I would hate to see New York State pass this law. Homeowners have a right to make a buck just like the big corporate-owned hotels do. The difference is, the corporations have lobbies, and the little guy doesn't.

Posted By Steve From TravelingProfessor.com on June 28, 2010, 1:04 PM

If not for these tourist and vacationers or business guests, a lot of stores and mom and pop shops would have long been out of business! these tourist are keeping our businesses afloat, this tourist are pouring into our local NYC economy millions in which over half of these tourist and business guest say, that, if not for these short term apartments they would have not come to NYC for vacation or business, an average regular hotel in NYC is $300 - $400 a night for one small room!. Furthermore, all these complaints by these organizations and “anonymous tenants” running to the press every second day is nonsense! a person who is coming to NYC for vacation or business for a short time is not looking to do any harm to anyone, these people are in most part professionals who came here for vacation or business, the statistics are that 99.99% of all assaults or muggings are done by local tenants, vacationers are not looking to harm anyone, they came here for vacation, all these complaints are nonsense! Big corporate hotels and organizations with hidden agendas, like the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council and the Hotel Association, are obviously doing them.

IF THIS BILL BECOMES LAW NYC WILL SEE A DRASTIC DECREASE IN TOURISM AND WILL HAVE A MAJOR FINANCIAL IMPACT ON NYC ECONOMY, OF THE 45.25 MILLION VISITORS WHO VISITED NYC LAST YEAR OVER 50% WERE TOURIST OR
BUSINESS GUEST STAYING IN THESE AFFORDABLE SHORT TERM RENTALS AND
WOULD HAVE NOT COME IF THEY HAVE TO STAY IN THESE HOTELS WHERE THEY
CHARGE $300 - $400 A NIGHT FOR ONE SMALL ROOM! THIS BILL WILL DRASTICALLY REDUCE THE TOURISM INDUSTRY IN NYC AND DRIVE OUT BUSINESS FROM NYC WHO ARE USING THIS SHORT TERM RENTALS FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES.

Furthermore a lot of developers and owners of stalled and vacant buildings and small condominiums have to do this short term rentals before they can sell their units, they’re trying to keep from being foreclosed upon and get as much money as they can so they can keep their head above water.

THIS BILL IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF POLITICIANS WHO WILL SOMETIMES ENACT LEGISLATION BEFORE DOING ANY STUDY OF THE FINANCIAL IMPACT! THESE TOURISTS ARE POURING INTO OUR LOCAL NYC ECONOMY BILLIONS! WE NEED THEM HERE! JUST LOOK IT UP.

There is no other state in America with such a stupid law!

Posted By Alex Ross on June 28, 2010, 4:11 PM

This law is going to do more harm than good. I never stay in a hotel when I visit NYC, I always rent an apartment. If I have to stay in a hotel I won't be spending my money at neighborhood shops for my food and other essentials, so the small business owners will lose out. I also wouldn't be able to afford visiting as often if I had to pay hotel rates.

Besides, people should have a right to do what they want with their own property. Manhattan housing is so expensive it makes sense that many people are sub-letting to vacationers to help pay their own rent. If they are prevented from doing so, they may have to move further out, which also hurts local businesses.

Posted By Athena on June 28, 2010, 4:17 PM

Wow, I'm not a new yorker, but I'm a tourist who has just rented an apt in NY for my vacations! I don't see why a law like that would help anyone. The owners, the tourists and even the tourism in NY. Do you know when this law is going to start to run?

Posted By Júlia on June 28, 2010, 4:20 PM

This bill was constructed by the hotel lobby groups and rushed through the Senate on last Thursday night (voted by Liz Kreuger). How do I know they rushed it? Because they didn't realize that subletting your apartment in the month of February would be illegal with this bill.

How do I know it is hotel lobbyists?
http://www.nyc.gov:80/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2010a%2Fpr289-10.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1

Posted By Allie on June 28, 2010, 7:27 PM

The bill is in its final stages of review in the state legislature. The bill passed the senate 32-28 on Friday (June 24). Now it is being reviewed by the Rules committee which is chaired by Speaker Sheldon Silver. Here's where it gets interesting. Last week saw a HUGE public outcry of opposition to this bill and now it is is gaining national attention. All the blogs and public opinion see how the ban is coming from big business and I would imagine any politician that voted for the bill is now wondering how he or she is going to minimize their position if the bill passes and becomes law because of the devastating effect it would have on NYC. I can assure you that any politician that votes for this bill will NOT be elected. Listen up politicians!

Posted By YL on June 28, 2010, 10:19 PM

OK, if this comes into effect, I'm sure there'll still be ways to get cheap accommodation from someone. However, it pushes it underground, and would be much more dangerous.

Probably means I won't be able to afford visiting NYC again, as me and my wife are a single income household.

Well done, City Hall.

Posted By Jack on June 29, 2010, 5:59 AM

Just another reason never to go to NYC again. Not that is high on my places to go. Crowded. Filthy. Expensive. And they hate all kinds of freedom.

Posted By Debra B on June 29, 2010, 9:59 AM

Politicians are going to accommodate the lobbyists unless enough vacationers complain loudly enough. Who are these people?

Posted By Diane on June 29, 2010, 12:41 PM

I live in one of these apartment buildings where some apartments are being rented out by companies to tourists!! DISGUSTING!! I am praying this law passes and is strictly enforced!! In fact, I do not think it goes far enough!! This is my HOME and I don't need streams of strangers coming here to stay. We New Yorkers need homes, let tourists stay in hotels!! Each apartment that is rented to one of these short term companies is one less home for the people who live and pay taxes here!!

Posted By Susan on June 29, 2010, 1:37 PM

As a member of the coalition who works to stop illegal hotels, this bill is aimed directly at landlords and property managers who are taking affordable housing units from an already tight housing market and renting them as hotel rooms. My organization, Housing Conservation Coordinators, (http://hcc-nyc.org/), has received countless complaints from tenants in these buildings about noise, harassment, crime, and decreases in services as landlords convert empty units into hotel rooms. Additionally, many tourists are not aware that they are renting units in buildings that do not conform to fire safety standards that are designed to protect transient occupants. Overcrowding, no secondary means of egress, and illegal construction violations are often found in these buildings—all creating serious fire hazards! The Mayor’s Office that oversees this is small and, as Senator Krueger points out, will be focused on the big violators who have illegally converted apartments building into hotels, like Hotel Toshi. Tenants in one of Hotel Toshi’s buildings, for example, did not get packages for months because the “hostel staff” that replaced their super, would throw them out. Further, the bill does NOT take away a person’s right to sublet or rent out an extra room or bed in apartment is important. I repeat, subletting is not made illegal with this bill.

