated issue as I've said before. I think people should know that and not necessarily be convinced to flout a law when they don't know what it may mean to them and to others. Nothing more, nothing less.

nyer, perhaps my misreading you inspired an eloquent and informative response from you. I apologize and greatly appreciate your thoughts on what is clearly a very heated issue.

Also, I think the spirit of fodors forums is meant for people like you, and others on this thread, to warn people of what might be a bad travel decision.

If a landlord/Homeowners association/etc. doesn't want to have a tenant go on a long trip and sublet the apartment/condo, there is a specific and often-used clause, a prohibition against sub-leasing clause, which can be included in the contract that every renter has to sign.

The airbnb situation is entirely different. This is someone who want to rent out his/her place for one/more nights and to make a little money. Maybe the person has recently gone through a divorce and wants to rent out one of two bedrooms on a very temporary basis to make up for the loss of the ex-spouse's income. Why should that person be forced to move miles away to a cheaper place?

IMHO, the NY ordinances are working a hardship on the average New Yorker and favors the hospitality industry which is already charging outrageous amounts for a postage-sized room.

No the NYC law favors legal tenants - preventing either cheating landlords or miscreant tenants from taking apartments out of the rental market and turning them into hotels.

The city has plenty of hotels - including apartment hotels for those wanting more room.

And when a tenant signs a lease that is a legal document - and it's perfectly legitimate for the landlord to stop them doing it.

If people want to do whatever they want with their own property - then they need to buy a private house - not rent an apartment or buy a condo or co-op - that come with very clearly defined rules and regulations.

And sorry - the laws are designed to support the needs of local residents/voters - not tourists.

And anyone thinking hotel rates are too high in NYC - should have a look at London, or Switzerland , or Scandinavia.

[IMHO, the NY ordinances are working a hardship on the average New Yorker and favors the hospitality industry which is already charging outrageous amounts for a postage-sized room.]

I can see how you feel that way, because I had a heck of a time finding a place too. But the real problem is that Manhattan's just not that big of an island. Speaking of which, Tokyo isn't exactly known for being cheap either.

The place we rented in Astoria Queens was for 14 days, it was one apartment in a building of 6. The owner used to live in it herself but now lives two blocks away. She owns other properties too that she rents out as holiday homes. Are the rules any different in Queens or do all the boroughs come under the same law?

I e-mailed the owner, she replied, yes, due to the size of the building it is legal.

Not sure exactly what she means though.

"This smacks of concessions made to big hotel businesses."

Absolutely wrong. As nytraveler points out, it is for the protection of other tenants against partying, vast numbers of people showing up to stay at an apartment rented for two, and illegal activities like prostitution, drug sales and even, yes, temporary meth labs.

For ten years, we owned a condo in a high rise in Boston. After many years, the association succeeded in banning short term rentals for these very reasons. Doormen were no longer allowed to pass on keys, even to "friends" and "relatives", and we enforced occupancy limits even when the owner was present.

Because some owners depended on rental for income and found themselves needing to sublet, we did permit sublets of six months or longer. Our condo in Naples, Florida had a minimum sublet of three months. Both were enforced by fines against owners.

New York real estate law is a whole subject in itself, but New York is certainly not the only place where condo owners do not want short term, unsupervised "guests".

The entire state of New York comes under these rules. And either the landlord was lying to you or she just doesn't understand the rules. (There sometimes are different rules for very small building in terms of longer term rentals.)

And the problem is that everyone wants to stay in Manhattan, which has very high real estate costs, high construction costs, high property taxes and high wages versus much of the country - esp the new notell motel out by the side of some highway - where rooms can be huge because land is basically free.

Actually, nelsonian, the owner of the apartment in Queens is either a) lying so people aren't dissuaded into not renting her apartment or b) mistaken ... badly and probably willfully.

Building size doesn't affect the applicability of the NYS law about short-term rentals. Only people who live in private homes or large apartments (and continue to reside in them) are allowed to rent out rooms, and I think even the ground there is difficult to navigate. If it's an apartment, then your building bylaws must allow the nightly rentals (renters are NEVER allowed to rent out nightly since there's a prohibition on sublets that are not approved in writing by the landlord in the standard NYS apartment lease).

People who own private homes and townhouses have much more flexibility.

Yes, they do. But the number of private homes in Manhattan is minute (Gracie Mansion?) and the number of private townhouses is extremely limited (and they generally cost from $5 million up - often way up - so few owners are interested in letting out rooms.)

There are a few townhouse owner who do this - but again - the rented needs to be sure 1) it is a legal situation and 2) it isn't a scam.

There was just a report of an apartment scam in NYC on another (nameless) travel board. Despite advice to the contrary a renter sent money in advance for the rental of an apartment. The poster believed the story of the rental agent that they were able to circumvent the law by putting together a number of people who, together would be renting for more than a month, even though each rental was for a limited time (obviously illegal under the law). Also suspicious was that the web site and emails has obviously been created by someone whose English was odd/poor, they did not provide exact address or landline phone, did not give the full name and contact info for a local contact - and the price was ridiculously low for the claimed luxury accommodation. So yes, it turned out to be a scam. The building existed - but not the apartment or the rental agent.

