[thegmanifesto]

(05-22-2013 12:34 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(05-22-2013 08:12 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

I have said time and time again, all this started with The Smoking Ban.

When people in the future look back and trace our societies demise, they will see The Smoking Ban as the spark that started it all.

I used to hate it when you said that but, as these events pour in, I'm slowly coming around to recognize the truth. It's like how I thought the Chinese dictatorship was awful, but the current handling of the economic crisis made me give it some props, or how I thought Berlusconi was a chauvinist worth my scorn until I saw even worse behavior from feminists.

I could go on, but you get the point.

No shame.

Happens to everyone sooner or later.

[Timoteo]

Honestly, it was Rudy Giuliani that started NY down this path, with his pursuit of "quality of life" offenders. Screwing with LEGAL street vendors. I'm okay with him trying to get rid of squeegee guys, but he also launched the assault on adult businesses (actually, Dinkins started this. The Times Square re-development was drawn up and initiated by his administration, and actually started coming to life under Giuliani, but Giuliani was very public about his dislike for adult businesses). Then Daddy Bloomberg launched his assault on health issues, starting with smoking, then trans-fats/salt use by restaurants, then big sodas, and now this...

[jimukr104]

Umm.some of us like the no smoking and other laws that make quality of life better for us locals. Sorry if it means it cost more for pussy hounds visiting lol.

[Timoteo]

(05-24-2013 04:07 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

Umm.some of us like the no smoking and other laws that make quality of life better for us locals. Sorry if it means it cost more for pussy hounds visiting lol.

I appreciate the smoking ban also. I like being able to go out and not have my eyes and throat irritated by the smoke, and not having my clothes smell of it when I return home. And it isn't as if smokers can't light up anywhere - they can step outside, and establishments that can afford it can create an enclosed smoking section indoors (which I know is costly, so most can't do it). Bottom line, smokers won't stop going out, and they always find a way to get their smoke on...

[augen sehen]

I've been hearing about this in the last few days in Berlin as well. Airbnb and 9flats are the biggest here, and they've just been outlawed in a move to make housing in the central districts more affordable to people who actually live in Berlin.

I'm torn. On the one hand, it could've been a good income stream if I were living here and got a 2BR apartment, on the other hand it does suck to see these apartments listed for exhorbitant prices as holiday flats while you have to fight over the scraps on wg-gesucht.de (the premier roommate site).

It probably will reduce the number of tourists though, because fuck paying as much for a hotel room in Berlin as you'd pay for a flat/share in Munich or some other city.

[slubu]

Didn't read the entire thread but just booked a place in NYC for next week. Still works.

[pitt]

(05-24-2013 08:04 PM)slubu Wrote:  

Didn't read the entire thread but just booked a place in NYC for next week. Still works.

Same here, i dont see problems with booking rooms in NY on airbnb.

[nomadicdude]

So in NYC it is literally legal for a landlord to rent out an apartment that in any other major US city would be condemned, with filthy bathrooms, bad plumbing, stinky hallways, electric wiring hanging out of the walls. Oh and they can rent out apartments that are literally the size of a closet for the price of a house in some place. That is all legal but AirBNB is illegal?

LOL fuck NYC.

[thegmanifesto]

(05-24-2013 04:12 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 04:07 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

Umm.some of us like the no smoking and other laws that make quality of life better for us locals. Sorry if it means it cost more for pussy hounds visiting lol.

I appreciate the smoking ban also. I like being able to go out and not have my eyes and throat irritated by the smoke, and not having my clothes smell of it when I return home. And it isn't as if smokers can't light up anywhere - they can step outside, and establishments that can afford it can create an enclosed smoking section indoors (which I know is costly, so most can't do it). Bottom line, smokers won't stop going out, and they always find a way to get their smoke on...

Protection for the weak comes with a loss of freedom for the strong.

If you dislike the smoking ban, then don't complain when Airbnb is banned.

Or anything else you enjoy.

You can't have it both ways (well some do).

[Aliblahba]

I heard Airbnb got banned b/c some some hosts were letting tenants smoke cigarettes in the apartments. I for one support the law.

[Timoteo]

(05-24-2013 10:11 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 04:12 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 04:07 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

Umm.some of us like the no smoking and other laws that make quality of life better for us locals. Sorry if it means it cost more for pussy hounds visiting lol.

I appreciate the smoking ban also. I like being able to go out and not have my eyes and throat irritated by the smoke, and not having my clothes smell of it when I return home. And it isn't as if smokers can't light up anywhere - they can step outside, and establishments that can afford it can create an enclosed smoking section indoors (which I know is costly, so most can't do it). Bottom line, smokers won't stop going out, and they always find a way to get their smoke on...

Protection for the weak comes with a loss of freedom for the strong.

If you dislike the smoking ban, then don't complain when Airbnb is banned.