Posted By Jackie Del Valle on June 29, 2010, 4:34 PM

Unfortunetly it seems that the author of this article,Sean O'Neil, really doesnt understand the issue. Its not about targeting tourists and labeling them as inconsiderate and noisy, its about protecting tourists from unauthorized hostels that are often quite unsafe. Legitimate hostels will still be able to run legally, its the illegal hotels that will be shut down and returned to residential use. You see, New York City has a vacancy rate of under 3%, this means that housing is in demand! New York residents need affordable housing and this bill will simply clarify that. Buildings that were intented to be legally residential (meaning their fire safety systems, zoning and basic construction are appropriate for residential use)will have that clarified in the language of the Multiple Dwelling Law. Hotels that are in appropriate zones with appropriate and safe configuration will be able to legalize. So while it would be easy for people to pit this issue as tenants versus tourists, its actually about safety of tenants AND tourists and ensuring that landlords are not circumventing the laws to maximize their profits.

Posted By Yarrow on June 29, 2010, 4:46 PM

I know this is just an opinion piece, but could you please at least tell us WHY the bill has been proposed? What are the stated reasons? And if applicable, what do you think are the real reasons?

It's just very hard to wrap my head around this bill, but it must have been proposed for a reason.

Posted By Tim on June 29, 2010, 5:26 PM

I'm so sure, Jackie.

Posted By Zork on June 29, 2010, 5:32 PM

Thanks for all of the comments.

As I alluded to in my post, the bill has been proposed because neighbors feel that streams of visitors to their building (or city block) bring noise and security problems.

For an update, here's today's New York Times coverage

Posted By Sean on June 29, 2010, 5:53 PM

first, they would have to grandfather everyone currently renting short-term or face major lawsuits from thousands of property owners who would be due compensation. second, it's a ridiculous law. enforce the rules for individual buildings (condo docs, etc.) and let property owners decide. is this really statewide??? can you not rent a house in the hamptons or the catskills or lake george for a couple weeks? just how far are they going to take this? i guess be grateful that new york isn't in miami beach, miami beach just banned rentals less than SIX MONTHS!

Posted By john on June 29, 2010, 5:54 PM

Assembly bill A. 10008 (Gottfried)/S. 6873 (Krueger was created to end the proliferation of illegal hotels.

Illegal hotels are housing units that are designated under the New York State Multiple Dwelling Law (MDL) as permanent residential units but are improperly used as transient hotel rooms. Illegal hotels take available apartments as well as Single Room Occupancy units from an already tight housing market, and also disrupt the lives of the permanent residents who still live in the building. Tenant advocacy organizations have received countless complaints from tenants living in buildings that are being used as hotels. They have received reports from tenants as well as tourists about noise, harassment, crime, and reduction in services. Harassment is a major concern as landlords often engage in unlawful conduct in displacing tenants to be able to convert empty units into hotel rooms. Additionally, many tourists are not aware that they are renting units in buildings that do not conform to fire safety standards that are designed to protect transient occupants. Illegal hotels often do not meet the regulations for hotels under the MDL and the New York City Building Code, such as fire safety systems and secondary egress.

The New York City administration submitted A. 10008/S. 6873 to clarify these laws and nullify the impact of a 2009 court decision (City of New York v. 330 Continental LLC) which severely limited the City’s ability to restrict the improper use of a residential buildings. This bill would clarify that Class A units may only be used for residential, not transient, use. The bill contains appropriate exceptions for individuals such as roommates and boarders, who live in the unit with the permanent occupants, or while the permanent occupants are temporarily absent. The bill would also give a number of Class A buildings (those that have historically operated as hotels prior to the enactment of the New York City Zoning Resolution) two years to comply with relevant building codes for transient use.

This bill is imperative to enable New York City agencies to enforce the long-standing principles and intent of the Multiple Dwelling Law and local Building, Fire, and Housing Maintenance Codes by clarifying the law, so as to more effectively protect residents and tourists.

Posted By Yarrow Willman-Cole on June 29, 2010, 6:40 PM

Susan and Jackie: You don't own the apartments. Remember it.

Posted By RWW on June 29, 2010, 8:04 PM

Obviously if this law is finalized and put into effect then politicians will benefit from it and get re-elected!!!
After all, tourists don't get to vote and for every landlord unhappy about making a little less money there are dozens and dozens of other common New Yorkers and tenants favoring this legislations!

Posted By CB on June 29, 2010, 11:16 PM

But RWW -- don't you know that government control freaks have the right to run everything?

An apartment owner and a tenant have a contract. Both can agree to the contract or not agree to it. If they both agree to it, the tenant moves in. In the contract it's spelled out whether they can sublet and for how long. If the tenant violates the contract, the apartment owner can kick him out. If he refuses the leave, THEN AND ONLY THEN does the government have a proper reason to get involved -- enforcing a voluntary contract between two parties.

The government does not have any right to simply ban all subletting it doesn't like because a special interest -- well-represented in this comments section -- has bought enough lobbyists and politicians to guard their legacy inefficiency.

Posted By Zork on June 29, 2010, 11:42 PM

C'mon don't you know what the tax is on hotel rooms in NYC? Think maybe the lawmakers are a wee bit stretched for money? I've heard times are tight in more than one place lately

Posted By Duncan20903 on June 29, 2010, 11:55 PM

Stupid law, but sounds easy to get around. Use an intermediary company so homeowners/renters don't do the short-term renting personally.

Posted By Pete Austin on June 30, 2010, 4:04 AM

I would not come to NYC if it weren't for being able to rent these homes. Yes, they are personal homes that a person should have the right to with as they please! NYC is going to lose so much money in tourism because of this! We come to NYC to see shows, shop, etc. Why should I pay hundreds of dollars for a hotel room that we barely see!

Posted By Elle on June 30, 2010, 10:08 AM

I've swapped or rented out my coop apartment numerous times over the years, being careful to choose people who will respect the building and its quiet, friendly atmosphere. I've gained lovely trades in various locales, and sometimes welcome cash; my renters have gained a comfortable, affordable vacation in a setting that could not be replicated in a hotel at any price, and my neighbors have not been endangered or even inconvenienced. This practice has produced multiple winners and no losers. Scrap the law.

Posted By judy nelson on June 30, 2010, 11:21 AM

As a native born US citizen who has lived in 11 different States, world traveler, and now NY resident for for the second time, the abundance of graft and restrictive laws that exists in NY are like no other. As a New Yorker, it's something you don't really realize until you have lived elsewhere. Moving back here has been a reality check with restrictive laws at every turn. Gotta love those NY attorneys! This monthly rental law really begs larger questions for New Yorkers. When and how do we get out from under all of this over zealous restriction? And, why is our legislature even involved in this? They have much more serious issues they need to address.

Legislation enacted here always seem to benefit limited interest groups, generally those with big money, without consideration of the whole, but most often portrayed as being protective of the average Joe. Wake up NY...the greed and graft of the underlying machine does not work and Joe Average is struggling to survive.