Thanks for sharing diverse points of view on this subject.

I do, however, have to take issue with one paragraph:

Ackislander: As nytraveler points out, it is for the protection of other tenants against partying, vast numbers of people showing up to stay at an apartment rented for two, and illegal activities like prostitution, drug sales and even, yes, temporary meth labs.

Partying? I've had more disturbed nights in hotel rooms with rowdy neighbors or drunken people running and shouting up and down hotel hallways. I've never had that kind of experience with airbnb rooms.

"Vast numbers of people showing up...in a room for two"? You can't have "vast numbers" if the host specifically says it's a small room (most rooms in NYC are small) and the bed can accommodate at best two people. I do a lot of research before booking a room on airbnb and I have NEVER read a single review where the owner said that "vast numbers" showed up, nor even that more than the number who applied showed up.

"Illegal activities like prostitution, illegal drugs and setting up a meth lab"

I hate to point this out but prostitution and illegal drugs can take place in hotels too. As for setting up a meth lab, I'm not too knowledgeable in this area, but it seems ridiculous that someone staying for one or two nights (and who is out being a tourist most of the day) is capable of setting up a meth lab. It would make more sense for long term renters to be setting up meth labs - no?

One major reason I started using airbnb is because of something airbnb rooms have to offer that hotels don't - the personal touch. People who share their homes with strangers are usually fantastic hosts and hostesses. One learns so much more about an area because the host/hostess is always eager to share their local knowledge. There's nothing like sitting down to a wonderful breakfast and just chatting with the host/hostess. There is genuine warmth and friendship that no sterile hotel can duplicate and I've stayed in enough sterile hotels not to want too many repeat experiences.

Too bad NYers can't share their local knowledge or their enthusiasm for their city. I still think this is a "kill the competition" move by the "hospitality" industry.

This is NOTHING to do with the hospitality industry.

It is a function of the fact that there is a more than 99% occupancy rate of apartments in Manhattan - and most of those that are empty are at the top of the market. Finding a decent apartment at a rental one can afford - even with rent stabilization is extremely difficult.

The purpose is to keep apartments in Manhattans available for locals by 1) preventing landlords from turning apartment houses into illegal hotels (not meeting safety standards) and 2)preventing absentee tenants from occupying apartments that are needed by people who actually live in the city.

Most cities do not have this type of problem - apartments are often a glut on the market.

There has been a shortage of apartments in Manhatten since WWII - and the one being built are mostly condos/or very high priced rentals. the city wants to protects it's middle class and working class residents by preserving their apartment buildings for their use.

Sorry - but this is more important than making apartments available to tourists - who can stay in hotels, B&Bs or hostels. Granted we get 50 million visitors a year. But they don;t vote. The millions of residents of the city do - and time and again have strongly supported rent stabilization to preserve the option of locals to live in Manhattan.

This will not change.

And if tourists don't fell chummy enough with staff in normal tourist lodgings - they can stay longer, rent an apartment and make lots of friends here.

Having a shortage of apartments and restrictive laws don't always go hand in hand. I live in an area with some of the highest apartment rents in the nation, yet we have an almost unlimited ability to expand in every direction (unlike NYC).

To a large extent, we're talking apples and oranges: you keep talking about whole apartments while the majority of airbnb users usually rent only one room and consider an ensuite room a luxury.

I fail to see why, if a person has been staying in the same apartment for the last 20 years and now has a grown child gone off to college, why that person can't rent out a spare room. This has nothing to do with "protecting its middle class and working class residents". Maybe that child will come back to stay with the parents again after college - especially in this economy.

I fail to see why you want to take such a hostile tone with this "We don't care about tourists, you have to fend for yourselves", seeing that NY city's budget is around $60 billion and half/more than half of the city's income is from visitors.

The tone is not hostile. It's simply realistic. The housing market is going to be regulated for the benefit of locals who live there all the time - and pay large income taxes to the state and the city to do so.

And the person can't rent out a spare room because either the lease with the landlord doesn't allow it or the agreement with the co-op or condo, which they signed upon purchase, doesn't allow it.

The local residents don't want a lot of transients in and out of their personal living spaces - with all of the security issues that creates. (Our building has fobs versus keys for this very reason. One can't simply make up a bunch of fobs and hand them out to random people - about whom one knows nothing. As happens with apartment keys of people who are subletting illegally.)

I completely understand that people want their residences to be private - not open to who knows how many strangers - who may keep the keys, or pass them on to others or ?

