Hotel CEO celebrates higher prices in NYC after anti-Airbnb law passes
I found this law problematic because it was written to make enforcement easy, not to address actual issues with serial short-term renting.  The intent of the law was to bring serial short-term rented units back into the market for long-term renters.  The intended outcome was to make more housing available for prospective renters and to reduce nuisances involved with serial short-term renters.<p>The outcome is to further sclerotize and limit the rental market.  Now students cannot effectively sublet their apartments on Craigslist while out on summer break or study abroad, for a summer intern working at a company in the city.  Now a couple can&#x27;t rent out their apartment for the week while they go to Disneyworld.<p>To some degree I have fallen for the populist message in this article; the hoteliers are clearly reaping the most benefits from this legislation.  However, in the long term, everyone in the city is harmed by unnecessarily restrictive laws.<p>The outcome is going to be a drive of this activity underground, as we have seen in alcohol prohibition and the formerly wild west of off-meter (or &quot;gypsy&quot;) cabs in NYC.  At least with Airbnb, there was a rating system and an escalation&#x2F;authentication path.<p>Airbnb&#x27;s failure was twofold: that of not spending as much capital and time as Uber&#x2F;Lyft in changing the minds of lawmakers; and failing to address the targets of the legislation: serial short-term landlords.  If Airbnb had addressed this issue, the hoteliers would not have had an argument for the public benefit.