The legislative arguments supporting monthly minimum rental focus on the typical NYC abuses, yet there is a whole state to consider. Let NYC enact city ordinances to address and monitor their issues; that said however, there is an absolute need for short term, non-hotel rental options in NYC for tourists and visiting NY residents alike.

Imposing monthly rentals would negatively impact the all of New York pushing tourists and our own residents to spend their hard earned dollars in other States or countries. In major cities around the world, as well as the US, weekly vacation apartment rentals exist. Those rentals boost local economies with spending in the food industry, attractions, retail, arts and transportation. Do we really want to lose our NY share of those tourist dollars to destinations?

Sadly, because this is now at a legislative level, our solution lies in with them. We need to let them know that they need to engage in forward-thinking responsibility, to bring NY into a new era, if we are to survive the bleak face of today's economic reality. We can no longer afford to remain in the "business as usual" mode which began 2 centuries ago. We are only deluding ourselves if we continue to embrace old school strategies and tactics that don't and can't work today.

We have a massive deficit, no working budget, some of the highest real estate and other taxes in the country today, and now, foolishly, want to turn away our tourists and residents who infuse money into our economy? We need every tourist penny, yes penny, we can get in this State for the benefit of all New York residents and businesses, small and large alike. Passing this law would be another nail in the coffin...it would create a cost prohibitive vacation structure preventing tourists and New York's own residents from spending their money in NY, and add another reason for those of us who do want to live here to leave again.

Posted By Pat Ryan on June 30, 2010, 12:02 PM

This bill will damage big our New York visits. I wonder if Paris, London, Prague, Rome, Sao Paulo. Buenos Aires, Caracas, Vienna, Venice, etc etc etc will pass the same bill and hurt their own economy.
Please New York wake up!!!. There is room for the big hotels as well. In bad economies, Hypocrisy is in demand and they try to hurt the smallest one.

Posted By Pedro Pan on June 30, 2010, 12:22 PM

To; Pat Ryan: I really do not think you understand quite what is happening here and why people like me are happy with anticipation that this law will finally get clarified on the books, even though I don't feel it goes far enough. Obviously you do not live in a building that is classified/zoned for residential ONLY, but is being used for these fake hotels. I do. I have lived in my apartment for over 20 years and only in the last 3+ have people been harassed out and hotels put in. You can say all you want about having tourists spend money here, but the bottom line is that people ACTUALLY LIVE here!! By removing apartments from the market for hotels, it helps drive prices UP!!

If what you are hinting at is that this city needs reasonably priced hotel accommodations for visitors, I agree. Contact the hotel associations and tell them to build new ones!! Leave the housing stock for the citizens!!

Posted By Susan on June 30, 2010, 4:02 PM

BAD LAW......

Posted By CW on June 30, 2010, 4:04 PM

I wonder if any of the tourists using these illegal hotels and objecting to this bill go home and the have strangers walking in and out of the buildings that they call home. If so maybe they would get it. I live in one and they could be perfectly nice people but they want to have fun while they are here and really do not consider that they are staying where people actually live. Since they don't know who lives there they hold doors for people who don't belong in building. I worry about coming home and getting robbed or attacked due to this security breach. Its not hotel lobbyist.... its residents who have just had it...we deserve to live in peace! Is that hard to understand?

Posted By Sammy on June 30, 2010, 5:33 PM

Sammy: your remedy for the problem you describe is 1) lobby the owner of your building to disallow subletting, or 2) move.

Your remedy is NOT get the city to ban all less-than-a-month subletting. That allows a third party (government) to change the rules of a voluntary contract between two parties (you and the owner of your building).

YOU signed a lease that allows tenants to sublet. YOU agreed to those terms when you moved in. If you don't like, it, persuade the owner to change the rules or move.

You don't own the property, so you don't have a right to tell the owner what tenants can and cannot do.

Posted By Zork on July 1, 2010, 1:18 AM

There is no other city not just in the states but in the world with such a law. This law would be harming the average person who is affected by tourists on a daily basis, chose to make a bad situation into one that can help pay for their Very costly home.
I have neighbors that I don't know their name or what they do....they are strangers to me but they live there for years.
Lets face it, safety will be much more of an issue if people can't pay their rent than of people who are partying in the city. Stop the "fear" card. People who live in fear will always find something to fear.

Posted By Cristrina Santos on July 1, 2010, 2:52 AM

To; Zork- The owners of a building only think about profit. If they bought it or built it, and it isn't turning a profit- THEY CAN SELL!! The truth of the matter is, this is not the case. When they bought it or built it, they knew very well what parameters were to be in place for the zoning and classification.

There is no such thing as lobbying them. We have tried it. Furthermore, many of the tenants in MY building are rent stabilized, where leases have terms that are set by legal boards. Subletting (of ANY type) must be approved by the landlord. I DON'T WANT TO MOVE, AND SHOULD NOT HAVE TO!! THIS IS MY HOME!! I pay for it each month. Unlike with tourists, a landlord has a contract with me and knows just how much money he is getting each month.

Additionally, you need to understand that this "law" is not new. It is merely a firm clarification of what has been on the books for over 50 years. As I have written before, it does not go far enough as far as I am concerned. It still means that people (tourists, in particular) staying in the building for more than 30 days are covered. Housing stock for citizens shouldn't be for tourists at all-- EVER!!

AND... NYC has a law on the books from way back that states there can be no more than 2 tenants (turnover) in an apartment in one year. Tourists who sublet or people who are on a lease and sublet the apartment out to more than one other party are violating THAT law also if they continue to do weeklies etc. for tourists.

Zork, I may not own the property, but I can have a reasonable expectation that the laws I have to abide by are also laws that the owners have to abide by. Zoning and classification are those laws.

Posted By Susan on July 1, 2010, 9:41 AM

This proposed legislation benefits no one. It only penalizes homeowners, apartment holders, and prospective renters. The rental of a piece of property is an agreement between two parties. This is a waste of time for legislators to be interfering with private contracts.

Posted By Karen on July 1, 2010, 9:55 AM

Like so many stupid things politicians do this too will bite them in the butt. Why do they have such a passion to control our lives down to the finest detail? They will loose income because these people aren't coming to hotels in the Peoples Republic of New York, they will just go somewhere else.

Posted By Steve on July 1, 2010, 10:55 AM

I oppose

Posted By Jackie St.Julien on July 1, 2010, 12:51 PM

As a born and bred former New Yorker, I occasionally go back to the city to see my brother and sister. I cannot stay in a hotel, nor are their apartments large enough to have my family stay there. I normally rent an apartment somewhere between their 2 places....I have always been a good tenant...there has never been any complaints. I live in AK now and this state tried something similar with the cruise ships. Tourism has dropped significantly. I would rather pay a New Yorker than a hotel conglomerate.

Posted By Bonnie on July 1, 2010, 1:04 PM

WHAT a country ? Who need's this law ? Let the government run,(?)ruin everything or move to South America Where you can move in with a family. Make friends, make neighbors, have relationships, work together, play together. America of old. Happy Independence Day.