And I'm afraid your information on tourism and the budget is inaccurate. It is true that the city budget is about $68 billion. And it is true that tourists spend about $31 billion. But that isn't $31 billion of the city budget. Most of that $31 billion goes into private hands - only a small portion reaches the city as tax revenues. Most is profit for all types of private businesses, wages for staff, etc - out of the city's total economy. So I'm afraid you've grossly overestimated the importance of tourism to the city economy. It's certainly a plus - but finance, high tech and education - as well as taxes from local residents contribute much more to the city's budget.

nytraveler: And the person can't rent out a spare room because either the lease with the landlord doesn't allow it or the agreement with the co-op or condo, which they signed upon purchase, doesn't allow it.

I thought we had already established that there's a difference between private rental agreements are different from a city-wide government-mandated ordinance?

I completely understand that people want their residences to be private

Me, too. But does having keys/fobs/whatever to one apartment compromise the privacy of all the other units in the apartment as well? That's a pretty extraordinary concept. Besides which, if the airbnb user is going to so damage the host with noise or whatever, doesn't the HOA or the apartment have the right to evict the host? Why would the host want to run that kind of extraordinary risk? Airbnb hosts have the right to select their guests in far better ways than hotels. I've had a few situations where the airbnb hosts would hand me a couple of sheets of instructions. Airbnb guests and hosts can write one another up after a stay, so that if the guest is really that bad, the airbnb host has the right not to rent to that person. Those reviews are a far better safeguard than what goes on in hotels, where room locks can be opened with an ordinary credit card and room "safes" really aren't that "safe" anyhow.

Thank you for the correction on the stats on city budget. I stand corrected. Guess $31 billion is just peanuts for New York. What I really wanted to point out is that, as far as I can understand, the city receives no income from the airbnb rentals, so the city isn't incentivized to protect the average renter - but I got sidetracked with all the numbers I was looking at.

ET, I think that unlike a private home, the whole building in which a renter or condo/coop owner lives is considered their "home". So yes, it would compromise their privacy as well as their feelings of safety to have strangers wandering around. We have friends who live in a relatively small doorman building on the upper west side who never lock the door to their apartment. They woukdn't be able to do that if their neighbors were renting out their apartment to transients. Sure, they're taking their chances with their neighbors' guests, but the risk is a heck of a lot lower.

I just try to put myself in the shoes of the people who live next to these illegal rentals. Constantly having strangers entering the security door or trying to figure out how to unlock the unit next to mine? That sounds stressful. Every apartment I lived in required a background check before I was approved--do these short term renters go through the same vetting? I'm guessing not. I also am realizing that I was fortunate to have had good property managers at most of the apartments I rented as a young adult. This simply wouldn't have been allowed.

IIRC, nothing in NY law prevents someone from renting a room to a stranger IF s/he he will be present during the occupancy. It is an unattended rental that is illegal.

On the other hand, condos and coops and rental leases may make a rental illegal as a contract. They may not. They have the right to do either, and the terms are clearly state in the coop or condo docs or the lease. The owner/lessor agreed to those terms when they bought or leased the unit. Period.

Some leases permit sublets, some not. But in all cases, the landlord needs to know.

I am not a lawyer nor am I your lawyer, but who is liable if you are injured in an illegal rental or if you damage the property? Suppose you are scalded in the shower or suppose you fail to close the shower curtain properly and let the shower run onto the floor and into the apartment below?

Ask your insurance agent whether you are covered for the damages you caused. Ask your lawyer how easy it would be to recover damages from someone whose liability policy does not cover illegal rentals.

Yes, but the fact is that almost all rental agreements or condo/co-op by -laws DO make short -term rentals illegal. Trying to find out if this is legal in a particular building is not really something that a tourist is able to do. And - the tenant subletting may simply lie about it. (And yes, long-term subletters are vetted just like buyers in almost all co-ops and condos - having to provide full financial and employment information as well as personal references. And the managing agents do complete credit and criminal background checks. No one is doing that for tourists staying for a week. so there is essentially no protection for other residents of these buildings.

Ad even though I always lock our door when leaving the apartment (except to go to the incinerator/recycling room on the same floor - I still don;t want to encounter strangers in the hallways, lobby, laundry room, etc - and not know if they are simply illegal subletters or outright intruders/thieves.

That's the reason it's simply better not to contemplate this - even assuming it's not an outright scam.

"I still don;t want to encounter strangers in the hallways, lobby, laundry room, etc - and not know if they are simply illegal subletters or outright intruders/thieves."

or neighbor's friends, or family, or guests, or housecleaners, or handyman. You could learn something from a Jerry Seinfeld episode or two.

Sure. And your neighbor could be a psychopath too. Why increase the odds?

At the heart of this whole thing is zoning laws. Your argument is that the zoning laws are an undue imposition on a property owner. My county doesn't allow left-turn entrances within a certain number of feet within a major intersection. So if you have a vacant lot at a major corner, you have to show how traffic will enter and leave safely in order to get a building permit. Crummy for them, but worse for the people who've been in major accidents because of backup onto the arterial road.