Or anything else you enjoy.

You can't have it both ways (well some do).

I'm weak because I don't smoke, or like cigarette smoke? HA HA!

Bloomberg lost on his attempt to limit drink sizes, but I think he appealed. Stay tuned.

I'm not harmed by his attacks on Airbnb, because I live here. And apparently guys are still booking accommodations, so we'll see what happens there too.

His ban on trans-fats aren't that big a deal either, because desserts were exempted from the law.

[kosko]

Would sublet/sublease laws be a simple legal loophole to this pending ban? What are the rules surrounding that in NYC?

A tenant (if his landlord allows it) could just make "short term" sub leases for people to sign. Then it becomes a rental transaction vs a hotel transaction.

[Samseau]

(05-24-2013 08:04 PM)slubu Wrote:  

Didn't read the entire thread but just booked a place in NYC for next week. Still works.

That's because in order for a airbnb apartment to be shut down the landlord has to take them to court.

Police in theory could shut down these apartments, but by what pretense could they check someone's apartment? Just because you're having some guests over? The airbnb owner could just lie and say he's having some couch-surfers over.

Only people who could fuck this up are landlords and nosy neighbors. Otherwise, now that it's illegal will probably make more people interested in trying to host on airbnb.

[playa_with_a_passport]

There is a lot shitty reporting about this ruling so I am going to add a little perspective as a small landlord in Brooklyn who sometimes does Airbnb. A law was passed back in 2010 that made it illegal to rent entire apartments on buildings that have 3 or more apartments for less than 30 days. So technically landlords can still rent apartments on 1 and 2 family houses but because NYC is so dense this law bans short term rentals in pretty much 85% of the Airbnb listings. The City govt just ignored most of the listings provided they were not coming from big commercial corporations. Also, they just didn’t pull the 30 day requirement out of their asses. 30 days is also the minimum number of days that a tenant needs in order to have his case heard in Housing Court (a post for another day). Now that Airbnb has gone viral , Co-op/ Condo boards as well as rental management companies in Manhattan are going H.A.M. on tenants/owners who have listing on Airbnb .

The ruling did not come from the Courts but from an Administrative law judge sorta like the “judges” who adjudicate motor vehicle offenses at the DMV. These “judges” sit on the Enviromental Control Board which basically is a kangaroo civil “court” that NYC uses to butt rape anybody who has assets. ECB has jurisdiction on enforcing the shit load of rules and regulations that are on the city charter. You break any of the laws and regulations of the literally thousands of them on the books, your case is heard in front of the ECB were regardless of the merits of your case, you are going to be found guilty and fined.

Bloomberg is actually being quite nice to Airbnb, he could have been a dick and drag them to a real court and have them issue an injunction against airbnb having them remove all apartments that don't comply with the law and make them pay the hotel tax retroactively on all their listing. therefore, effectively bankrupting the company.

The City usually goes after large landlords for this sort of thing(that’s why they had the law changed in 2010 to make it easier) but This is the first time that they went after a tenant. In fact, The City initially dismissed his case when it realized he was just a regular tenant but decided to revive the case to make an example out of him. More than likely some calls high up were made. Hotel lobby, Tenant groups, Obama? who knows.. Technically they didn’t even fine him, they fined his landlord for breaking the Multiple Dwelling Law.

The issued is not so black and white, I can already see that Airbnb does displace renters and raises rents specially in rapidly gentrifying former shitholes in Brooklyn . Without this law vast areas near the subway within 30 min subway ride to Manhattan would become “Airbnb districts.” Why would I rent one of my one bedroom apts in Bed-Sty for $1300 a month to Tyrone or Hipster Peter for $1500 when I can get $120 a night from a tourist? If you have a 3+ unit building that isn’t rent regulated you have a strong incentive to kick everybody out and make some real coin at $120 a night per apartment. You can only live in Manhattan now if you are really poor or relatively well off. Does the leadership NYC embrace this new technology and support the rapid Manhattanization of the other 4 boroughs? Hopefully, some sort of comprised can be made so that this cash cow doesn’t go underground and some of the more egregious abuses can be curtailed like the massive displacement of low income tenants and having dozens of bunk bends in a 3 bedroom apartment.

[Aliblahba]

I couldn't imagine paying $5K for an apartment in Manhattan and having a neighbor letting grungy backpackers stay next door. This law is cleaning up NYC, and if I was there, I'd vote for the mayor. He's Democrat.

[Vicious]

(05-24-2013 10:11 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Protection for the weak comes with a loss of freedom for the strong.

If you dislike the smoking ban, then don't complain when Airbnb is banned.

Or anything else you enjoy.

You can't have it both ways (well some do).

Woah. Now that is stretching it. You could use the same logic for keeping Assault rifles and Opium legal.

[thegmanifesto]

(05-26-2013 07:48 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:11 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Protection for the weak comes with a loss of freedom for the strong.