Posted By Chuck Singer on July 1, 2010, 1:09 PM

I live in a resort town in Maine - we recently enacted a law prohibiting weekly rentals in the downtown residential area (transient/daily rentals have always been forbidden). Problems arose not because of individuals who rented a room in their home "while they were in residence" or occasional rentals by homeowners who were away BUT because of investors that turned homes into constant vacation rentals, which is extremely disruptive to people living and working in a neighborhood. Our law specifically targets these types of rentals, and allows some exclusions for owner-occupied dwellings (and we defined owner-occupied as a minimum of 9 months/yr). Perhaps NY could write the law so as not to target mom and pops, but companies.

Posted By Alicia on July 1, 2010, 1:29 PM

What a great business opportunity for a non New York resident to broker anonymous rentals under the guise of visiting in-laws.

Posted By Bernie on July 1, 2010, 1:36 PM

I think this is a bad idea and another infringment on our rights.
This limit of no rentals for less than 30 days was forced on us at our condo association on South Padre Island, despite some of us protesting. It has led to some owners having to sell because rental income was part of the way to subsidize a vacation home.

Posted By theresa on July 1, 2010, 2:15 PM

Dumb, dumb, dumb! MOre politicians owned by corporations and hotel owners. What do you expect from such a greedy place? Always against us little people. EVERYDAY FOLKS SHOULD BOYCOTT THE PLACE!

Posted By ronald on July 1, 2010, 2:23 PM

Can understand the need for save rentals but having to have a lic for everying under the sun now days is nuts. TAX"S have to be paid. Really don't know how the city would inforce something like this. Just like working for cash. catch a few but not most. Just the dumb ones.

Posted By tom haha on July 1, 2010, 2:29 PM

Let the SOB's pass all the laws they want so they can "collect".
The people know how to beat this onnerous law- also how about "www.homeexchange.com"-
that they cannot stop!!

Posted By Ron on July 1, 2010, 2:51 PM

It seems to me that there must be other ways to address the issue of illegal hotels than to prevent regular renters and condo/coop owners from subletting their apartments for a few weeks to help make ends meet if they leave town.

The law could be written to state that a particular unit may not be rented more than 3 times per year for less than one month. Or the law could create a definition of illegal hotel that captures apartment rentals for profit as opposed to the occasional subletter. Or the law could create a category of apartment/hotel and set out safety/taxation requirements.

Having said this, I would NOT want to live in a building that is being used as a illegal hotel. It does create safety and noise issues, not to mention a higher bed bug risk for the tenants.

On the other hand, the existence of short term apartment rentals enabled me to kick out a houseguest without too much guilt who overstayed his welcome.

Posted By MG on July 1, 2010, 3:12 PM

Maybe I'm mistaken, but there appears to be some confusion (?) regarding who this bill is actually aimed at.

Is the proposed bill aimed at Mr. John Doe who rents/owns a 3 bedroom apartment while only actively using 2 bedrooms but allows tourists to utilize the extra room for a nominal fee?

Or

Is the proposed bill aimed at owners/operators of apartment BUILDINGS that "rent" out vacant apartments to tourists instead of leasing them to residents?

If the bill is indeed aimed at Scenario B, is there a distinction in the bill that doesn't target those in Scenario A?

I can understand making Scenario B illegal. It's Scenario A that I don't see why there should be a problem.

Posted By Kimberly on July 1, 2010, 3:55 PM

One would think that our esteemed representatives would have something more important than this bit of nonsense to ponder on. Sounds like someone has a very strong lobby. Hopefully, our reps are not being swayed with comp rooms.
they should get down to real business: a balanced budget, illegal immigration, or even perhaps re-cycling.

Posted By Betty J. Acosta on July 1, 2010, 4:12 PM

F the politicians, why don't they spend the time on important issues instead of this BS !!! How about them divulging their sources of income each year, those phonies !!!

Posted By rich on July 1, 2010, 4:25 PM

whooo, what was that??? Oh, just another freedom snatched away by a greedy government body. How can we stop this?? Do not elect any rat bastard that would vote for, or support such a bill. The greed and coruption in local, state, and federal government, can and will be halted with our votes. Take our America back, call and/or write, remind these greedy folks what 'For the People. By the People.' means to America. You work for us, not special intrests, and we will not elect you if you don't get it.

Posted By Craig D. Scofield on July 1, 2010, 4:37 PM

I think it is time to vote these senators out of office who continually take things away from the middle class/little guys because they can't pocket it for themselves. How dare they. I think this law should not be passed and I think it is about time America starts taking control of our own government instead of them controlling us and we do nothing about it.

Posted By Martha Rubino on July 1, 2010, 4:54 PM

those so-called public servants need to worry about a lot bigger issues like jobs, illegal people in the country, terrorists, pollution of many types, education costs for our children to attempt to keep pace with other countries just to name a few issues or is there just no "common sense" left with politicians?

Posted By Yaacov daniel on July 1, 2010, 5:10 PM

this sounds like just another government ruling to prevent capitalism and boost BIG government into private affairs. They've taken away everything we have and taxed us to death, now they want to run small to large businesses from the capitol. Forget them and rent away I say. Work it out individually with the renters that wish to rent for less than 30 days. Remember it in November at the polls.

Posted By Mike Jacobs on July 1, 2010, 5:11 PM

once again we are reminded that the politicians are for the special interests. This nation started out as government of the people for the people and has deteriorated to private government for private interests with the vote of the people merely the flimsiest of coverings to make the argument it is still government of the people. I hope we wake up and vote out ALL incumbents this time around.

Posted By edmund on July 1, 2010, 5:12 PM

Just more politicians trying to tell people how to handle their personal assets. Most people don't vacation for a month, however, the revenue lost to the city for food and entertainment for these visitors staying one or two weeks will be immense. Not all families can afford the pricey hotel stays and renting a house from someone gives them the opportunity to visit NY. It's called tourism.

Posted By Pat on July 1, 2010, 5:24 PM

I think there has to be some exemptions to this rule. I am from the finger lakes region, and I can't imagine how many cottages on the lakes go for 1-2 week rentals. There aren't any other options because hotels are few and far between there. And I can't imagine many families that 1) can afford to rent a cottage for a whole month and 2) can take an entire month off of work. If this law passes there will be major hits on NY tourism which is a shame.

Posted By Christa on July 1, 2010, 5:34 PM

If they want to allow legitimate short-term subleting without allowing illegal psuedo-hotels, they should make a simple rule like the mutah/sigeh rules for temporary marriage in some Islamic sects: you can sublet for a short period, but you must have a three month waiting period between successive short-term sublets.

Makes it unprofitable to run a fake hotel, but still lets the cash-strapped guy who is going out-of-town for a week to let someone stay in his place while he is gone.