My general conclusion is that I respect a city's --and a building management's right--to make limits as to who can live in a residential-zoned structure. It's crummy for me as a tourist but then again, I'm only there a week, not 52 weeks.

I don't like it for me as a tourist, either, but I certainly understand it.

Sorry - that simply isn't the case. Workmen or housekeepers in the building have ID passes (and workmen have to be approved by the super).

And delivery people are - well - delivering something.

Visitors or guests wouldn't be in the laundry room - or hanging around in other public areas - but would be on the way in or out - often with the person they are visiting.

Yes, it is possible that I might meet a legitimate visitor in the elevator. But not groups of them hauling their luggage in and out on a regular basis.

Sorry - we pay a lot for our privacy - and don't want it intruded upon.

Ackislander: IIRC, nothing in NY law prevents someone from renting a room to a stranger IF s/he he will be present during the occupancy. It is an unattended rental that is illegal.

If that's the case, then this NY ordinance doesn't apply to quite a majority of the airbnb rooms-to-let. A lot of the really cheap ones in NYC are "come sleep on my couch" type of lodging - one step up from a hostel and two steps up from couchsurfers. There are also plenty of "sleep in my second bedroom, share my bathroom". Apparently these don't come under the NYC ordinance.

As for what is on a private contract between the HOA/apartment owner and the long-term tenant, that's a private arrangement, so it'll be really ridiculous to expect airbnb to know in advance what each individual rental contract provides anywhere in the world.

There's also the assumption somehow that the average airbnb renter is going to be a drug dealer, a partier, or the proverbial Fodors axe murderer. The exact opposite is the usual case for both airbnb renter and host. That's what the mutual reviews are all about. If you don't want to run the risk, don't rent from/out to someone with no reviews. Period. Simple.

I just don't buy it that there aren't other forces at work behind (enforcement of) this ordinance: those of the city not collecting any taxes on the airbnb rentals and the hotels fearing loss of business, as a couple of examples.

The NY ordinance might not apply - but the standard NY apartment lease agreement does ban this type of sublet. As do the rules of almost all co-ops and condos.

So in almost all cases it is either against the law - or against the contract governing the occupancy of the apartment.

I don;t know why it is so hard to believe that legitimate tenants don't want strangers wandering around their private residences.

As for a devilish plot by NYC hoteliers - the occupancy rates are extremely high - except in Jan/Feb when rooms are given away for practically nothing - and the market is so underserved that there are new hotels being built or converted all the time. There is no lack of guests for the hotels in NY - as perhaps there are in other parts of the country where the economy is still weak.

According to the Fed the NYC economy is growing strongly - and the number of employed is at an all time high - while that of the state is also growing, although not as quickly. Most recent hotel occupancy rates are more than 90% for NYC, despite the fact that the supply of hotel rooms continues to grow at a significant rate (more than 26K additional rooms in the last 10 years).

As for a devilish plot by NYC hoteliers...

It doesn't have to be any kind of "devilish plot", it could be just your run-of-the-mill influence buying by one industry.

If hotel occupancy is at an all time high of 90% - do you suppose it would be that high if a good percentage of that business were taken away by airbnb renters?

Or that these hotels could keep charging those outrageous hotel rates where $200 in a Motel-6 type of room isn't uncommon?

I know for a fact we couldn't have afforded to stay in NYC for three weeks if we stayed at a hotel. There are probably those of you who think, well if they can't afford to stay in a hotel they should stay home. However there must be thousands of people like us who have family living in New York and would like to be able to see their relatives now and again.

No one says that AirB&B does not have advantages both for renters and rentees. It does: income for the first, lower rates for the latter.

It is just illegal unless the renter is present in the apartment with you.

If you want to take the risk, go ahead. We do it in Paris all the time, where similar laws apply. But recognize that there are risks.

This is the last thing I have to say on this topic.

I find it extremely hard to believe that a large percentage of visitors are interested in staying in random stranger's spare bedrooms.

It's not something I would ever consider, would not work for business travelers and would be unacceptable to many tourists - who want the privacy and support that hotel staff provide.

But - it really isn't a matter of what I want - or anyone else wants.

The laws are what they are. And the risks of not following them are what they are. And people who are caught - or scammed - have no recourse - or reason to complain.

<<<I find it extremely hard to believe that a large percentage of visitors are interested in staying in random stranger's spare bedrooms.>>>

Ditto. I do think many visitors would like the convenience of an apartment, however, I think the ratio of visitors who would rent an apartment (even if legal) to visitors who would stay in a hotel is very very small. I also don't really think the illegality of short-term rentals is preventing many individuals who would rent an apartment from doing so -- see Ackislander's post about Paris. I would guess most visitors don't even know it's illegal.

There seems to be a broadbased interpretation of what is "illegal".

If what Ackislander has said is correct in terms of the NYC ordinance, then it is NOT illegal for someone to rent out a spare bedroom so long as they are staying in the apartment/condo themselves.