If you dislike the smoking ban, then don't complain when Airbnb is banned.

Or anything else you enjoy.

You can't have it both ways (well some do).

Woah. Now that is stretching it. You could use the same logic for keeping Assault rifles and Opium legal.

Opium and Assault rifles should be legal.

[Vicious]

Way to miss the point.

[Aliblahba]

(05-26-2013 10:25 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 07:48 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:11 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Protection for the weak comes with a loss of freedom for the strong.

If you dislike the smoking ban, then don't complain when Airbnb is banned.

Or anything else you enjoy.

You can't have it both ways (well some do).

Woah. Now that is stretching it. You could use the same logic for keeping Assault rifles and Opium legal.

Opium and Assault rifles should be legal.

If all that stuff was legal your blog wouldn't be near as interesting.

[Vicious]

Way to miss the point.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

What G is saying, I believe, is that banning some harmful but not critical things inevitably leads to a slippery slope of bullshit where progressively less important and more inane things are banned just for shits and giggles. I for one do support public smoking bans, but it is true that, once these are enacted, the machinery that drafted them can't just disband. It has to keep churning and "earning its pay", finding progressively smaller things to regulate. It might be that those things are inevitably linked.

That said, possibly preventing this slippery slope surely doesn't extend to not banning opium and assault rifles, which any sane society should ban. We're talking about a cascade of banning smaller things, not bigger, so not banning smoking surely shouldn't lead to also not banning opium.

[Vicious]

The point was that by banning opium you could use the same argument as G to argue it would lead to questionable restrictions.

The connection between public smoking and airbnb is especially flimsy since one is health related and the other is mostly a result if Lobbying.

[Timoteo]

Also, we have to remember, smoking hasn't been "banned" in the sense that it is illegal. Smokers can still smoke - they just have to step outside. It's been made a bit more inconvenient for them to light up. The part where I sympathize (a little) is that the government has tried to close loopholes for smokers to buy them inexpensively (like mail order from Indian casinos, raising tax on them, etc.). I grew up in a time when even little kids could buy "loosies" from bodegas.

Now...the reasons why I overall favor the smoking "restriction," are because of what I said previously - I like being able to be in a smoke-free environment when I go out (I'm not in bars and clubs anywhere near as much as when I was younger, so it affects me far less now than it used to). Also, I always disliked the disregard smokers had for others. In a crowded venue, they'd be waving a lit cigarette around carelessly, and flicking the ash around. You'd get home and find burns on your clothes, and had to be conscious of getting poked in the face by the lit end moving through a crowd. Seeing cigarette butts floating in glasses at the bar, or even put out on the bar itself. Butts littering the floor, or the all over the pavement out in front of the venue (you still see that, even though many venues put a sand-filled receptacle outside for them to put the cigs out in. People purposely blowing smoke in your face just for kicks. I can't count the number of times someone has carelessly flicked a lit cigarette on the ground outside and struck, or nearly struck me with it. What's funny is I've met smokers that actually don't want to be in a room full of other smokers. They want a nice, clean environment to light up in...HA HA! Naturally, ALL smokers weren't and aren't guilty of this behavior, but enough were to make it unpleasant to be around.

My dad was a smoker his whole life. I heard stories in the family that he first lit up when he was around 12, bumming cigarettes down in Charleston, S.C. where he grew up. The thing was that he was the neatest smoker I'd ever been around. While my parents were together, I never remember the apartment smelling of it. If he smoked a cigarette, he immediately cleaned out the ashtray - there were never butts floating in a glass, or a full ashtray ever. He'd air the room out, and spray some air freshener. He was considerate of the fact that my mom wasn't a smoker, and that he had kids in the house.

I don't disagree with the slippery slope argument in this context. This particular Mayor, Bloomberg, is a tireless healthy advocate. Not all politicians are this tenacious about this particular issue. He's constantly pushed for more restrictions, but he hasn't been successful in everything he's pushed for. It's just in his nature to continue to push.

[WestIndianArchie]

(05-26-2013 02:53 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Also, we have to remember, smoking hasn't been "banned" in the sense that it is illegal. Smokers can still smoke - they just have to step outside. It's been made a bit more inconvenient for them to light up.

Same with automatic weapons.

You can always apply to get a federal license to own an automatic weapon, getting the actual license is a bit of an inconvenience though.

WIA

[christpuncher]

Regarding smoking - If it weren't banned, there would still be a large desire from non-smokers for smoke free lifestyles. There would be smoking and non-smoking venues, private transportation services, and apartment buildings. If you're a non smoker you would vote with your feet and wallet and not attend venues and which allowed smoking. That would allow these venues to charge a premium, increasing the incentives for business to open non-smoking venues. Equilibrium would be reached based on the desires of the masses regarding the issue, and would change dynamically based on economics.