Posted By BerkeleyDude on July 1, 2010, 6:09 PM

This will do nothing but shrink New York's tourist business. This is a bad time to take business away from small restaurants and shops that the budget traveler frequents.

Posted By gary on July 1, 2010, 6:10 PM

NYC is filthy and way overpriced.
They have so many laws and taxes it is ridiculous.

Another reason to NOT go there.

Posted By s.davenport on July 1, 2010, 6:43 PM

In this economy being able to rent out a room or two to tourists could mean saving your house or apartment from foreclosure. Even without that dire circumstance, this ability should not be denied to those who own their homes. I've traveled through Europe by staying in private homes and had far more cultural interchange and enlightening encounters, than if I had stayed in hotels only. Tourism revenue would drop, businesses would suffer and more homes and apartments will be foreclosed if this law goes into effect. What possible purpose do restrictions like this serve? It makes no sense!

Posted By photojack on July 1, 2010, 11:25 PM

New York needs to think. This law will discourage some folks from visiting. As it is, money not spent on lodging can be spent in the city. But without the budget saving rooms, such as these, people may opt to go elsewhere. New York is a cool city, but with cheap rooms at 280 a night for a family, and everything else just as expensive - for a lot less you can go to DC where sights are free and costs are less.

Posted By Liz on July 2, 2010, 6:41 AM

What's the harm?!!! I live in Jackson Heights in NYC, where thousands upon thousands of "unofficial sublets" occur around me everyday. I own my property and am confronted by strangers marching in and out of my building, with no knowledge of or respect for the house rules. These "sublets" allow un-screened people access to the common areas of my building which is unsafe and disruptive. I could go on and on about the negatives of this practice. People who use their condo or co-op apartments in this way are selfish and abusive. Budget Travel, what are you thinking!!!

Posted By Jackson Heights on July 2, 2010, 10:50 AM

I have the same question as Kimberly, are they focused on companies that do this with several apts in a building or individuals renting out an extra room? Rather than this, I would like to see them train their legislative power on the "dorming" of apartment buildings. This has become an epidemic as universities (NYU etc) snap up (purchase) apartments and offer them as dorms. You have working people living amongst college kids, it's unreal what they must endure. I had a friend that experienced this twice! This is something that can bring serious issues to an otherwise nice building - safety, noise, property destruction & otherwise but they'll never enact any type of protection for tenants bc these universities pay the big bucks for these places. So you see that as long as there's corporate $$$ involved you'll never see politicians go after them, they don't care about poeple's "quality of life".

Posted By Chris Matthews on July 4, 2010, 9:48 PM

This law is ridiculous.

If the State and City were REALLY worried about quality of life disruptions by short-term tenants who come to New York "to have fun" and don't care about the quality of life for the city they use and discard, then they would be doing something about the ever-increasing college student populations in upper and lower Manhattan! These suburban kids treat NYC like a rural college campus and are RUINING neighborhood after neighborhood (most recently: Stuyvesant Town, Gramercy, Williamsburg, Washington Heights,) by yelling drunk as they carouse the streets, peeing on stoops, vomiting in stairwells, partying and yelling in their apartments well after "quiet hours," and telling real New Yorkers, "Fuck you, this is New York!" when long time residents dare to ask them to quiet down, respect the neighbors, find a restroom, or clean up after themselves.

Besides, most people who rent an apartment or a room in one simply cannot afford a hotel and wouldn't come to NYC if staying in a hotel was their only option.

This law is just another example of how individual rights are disappearing in the U.S.

Posted By nyc tenant on July 5, 2010, 10:48 PM

The economy of the state of New York, and New York City specifically, depends greatly on the cultural and artistic institutions to which people flock from all over the world. One of the things that makes the cultural life of New York possible, are all of the artists, from all over the world, who spend time in that city. Performing artists come for weeks to up to 3 months to perform at the Met opera, ABT, on Broadway, and others come for auditions and rehearsals. Many in the arts are not yet receiving lucrative incomes. Consequently, the one thing that ensures they can pursue their livelihood (and contribute to the economy of New York), is the ability to secure AFFORDABLE short-term housing.

In New York City - one of the single most expensive cities in the world, there is a GREAT, an essential need for affordable short-term housing for artists and non-profit guests - many of whom would not be able to perform or attend functions in the city, if they had to pay for hotels. This is not just a matter of convenience; having easy access to short-term housing guarantees my ability to pursue my livelihood. This is not an abstract concept. This is a functioning reality of their life and work. The necessity for short-term housing cannot be overstated.

Posted By joan on July 6, 2010, 10:36 AM

Your lobbyist money hard at work.

Posted By mike on July 6, 2010, 8:06 PM

Thank you Sean for bringing this to our attention! You are becoming quite a travel advocate (a grassroots organizer!) and we appreciate it.

What a short-sighted law. If this is indeed a problem in the city, surely there is a more thoughtful process to work out the issue than a blanket ban on short-term housing rentals.

I run a new B&B-style hospitality exchange club (Casa Casa) and we have only a few NYC members so far, though I think (from my quick read about this law) our members would be exempt from it because the guest room is not being "rented." We have a small membership fee and require a nominal "gratuity" be paid to hosts of $15, but it is not a rental fee.

I recently spent three nights in NYC in a short-term apartment rental shared with two other visitors in the west village trough Homeaway.com. Before this was booked, I'd looked high and low for other accommodations and budget options (under $150 a night) were slim. If this law is signed by the Governor, budget travelers to NYC will be sleeping in New Jersey!

Posted By Lauren on July 7, 2010, 9:36 PM

When I travel around the world (as I do on a regular basis) I make every attempt to obtain a short-stay lease from a reputable agency so I may participate more closely in the life of the community and, incidentally, shopping at the local food and other small markets. I have done the same in NYC on more than a dozen occasions, with the opportunity to become acquainted with the unique areas of the city. As a former resident of NYC I have no need for the "tourist experience" - nor the outrageous cost - provided by hotels (including the typical over-$10-breakfast). I am a considerate guest who makes every attempt not to call particular attention to myself, whether staying in a friend's apartment or in a residence I have found through an agent. If I have to pay at least double for each night I stay, my stays will be shorter, my expenditures for theatre and restaurants will be decreased, and I will visit less frequently. If it is a matter of simply making sure owners pay taxes on the rates they charge, then address that issue. But what about the friend who is simply going to be out-of-town for a week or two and is happy to let you have access to their home? In my community it would be considered none of anyone's business.

Posted By Nancy on July 14, 2010, 10:42 AM

It shouldn't be so much about giving regular NYers other ways to make money (especially given the current economy)but rather, it should be about giving the fine VISITORS to our lovely city some OPTIONS. Why should everyone have to choose between spending $250 and up per night to stay in a bland hotel room, or else opting for a hostel or a hotel out by LGA?

Sites like Airbnb allow visitors to engage (and sometimes stay in the same apartment) with real everyday NYers. There is an exchange of ideas, of cultures etc. The visitors can learn from their hosts what makes life in NYC so great...they can get tips on non-touristy things to do, etc.