I have no idea what the Parisian law provides specifically, as I suspect that sf7307 doesn't either - so really what is legal or "illegal" in Paris is still an open question.

Most all cities have ordinances governing rentals. In the US non-discrimination is up at the top of the forbidden no-nos but does this apply to airbnb rentals even if airbnb rentals are allowed in some cities?

Moreover, B&B owners also advertise on airbnb. How do you know that it isn't a B&B owner who may not be staying in the same apartment/condo but is doing a very "legal" business?

It's not something I would ever consider, would not work for business travelers and would be unacceptable to many tourists - who want the privacy and support that hotel staff provide.

airbnb is not designed for business travelers, who usually want to be able to check in and out at their convenience and who usually have corporate accounts at specific hotel chains, so they are encouraged to use hotels in those chains and no others.

Some "tourists" like my BIL who prefers a specific hotel in NYC because it's steps away from a metro stop. He wouldn't even stay with his own relative, who will let him sleep in his child's bedroom and have full use of his spacious apartment, because my BIL has to walk a couple of blocks from the nearest metro stop. airbnb isn't for people like my BIL either.

But, just because airbnb is not designed for certain kinds of travelers and isn't for everyone, doesn't mean that it can't be a rewarding experience for others.

I find it extremely hard to believe that a large percentage of visitors are interested in staying in random stranger's spare bedrooms.

You may find it strange, but there are a large percentage of visitors who have used airbnb and will continue to do so. When airbnb was started in august 2008, it had one booking per day. By June, 2012, it had one booking per every two seconds. airbnb is just starting to grow, especially overseas. Obviously there are a lot of visitors who enjoy using airbnb and there will be plenty of new users with each day. It's not just the attractive room rates, it's also the wonderful friendships that can develop, the terrific breakfasts that sometimes come with the room, and any number of other benefits that fuel airbnb's growth.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/06/19/airbnb-10-million-bookings-global/

I agree with nytraveler, as a senior female no way I want to rent a room from some stranger.

We were is a studio apartment, so not in a spare bedroom. It was advertised on VRBO and AirBnB. The owner rents out several apartments. From what has been said here, it seems it would be illegal, but when I e-mailed her (after the event) she said the one we stayed in was legal.

I give up.

People will believe what they want.

And do what they want.

It's their decision as the risks they are willing to take - being reported by a neighbor or doorman - or perhaps scammed.

I am satisfied that we are keeping tourists out of our co-op - so I don't have to deal with the problem directly.

I know my friend's NYC building management just caught a condo owner renting out the apt through Craig's List and stopped it. It is a very nice secure building i a hghly desirable location; having assorted strangers walking through it compromises all the residents who paid big bucks to buy in a secure place.

I give up too.

Because this whole thing is so illogical and almost paranoid in some sense.

Murders in NYC are at an all-time low in the last FIFTY years, as is most crime, which tends to still happen in the poorer neighborhoods; not exactly the neighborhoods where a majority of airbnb rentals are located. Of the ten major cities in the US, NYC has the lowest crime rate.

So, all this stuff about meth labs, noisy partiers, and being afraid of every stranger that crosses your condo/apartment doorstep I think of as the same kind of illogcal paranoia as when I visited a friend in NYC and she had SIX locks on her front door. (Still shaking head in disbelief)

To my thinking, there's a greater chance of being attacked/killed in the NY subway than from an airbnb guest staying in another apartment/condo in the same building.

But, bully for you, nytraveler, if you are working hard to keep all away airbnb guests from your coop.

It's not me. It's clearly part of the co-op laws - and that is true of almost every co-op. And as a member of the board of the co-op - this is one of my responsibilities.

And I'm not afraid of being murdered in my bed or someone setting up a meth lab - although the partying is a real possibility. I just don't want strangers wandering around my private residence. None of the owners do.

And we did succeed in convincing one owner, who continually (4 separate times) sublet her apartment without board knowledge or approval, to sell her apartment rather than leave it sitting empty. (Three of her subletters - all for periods of 6 months or more - were fine neighbors, although they had not gone through the approval process. The fourth set of tenants were two young guys who were loud at all hours, refused to deal with their trash properly and so attracted vermin, left ground floor windows ungated and open - allowing thieves into the building - and were rude, nasty and unacceptable neighbors. We ended up having them evicted and changed the building locks so the owner no longer had access and couldn't sublet again. (Rules allow owners to sublet for up to two years - once - but with board approval of the proposed subletters. After that owners have to either occupy the apartment, leave it empty or sell it. She now lives in CA full time and finally gave in and sold the apartment.)

nelsonian,

Did you really expect the apartment owner to tell you that she had rented you a place that was illegal?

You did something wrong. Hope you believe what these NYC experts have told you and won't do it again.

Will these "NYC experts" please provide a link to the NY ordinance in question, so that we can determine once and for all what is "legal" and what is "illegal"?

Many thanks.

