Under the new restrictions, short-term renters will need to register with the city and must be present in the home for the duration of the rental

Under the new restrictions, short-term renters will need to register with the city and must be present in the home for the duration of the rental

Home-sharing company Airbnb said it had to stop accepting some reservations in New York City after new regulations on short-term rentals went into effect.

The new rules are intended to effectively end a free-for-all in which landlords and residents have been renting out their apartments by the week or the night to tourists or others in the city for short stays. Advocates say the practice has driven a rise in demand for housing in already scarce neighbourhoods in the city.

Under the new system, rentals shorter than 30 days are only allowed if hosts register with the city. Hosts must also commit to being physically present in the home for the duration of the rental, sharing living quarters with their guest. More than two guests at a time are not allowed, either, meaning families are effectively barred.

  • angrymouse@lemmy.world
    243·
    1 year ago

    There should be a cap to how many buildings a person or a company can own. Why a person can have more than 3 homes? In the current world, this does not make any sense.

    • ninjirate@kbin.social
      17·
      1 year ago

      100% agree and while at it I don’t think any single family homes or rowhouse/townhouses should be owned by corporations. Apartments and such I can understand the building owned by a management company that only does long term rentals but otherwise homes should be owned by people.

    • chuckd@lemmy.world
      35·
      1 year ago

      So then the person creates an LLC and now the LLC owns the properties. Do you then think corporations shouldn’t be able to own more than 3 properties, too?

      • mikezane@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 year ago

        People would just create a different LLC for each property so limiting ownership for companies wouldn’t work either.

              • Krauerking@lemy.lol
                1·
                1 year ago

                A single person or entity having control over specific commercial commodity or service or a vertical monopoly in which a group or entity own the means of production, distribution and other levels of the commercial activity,

                All of which can be done by increasing the amount of companies that a group or entity runs or acquires.

                People seem to forget we used to tell companies “no” about encroaching on other companies or buying them out to have a larger market share literally as anti-monopoly policies.

            • chuckd@lemmy.world
              23·
              1 year ago

              Anti-monopoly? Unless a person owned every corporation that owned every rental property, anti monopoly laws wouldn’t apply.

              • Krauerking@lemy.lol
                22·
                1 year ago

                Limiting the number of companies someone can spin off and operate is reasonable to stop monopolies as well. An unlimited regulation would in fact just cause people to spinoff new companies whenever they hit a limit and just pretend it’s a different company and person doing anything. Limits to corporations is absolutely anti monopoly