The passage of this bill would be a HUGE loss to the tourists that visit this city!

Posted By lyn on July 14, 2010, 1:53 PM

this is insane!! i am getting so tired of the state government of NY coming up with new and amazing ways to screw people!! why do they keep making laws to impede things that do not concern them?! and stop people from doing things that are not bad!? gov. Patterson is the biggest mistake in the history of NYS, all he cares about is the state finances, he could not care less about the finances of the people who live in the state... please god that he is a "one term-er"

Posted By michael ryan on July 14, 2010, 6:29 PM

I am a single Ny women who rents out my apt as short term rentals. The building allows me to do so, i have filed and pay my taxes. It is a renters market here, as so many people / developers can not sell, they are renting at below market rent...with out short term rentals, i could not afford my mortgage.I bought my apt, knowing it was a legal live work, so how fair is this. The people who are doing this illegally, the boards should stop them...it is unfair to make a blanket ban on all without adequate provisions.

Posted By Jay Williams on July 15, 2010, 10:29 PM

unfortunately, so called home owners are getting as greedy as the big landlords who force tenants out of big buildings to make more money on 5 day stays. The owners are renting out dirty, unsafe rooms with no hot water for a fortune. They are putting up walls that block fire escapes. And none of this helps those of us who live here 24/7 as a group. Renting your kids' rooms is not fighting for affordable housing.

Posted By levi hennesy on July 18, 2010, 8:24 PM

This bills seems to also impact universities that rent short term housing for visiting professors and students. Now they won't be able to charge a nominal fee, which really only pays for maintenance.

Does anyone know if the universities have weighed in on this bill?

Posted By TheFigliolaReport on July 19, 2010, 11:40 AM

Here is a quote from the California Supreme Court upholding a similar ban in Carmel years ago. There ARE Vacation Rental Bans in Place in Cities all over the U.S. and the world.

"It stands to reason that the 'residential character' of a neighborhood is threatened when a significant number of homes .... are occupied not by permanent residents but by a stream of tenants staying a weekend, a week, or even 29 days ... Such rentals undoubtedly affect the essential character of a neighborhood and the stability of a community. Short-term tenants have little interest in public agencies or in the welfare of the citizenry. They do not participate in local government, coach little league, or join the hospital guild. They do not lead a scout troop, volunteer at the library, or keep an eye on an elderly neighbor. Literally, they are here today and gone tomorrow — without engaging in the sort of activities that weld and strengthen a community." (Ewing v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea).

Posted By Santa Fe Rentals on July 20, 2010, 12:05 PM

A short-term stay at a hotel is OK, but if I had to stay longer than a week, I would definitely want to find a more economical solution.

I agree that the owners need to be more diligent on reporting taxes for the income, but as long as they're not violating any building/community rules, then I don't see a problem. If they bought/inherited the property with a mind to use it for income potential, they should have verified the community rules before planning on using it for short-term rentals. If the building has an issue this type of practice, then they need to vote to adjust their rules - no government involvement needed.

The owners are obviously not living in those units if they're renting them out so frequently. Would everyone prefer to have a lot of vacant property sitting on the market instead of responsible owners finding responsible renters? That would negatively affect the area too (businesses and property values).

Posted By Neverwill on July 20, 2010, 5:49 PM

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Another politician being lobbied by the hotel industry. I am unemployed, have no health insuance, maxed my retirement plan; home about to go into foreclosure, gas, water and credit card bills backed up. Recently divorced and decided to use my home as a bed and breakfast so that I can get back on track hopefully. Have no problem in paying my taxes. It is a job creation for me and was just planning to hire someone in a few months which would be money on the table for a family I would hope. I have visitors from all over the world and the US who are appreciative of being able to rent an affordable place with all the amenities in place that they don't get at hotels, and still being able to enjoy NYC. Non of my guest stays home all day. They leave early in the morning and return late at night just to sleep. They spend money on taxis, MTA, restaurants, department stores, gift shops, tours and of course the airfare to get them here. I buy things to prepare for guest such as linen, juices, milk, cleaning supplies, pay cable, utilities, etc - isn't this all interdependent economies? Now if NYS was sensible they would try to collect the taxes from these people and of course everyone would be in a win win situation. I am so surprised that the democrats would sponsor a bill like this. I thought they were for small business and the little people. If they are so concerned over permanent housing why don't they buy up all the foreclosed properties and turn them into city rental for its citizens? There are numerous people out of a job that can't pay the rent, and guess what - you can't get them out of your place becuase of the liberal laws and rules for tenants and the animosity against landlords. I am through renting my place out to tenants who can't pay rent.

I am a life long democrat and a passionate supporter of President Obama. If this bill becomes law I am done with all of them. Successful business owners in the community employs people. Does the city council, the mayor and their cronies ever stop to think of the impact it would have on people over all? I hope the Governor do something positive for once. We are counting on you Mr. Governor. Please don't let us down.

Posted By mary on July 20, 2010, 8:24 PM

As someone who is currently living in a residential building that is being converted into an illegal hotel, I am strongly in support of this bill. This bill is not targeting local business or small bed and breakfast owners. This is targeting the people who are operating illegal hostels and avoiding taxes, ignoring building codes, and disregarding residents' safety and security.

In the past two years, many apartment owners have struggled to find renters who will pay the prices of the past 10 or so years and realize they can earn much more by operating a hostel with visitors paying by the day. Over a period of two months (and early in my yearlong lease), I saw many apartments in my building being gutted and rebuilt to fit 8-10 people in a small three-bedroom apartment. Every week, there are new people with keys to my building coming and going at all hours. The apartment below mine is now rented as an illegal hostel and some nights I hear visitors rattling the fire escape below my bedroom window.

Because these visitors are not long-term residents of the building, they do not respect the common areas of the building. I'm sure that many of these visitors are quiet, clean guests just as the writer is (and as I am when I visit other cities), but I think many visitors don't realize they are staying in a residential apartment and instead think the entire building is a hotel. Unlike long-term building residents who respect common areas to maintain bonds with their neighbors, visitors often leave trash in the hallways and prop open the entry way for late-arriving friends.

I believe that allowing hostels like this to stay open shortchanges visitors looking for a great experience in the city. Visitors to our building often complain that the signage is unclear - this is obviously because the hostel is illegal so the owners can't post any signs out front - and also subject themselves to financial risk. The illegal hostel operation was shut down by the city for a month, and visitors with reservations lost their money and had to find alternate accommodations upon their arrival. Also, because these building owners are not following building codes written for tourist accommodations, they are not prepared to deal with the issues that accompany this type of business - different security needs, late-night availability (visitors who are out late often buzz residents' apartments to be let in), and even bed bugs!

New York is one of the greatest cities in the world, and visitors here should be able to stay in safe, clean accommodations that cater to their needs. In the interest of providing this, Governor Patterson should sign this into law.