IMHO, I don't believe nelsonian did anything "wrong". None of us know the true situation in her case - maybe the owner had gotten the proper license to rent out her place. This is just jumping to conclusions with no supporting facts.

Otherwise, nytraveler, in your situation I would have done the same thing. However, you are describing an apples and oranges situation. Per your own account, the four rentals were for "6 months or more". There are VERY FEW airbnb rentals that are that long. I once made a reservation which was accepted at first and then later the owner asked if we could come to a different arrangement, since someone wanted to rent her spare bedroom for 3 months and my dates were in the middle of that 3 months. So, we came to a very amicable different arrangement. Something like this may happen on a rare occasion, but most airbnb rentals are for much, much shorter periods.

Honestly, have any of you local "experts" stayed in either the Marriott on Times Square or the Grand Hyatt? Do you know just how NOISY it is in either one of those locations?

This is a Fodor's thread that came up via Google. It has lots of good info -- and to my surprise, has no replies. There's a link to the 2010 law, but I'm not sure if it's the finalized version, as it seems to be a marked up document.

http://www.fodors.com/community/united-states/heres-the-actual-nyc-law-about-short-term-apartment-rentals.cfm

I only skimmed it quickly, but the distinction is between Class A and Class B dwellings (as the NYT link in the thread pointed out).

Near the end of the nyc.gov document, you get some exemptions for Class A dwellings. For example "natural person" are permitted to be in Class A dwellings for fewer than 30 days (see (B) on the penultimate page) -- the key is that "no monetary compensation" is paid.

I haven't followed this thread that closely, but if nelsonian rented from a building that was classified as Class B, it'd have been legal (if I understand this correctly).

Basically, not all short-term rentals are illegal. And the law doesn't say that you can't have people in your apartment if you're away (see above).

To answer the question of why people want to stay in someone's spare room. That is what traditional B&Bs used to be, especially in places like Ireland. They were not the fancy, commercial enterprises they are today in the US. While I enjoy a great hotel, staying in a family B&B (or even someone's apartment as we used to do in NYC before I knew about the laws) is a great way of meeting local people and getting a sense of local life and culture. Sometimes there are cats, kids or a dog around. Sometimes the host shows you around or invites you to share a family meal. Sometimes there is no good hotel in the area you want to visit.

When I lived in Germany, tourist places used to find families for my family to stay with. We stayed several days with a family in Bavaria, another time on a farm in the North, and in the Netherlands where my little ones were treated like family. My kids helped with the animals, rodes horses, etc.

I stayed once at a B&B in Bath where all the "guests" shared a communal table and talked of the plans for the day, etc. Great fun meeting people from other countries.

Years ago, I stayed with an "old" lady in NYC in a gorgeous apartment overlooking the Hudson. She and her DH bought the place when they were first married, raised the kids there, etc. She had lived there over 40 years, her only home as an adult. Husband was dead. It was safe for her and she wanted to keep space for children and grandchildren who visited often, but was finding it hard to keep up with condo fees and taxes. She took people only through word of mouth, hosting mostly parents of friends of her Son - absolutely no advertising. Perhaps there were laws against it then (20+ years ago). I don't know. I think it would be illegal now, even though she was there, because the owners' association probably has laws against it.

It always made sense to me, but I can see the issues. Too bad compromise can't be worked out because it is nice doing this in Europe.

Go over to Trip Advisor' New York City Forum You will find Top Questions about New York City on the upper right side. Click on Why are Vacation Apartment Rentals a Bad Idea in NYC. It has a pretty good explanation.

If she's been living there - it's not a condo - it's a co-op. And there is no Owner's Association. It's a legal corporation, the tenants of the apartments are share holders in the corporation (number of shares depending on the size and location of the apartment), the members of the corporation have to elect officers each year (Pres, VP, Treas and Sec as well as - oftne - a couple of other board members at large) you are required to have an annual board meeting and the managing agent has to issue an annual report with complete financial disclosure.

When you buy into the building you sign a series of documents, governing the corporation as well as rules regarding living arrangements - everything from size of pets to hours for parties and your responsibility for the actions of any guests you bring into the building.

I'm sure she knew what she was doing was wrong - and just went ahead and did it anyway. And as long as she was subtle and none of her "friends" caused problems it would be OK. But in most co-ops, repeated offenses would be cause for sizable fines, and eventually, termination of the lease (in effect eviction).

And I think you would need a NY State attorney with detailed knowledge of the real estate laws. But, in essence - if you live in a commercial building (not the owner of a two-family house renting out the other half - which doesn't exist in Manhattan anyway) you should not be renting out part of your apartment short-term. And to rent part long-term - you need to have the person added to you lease by the landlord, which the landlord may well allow. But it is extremely unlikely a rental tenant would be allowed to sublet for a longer period - since the landlord would rather charge them for breaking the lease and then rent it to someone else at a higher rate due to the allowable vacancy increase.

Did people read the links earlier? I think it's pretty clear what's legal and what's not.