Posted By M L on July 23, 2010, 2:24 AM

Please Gov Patterson pass this law! The reality is, valid residents of an apartment building, co-op buildings and others must have security to protect them from outsiders who are not known or wanted inside these properties.

Any noise or disturbance out of the norm has to be tolerated by residents for no valid reason, because this illegal activity is being pressed upon them for a capital gain by an owner or fellow renter.

Get real, in America if you rent or own an apartment, you usually cannot have visitors for longer than 7 days without prior written permission. Obviously out of town visitors feel they should have to submit themselves to society rules in order to save a few dollars?

Personally, I do not want visitors staying in my building that prop doors open, invite other friends for drinks, and expose me to crime because of it. Countless robberies and rapes have occured by this practice of propping doors open.

If you don't want to pay for a hotel, and you don't have a legitimate friend to crash with for free, than simply pitch a tent in a city park!

Posted By Ray Jay on July 23, 2010, 3:21 PM

Liz Krueger NY senator encourages people to snitch!!!

What are you talking Ray Jay!!?

Liz Krueger’s Tips on Making 3-1-1 Work for YOU!

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010
“311” is a free service available via phone (3-1-1) and the internet (www.nyc.gov/apps/311/) that offers access to government services. Through 3-1-1 you can obtain information, report a problem and request services. To best utilize these services and ensure your requests and/or concerns are addressed, Senator Krueger suggests the following steps:

Before You Call 3-1-1:

1.) Compile a list of details supporting your claim. Your report should be as specific as possible and should include: dates, times, locations and names (if possible). For example, if you believe your building is running an “illegal hotel,” then you should have the address, apartment number(s) in question and the dates/times you have seen people coming in/out.

2.) Know what you’re going to say before you call. Before you call, make an outline of what you want to say. This will help ensure you do not leave out any details or stray off message. A clear, concise complaint has the greatest chance of being addressed quickly.

3.) Use a “buzz word” to describe your problem. For example, if apartments are being rented out for 30 days or less, it is considered an “illegal hotel.” Or, if you are concerned about your building’s improper trash disposal then refer to it as a trash problem and/or a rodent problem.

While on the phone with 3-1-1, get certain information:

1.) The Service Request Number for the report you’ve just made. Each report is given a Service Request Number which will allow you to track the status of the report in the future.

2.) The agency your report is being sent to. It will make it much easier to follow up with your claim if you know which agency is working on it.

3.) The name of the 3-1-1 representative you speak to and the date/time you called.

After you have filed your report:

1.) Check the status of your report by using your Service Request Number. You can do this over the phone or via the website.

2.) If your claim is not being addressed, contact Senator Krueger’s office for further assistance. If you have not received any status updates within a reasonable timeframe, we can follow up on your claim. However, in order to do so we will need your Service Request Number. To contact a member of Senator Krueger’s staff, please call: (212) 490-9535.

Posted By protect vacation rentals on August 1, 2010, 3:45 AM

As a tenant, the issue is thus: I have a family living in a co-op. We like to know the people who live here, there is an aura of neighborliness and accountability to the building.

By printing up keys, and opening up the building to literal strangers, it only takes one random interloper to harm the building or its people. Sure, a full time tenant might be dangerous too, but the very prospect of living among transients is particularly unnerving.

This is not a hotel. There is no doorman. There is no one watching over us, protecting us, watching the lobby. We must have accountability. It is not a hotel. It is a coop. I think the solution is simple: get a hotel room.

Posted By Greg on August 28, 2010, 12:07 AM

AFRICAN AND HISPANIC AMERICANS AGAINST LIZ KRUEGER AND RICHARD GOTTFRIED Attention my fellow African and Hispanic Americans: Did you know that LIZ KRUEGER AND RICHARD GOTTFRIED are trying to pass a law that will prevent you from renting even for one day any apartment that is located in a white neighborhood? The “LAWMAKERS” listed above have joined other “LAWMAKERS” in an effort to stop people of color from moving into buildings which are occupied primarily by WHITES. Caucasian tenants in predominately WHITE neighborhoods have been alarmed by the sight PEOPLE OF COLOR “ROAMING” THE HALLWAYS OF THEIR BUILDINGS when landlords were renting to SHORT STAY TENANTS. The SHORT STAY TENANTS can usually book a room over the internet and the LANDLORD and their staff must accommodate them when they arrive, they can not be legally turned away due to the color of their skin. This ease of access by MINORITIES to WHITE NEIGHBORHOODS and PREDOMINANTLY WHITE OCCUPIED BUILDINGS shocks the LONG TERM RESIDENTS and they do not want us in their midst even if only for one day. My friends and I frequently book a room in MANHATTAN, after dinner and an occasional Broadway show, we do not feel like driving back to New Jersey. These short term stay apartments in Manhattan are extremely inexpensive compared to a hotel room and we usually stay FRIDAY, SATURDAY and SUNDAY night, then we head straight to work (my friends and I all work downtown in the Financial District). On many occasions I have seen and felt the UNWELCOME looks and DEMEANOR of the CAUCASIAN permanent residents in these buildings which permit short stay, I have read that both of the “LAWMAKERS” listed above have capitulated to the demands of these WHITE PERMANENT RESIDENTS and are now trying to pass a law that is basically SEGREGATIONIST and it may actually be viewed as a HATE CRIME sanctioned and championed by WHITE “LAWMAKERS”. In the July 5, 2010 issue of the DAILY NEWS Ms. KRUEGER is quoted as saying “Residents will no longer see their apartment buildings OVERRUN by transient tourists” As you can see by the choice of words used by her, she emphasizes overrun, sounds like the kind of word used to describe Mice and Roaches or other vermin. In the same article, Assembly bill sponsor Richard Gottfried called the situation a “nightmare” where “you have strangers coming and going at all hours”. The article further states that “MAYOR BLUMBERG SUPPORTS THE MEASURE…” The legislature is bowing to the demands of the PREDOMINANTLY WHITE OCCUPIED BUILDINGS, where these occupants are HORRIFIED at the prospect that PEOPLE OF COLOR CAN LEGALLY LIVE IN THEIR MIDST. I have importuned everyone I know to launch a campaign where the “LAWMAKERS” who vote for this RACIST BILL RESIGN or BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. Furthermore, everyone should write to their elected officials and ask that the law should be changed to permit as many apartments that become available in a building for SHORT STAY USE not just the 49 percent that the current law permits. Now that will be TRUE INTEGRATION and end to VILE AND DESPICABLE SEGREGATION. As a PARALEGAL and based on my conversation with attorneys, we can sue the city and the lawmakers if a Judge determines that the reasons stated for passing of this new law is a sham and this will expose BLOOMBERG and other RICH LAWMAKERS to a personal lawsuit where they will be personally be held liable for what is essentially LEGISLATING A HATE BILL. NO ELECTED OFFICIAL CAN CHANNEL HIS/HER HATRED OF MINORITIES INTO A BILL THAT IS MOST PROBABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Lawyers that I have spoken to suggested that it is probably UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the “LAWMAKERS” or any “FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT” to compel and dictate to any PROPERTY OWNER the LENGTH OF TIME THAT HE/SHE MUST RENT ANY APARTMENT. Finally, I reached out to attorneys who asked many Assistant District Attorney if they recall a single crime that occurred or was caused by a SHORT TERM STAY individual and all A.D.A’s have consistently responded that they have never come across a single case. In light of the above, I urge you to call every legislator in your community and send them a copy of this letter, we must not permit the BIGOTS and RACISTS to prevail and we should be able to visit apartments outside our “GHETTO” without interference from anyone.

Posted By Mark Robinson on September 7, 2010, 4:12 PM

@Alex Ross (June 28, 2010, 4:11 PM) wrote:
"IF THIS BILL BECOMES LAW NYC WILL SEE A DRASTIC DECREASE IN TOURISM AND WILL HAVE A MAJOR FINANCIAL IMPACT ON NYC ECONOMY, OF THE 45.25 MILLION VISITORS WHO VISITED NYC LAST YEAR OVER 50% WERE TOURIST OR
BUSINESS GUEST STAYING IN THESE AFFORDABLE SHORT TERM RENTALS "

Oh really? What is the source of your statistics, and the models for your predictions? I work in a major medical research facility that has events and conferences daily. In fact, I facilitate a weekly medical conference that has out of state speakers as well as attendees (I have to confirm the speakers' arrival so I know exactly where they're staying). I also attend out-of-town events frequently.

I don't know of ANY business travel planner that would use or even allow the use of sublets for their corporation's business travel. We have to pay by credit card and submit receipts to be reimbursed, if we make our own arrangements. So how many subletting homeowners accept credit cards and offer official computerized receipts?

You clearly know very little about business travel and are likely making up your data. The percentage of subletting tourists is probably so low that the impact on tourism is negligible. In fact, city income would rise since hotels pay business tax whereas most subletters don't.

Those who want to live in a non-hotel setting can always use LEGITIMATE tax-paying hostels and institutional housing. For example, Beth Israel Medical Center (as well as other medical centers and universities) rent out faculty apartments and dorms on a day-to-day basis. About 10 yrs ago, an out-of-town friend rented a 2 bedroom apartment for $150/night. Unlike unregulated sublets, these legit places have oversight, and a place to complain to if expectations aren't met.

Posted By Bryan on September 8, 2010, 4:17 AM

YES THIS IS A VERY UNDESERVING LAW, ALSO SO MANY PEOPLE IN NEW YORK THAT HAVE WELL ESTABLISHED INCOME'S DON'T WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW DIFFICULT IT CAN BE TO TRY AND MAKE A LIFE FOR YOURSELF IN THE CITY WITHOUT SOME EXTRA INCOME.

THOSE OF US THAT LOVE THIS CITY AS MUCH AS THE NEXT PERSON WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ABLE TO STAY HERE AS WELL.

IS THAT SUCH A CRIME.

Posted By E.Archuleta on October 21, 2010, 7:48 PM

Hi I found your site by mistake when i was searching yahoo for this acne issue, I must say your site is really helpful I also love the design, its amazing!. I don’t have the time at the moment to fully read your site but I have bookmarked it and also add your RSS feeds. I will be back in a day or two. thanks for a great site.

Posted By Lovely on November 2, 2010, 6:47 PM

again the rich win the poor
hotels lobby money stronger than us
when is the time to sop the abuse!
we are the people!
shame on all this senators who vote, that use us!
like you pay them to cut you out?
ignore the low its good only 2 them!
Jane
note anything can be done? together...

Posted By jane sanders on March 7, 2011, 12:51 PM

I wonder how many hotels bloomberg owns, greedy bastard!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PR- 289-10
June 25, 2010

STATEMENT OF MAYOR MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG ON STATE SENATE PASSAGE OF HOUSING PRESERVATION LEGISLATION TO ENABLE ENFORCEMENT AGAINST ILLEGAL HOTELS

"The State Senate has passed legislation that at long last clears up ambiguities in the law that have hindered our ability to take enforcement actions against illegal hotels in order to preserve units of residential housing. Illegal hotels all too often erode our base of affordable housing while creating fire safety and security hazards and quality-of-life concerns in residential neighborhoods. The bill provides a clear definition of what constitutes transient and permanent occupancy, which would allow City agencies to issue summonses and initiate other enforcement actions against illegal hotels. I would like to thank Senate Democratic Leader John Sampson, bill sponsor Senator Liz Krueger, the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council and the Hotel Association for their efforts, which resulted in the passage of this bill. I look forward to working with the Assembly bill sponsor Richard Gottfried, Housing Committee Chair Vito Lopez and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver to pass this bill in their chamber."

Posted By jennifer on April 4, 2011, 7:00 AM

woot, thankyou! I finally came to a site where the webmaster knows what they are talking about. Do you know how many results are in Google when I search.. too many! It's so annoying having to go from page after page after page, wasting my day away with thousands of people just copying eachother's articles?bah. Anyway, thankyou very much for the info anyway, much appreciated.

Posted By http://myvalentinesdayideas.com/blog/?p=58 on April 13, 2011, 3:07 PM

Good job on this post!

Posted By Need Lawyer on February 1, 2012, 12:51 PM

Es ist unglaublich. Ich war für die Website wie diese für eine lange Zeit gesucht und ich endlich gefunden!

Posted By wypadek w pracy on March 5, 2012, 1:56 PM

Funds Difficulties are common today which is particularly with the state of the financial system. For consulting a credit card debt counselor a thing is being found all more than the entire world as there are more and far more people struggling each personally and professionally to the financial variables.

Posted By Somebody on March 7, 2012, 7:26 PM

Здравствуйте!
Предлагаю абузоустойчивый хостинг для сайтов. Идеально подойдет для размещения дорвеев, а также adult, варез, casino, фарма сайтов.
На всех тарифах поддержка PHP, MySQL и всего необходимого. Быстрая и бесперебойная работа хостинга гарантируется.

Тарифы:

"Эконом"
Место - 1GB
Домены - 3
Панель управления - ISP Manager
Цена - 200 руб./месяц

"Базовый"
Место - 2GB
Домены - 10
Панель управления - ISP Manager
Цена - 500 руб./месяц

"Продвинутый"
Место - 10GB
Домены - 50
Панель управления - ISP Manager
Цена - 1500 руб./месяц

"Премиум"
Место - 50GB
Домены - неограниченно
Панель управления - ISP Manager
Цена - 3000 руб./месяц

По всем вопросам:
skype - hosting.best
email - hosting.best123@gmail.com

Posted By hosting_best on April 28, 2012, 3:40 AM