Just for convenience, these are the links:

http://www.fodors.com/community/united-states/heres-the-actual-nyc-law-about-short-term-apartment-rentals.cfm

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/NYS_chapter_225.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/answers-to-questions-about-new-york.html

As the NYT article explains:

The minimum allowable rental period for an apartment, Ms. FitzGibbon explained, depends not on the building’s height or size, but on a set of rules based on the type of unit — Class A or Class B — that was originally listed in the building plan. Most regular apartments are Class A; Class B includes single-room occupancy buildings and some other types. In rare cases, a building might have both Class A and Class B apartments.

Excerpt from the NYC.gov link below. It's pretty clear, no?

A class A multiple dwelling shall only be used for permanent residence purposes. For the purposes of this subparagraph, "permanent residence purposes" shall consist of occupancy of a dwelling unit by the same natural person or family for thirty consecutive days or more, and a natural person or family so occupying a dwelling unit shall be referred to herein as the permanent occupants of such dwelling unit.

The following uses of a dwelling unit by the permanent occupants thereof shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with occupancy of such dwelling unit for permanent residence purposes:

(1) (A) occupancy of such dwelling unit for fewer than thirty consecutive days by other natural persons living within the household of the permanent occupant such as house guests or lawful boarders, roomers or lodgers; or (B) incidental and occasional occupancy of such dwelling unit for fewer than thirty consecutive days by other natural persons when the permanent occupants are temporarily absent for personal reasons such as vacation or medical treatment, provided that there is no monetary compensation paid to the permanent occupants for such occupancy.

I know I should stop posting about this, but just wanted to add that it is entirely possible that in our case, the owner of the studio apartment owned the whole building. It was three levels and had six apartments I think.

nelsonian, you can check and see if it is legal by accessing the nyc.gov site. Just follow the links and type in the address.

"Natural persons" would seem to refer to family or perhaps very close friends - not complete strangers unknown to the tenant.

This is clear, no? Doesn't say "family or perhaps very close friends"?

The following uses of a dwelling unit by the permanent occupants thereof shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with occupancy of such dwelling unit for permanent residence purposes:

(1) (A) occupancy of such dwelling unit for fewer than thirty consecutive days by other natural persons living within the household of the permanent occupant such as house guests or lawful boarders, roomers or lodgers; or (B) incidental and occasional occupancy of such dwelling unit for fewer than thirty consecutive days by other natural persons when the permanent occupants are temporarily absent for personal reasons such as vacation or medical treatment, provided that there is no monetary compensation paid to the permanent occupants for such occupancy.

"nelsonian, you can check and see if it is legal"

Yes, I agree with this. Certainly an improvement over "You did something wrong."

Had a look at the site but couldn't see where to go to put the address in.

I said I was out of this discussion, but fascinating new information has been added by 111op.

1. It allows for an old fashioned B&B in which you rented a room in someone's home. Like Sasssafras, I enjoyed these very much, including one in Bath!

2. On rentals when the owner is not present, I stand corrected: you _can_ let people stay in your apartment when you are "temporarily absent" but you can't get paid for it!!!

It does rather take the incentive out of renting your place through AirBnB, doesn't it, though it looks good for the renters!

What if you gave the absentee landlord a check before you moved in, then stopped payment? Could he enforce your failure to pay when payment is illegal under the law? Of course, he could send around a couple of guys with baseball bats.

All promising, but of course there are still those pesky coop and condo regulations, but they are a minor detail.

to access info on a particular building, nelsonian, go to the NYTimes article in 111op's posting and click on Buildiings Information System.

No - it doesn't say you can let "people" say. It says you can let "natural persons" stay in your apartment. That would seem, by any sensible definition, not to include random strangers - but to allow family or close friends (about whom the tenant would presumably know a lot) to stay.

And no, since the rental would be illegal - there is no way any court would enforce payment. This would be like enforcing payment for a drug buy - no one is going to do it.

And condo/co-op rules are not pesky details. They can result in eviction of a tenant who refuses to obey the rules. And neighbors finding non-tenants in the building can have them removed as trespassers.

Just to nitpick here, are you saying that if a renter brings home someone he or she met at a bar, or while foraging for mushrooms, and lets them stay in the apartment overnight, they are flouting coop rules or NYC law? What is the line between random strangers and close friends, as it applies to allowing overnight or multi-day non-paying guests?

sorry "renter" above should read, "coop or condo owner"

Exactly -- which is why I think the law is actually pretty clearly worded (at least to me, who is a not a lawyer) so that it can actually be applied to more specific situations. Of course there's always be room for interpretation.

Not unless they are charging the person to stay there. Otherwise they would fall (loosely) into the category of friend.

Not an ideal situation - but really not anyone else's business.

I'm going to act like nytraveler and nelsonian and come back again, since this debate wouldn't go away.

111op, thanks for the links to the actual law. There's a 2011 amendment to the 2010 ordinance, which I didn't read through, but it doesn't change the wording in that relevant paragraph that 111op cited.

That said, I usually enjoy nytraveler's posts, so don't mean to pick on her especially in her spirited defense of not allowing airbnb renters into NYC.

nytraveler: No - it doesn't say you can let "people" say. It says you can let "natural persons" stay in your apartment. That would seem, by any sensible definition, not to include random strangers - but to allow family or close friends (about whom the tenant would presumably know a lot) to stay. [bolding mine]

Which, of course, leads to the inevitable conclusion that airbnb renters, like myself, are "unnatural persons". But only in New York presumably we're "natural persons" elsewhere.

And no, since the rental would be illegal - there is no way any court would enforce payment. This would be like enforcing payment for a drug buy - no one is going to do it.

The non-payment issue does not come up in airbnb cases, because the renter pays in advance at the time of booking to airbnb. I believe the host doesn't get paid until after the stay (never been a host, so am not certain on this point). There were complaints in the beginning about how airbnb, being the middleman, got to use those funds in the interim.

"Natural persons" does not distinguish friends from strangers, it distinguishes human beings from corporations!

The issue here is whether the "guest" is paying for their accommodations. I would therefore guess (I haven't actually read the ordinance) that Air bnb guests would be illegal, someone you brought home for a 1-night er would be legal, a couchsurfer would technically be legal (I don't think there's any money involved) and someone staying in your apartment while you are gone (again, sans payment) would be legal.

All subject to the lease and condo/coop rules, of course.

sf7307: that's not the issue.

It's illegal to accept payment for short term renters only when the host is not present. Look at subparagraph 1(B).

1(A) which allows short term renters doesn't say anything about payment/nonpayment.

111op already quoted the relevant paragraphs of the ordinanace on Dec 8, 5:50pm (Pacific Time). Here they are again:

The following uses of a dwelling unit by the permanent occupants thereof shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with occupancy of such dwelling unit for permanent residence purposes:

(1) (A) occupancy of such dwelling unit for fewer than thirty consecutive days by other natural persons living within the household of the permanent occupant such as house guests or lawful boarders, roomers or lodgers; or (B) incidental and occasional occupancy of such dwelling unit for fewer than thirty consecutive days by other natural persons when the permanent occupants are temporarily absent for personal reasons such as vacation or medical treatment, provided that there is no monetary compensation paid to the permanent occupants for such occupancy.

The question is, then, what are "lawful boarders, rooters or lodgers".

Well, airbnb guests could still be classified as "house guests" in (A) right?

Certainly this reading is consistent with the stories in the first NYT article quoted in this thread, that you are allowed to rent to someone else for fewer than 30 days as long as you're also physically present.

Suppose I swap my apartment with someone else's apartment in Paris for two weeks. Should/Would (B) cover this? It seems like this is not "monetary compensation," is it?

No - "house guests" don't pay - and they people you are already related to or friends with. Not strangers found in a newspaper.

And no matter how you try to twist it - as intended - short-term sublets are illegal - unless you own the entire building - and it's a small, private building - not a traditional apartment house.

sf7303: The question is, then, what are "lawful boarders, rooters or lodgers".

Is a couchsurfer more "lawful" than an airbnb guest? Is a prostitute that overnights more "lawful"? Is hiding a criminal relative more "lawful"?

and honestly I have no idea what "rooters" are nor why they would want to have short-term airbnb stays.

111op: house swaps would be unlawful in NYC if you are both "unnatural persons" but would be allowed if you are both "natural persons".

"And no matter how you try to twist it"

I'm not twisting anything. I'm just reading what's available. Who says "house guests" don't pay? That's not what the clause says. That's how you're reading it.

Even the NYT article that was first quoted had this: "And that law says you cannot rent out single-family homes or apartments, or rooms in them, for less than 30 days unless you are living in the home at the same time."

My reading is entirely consistent with what the NYT reports. It's also consistent with this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/nyregion/city-closes-illegal-hotels-and-puts-pressure-on-b-and-bs.html?_r=0

"The new law made it illegal to rent out apartments in residential buildings for under 30 days. Owners of an apartment or a town house may still rent out one or two rooms, provided that they live in the home and everyone has access to common areas like the kitchen."

Why are you insisting on your "short-term sublets are illegal - unless...."? The exceptions are there to be read by everyone and there are more exceptions than you're claiming.

@nytraveler.. a "natural person" in legal terminology means a human being. It does not refer to the degree of closeness between people, friends or strangers. It is making a distinction between occupancy by human beings, as opposed to entities such as corporations, or limited liability companies, or business partnerships.

The point of the original post was to alert NY renters to the possible consequences of renting out their apartments in same manner as the person profiled in the article. And those who are considering renting an apartment in NY should also be aware of what is legal and what is not legal, as you have no recourse when engaging in illegal activity, if you have a problem. If you are visiting NY, you want to ensure that you will have an enjoyable and hassle-free stay.