UPDATE: Walsh said he will sign the ordinance.
The Boston City Council today approved, 11-2, a proposed law that would bar investors from renting out apartments and condos on Airbnb and similar Web sites but which would let owners who live in two- and three-family houses - buildings with five or fewer units - rent out space 365 days a year.
Councilors Mark Ciommo (Allston/Brighton) and Frank Baker (Dorchester) voted against.
The measure now goes to Mayor Walsh, who has backed a ban on investor-owned units but who wanted to limit homeowners to renting out units to 120 days per year. The measure requires people who rent out units to pay an annual fee to the city and let their neighbors know - and requires the city to collect and publish data on short-term rentals.
Councilor Matt O'Malley (Jamaica Plain/West Roxbury) sought, unsuccessfully, to put the 120-day limit back in the proposed ordinance, saying the investor ban would push Airbnb units out of downtown neighborhoods and into outer neighborhoods, making them even harder for moderate-income renters to find a place to live. Councilor Michelle Wu (at large), agreed, saying she is concerned about a new class of "horizontal hotels" on entire blocks, maintained by intermediary companies that take over management of home-share units in exchange for a cut of the profit.
But Baker said there's no proof that would happen and led a successful 7-6 effort to strike keep the 120-day limit out. Councilor Kim Janey (Roxbury) said that would let some of her constituents make some much needed money - in some cases to help subsidize other tenants.
Baker, Campbell, Ciommo, Edwards, Flaherty, Janey and McCarthy voted against the 120-day limit; Essaibi George, O'Malley, Pressley, Wu and Zakim voted for. Flynn, who initially voted against, later changed his vote to yes.
Ciommo voted against the 120-day limit even though he agreed with O'Malley and Wu the result will be increased pressure in outer neighborhoods. But he said the answer was to instead allow a small number of investor-owned units to be rented out on home-share sites, to create competition between downtown and outer neighborhoods. And he said the horror stories about landlords evicting all their tenants to make ad-hoc hotels is better addressed through zoning changes. But his proposal was also rejected.
People who rent subsidized units and owners of units in designated "problem properties" or which have had more than a set number of code violations over six months would be barred from renting out space.
Exempted from the ordinance: Lodging houses, bed-and-breakfasts and investor-owned units specifically meant for institutional and business uses.
The council approved the measure despite an increasingly shrill campaign by Airbnb that featured attacks on Wu and attempts to get Airbnb users who live in Boston to complain to the councilors.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
huh?
By say what now?
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 8:49am
You win the absurd comment of the day award (and you had some stiff competition in this thread)
I don't quite like how that's phrased
By Will LaTulippe
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 10:06am
But I see the sentiment that the commenter is driving at. End shelter profiteering.
If you can't afford to pay a mortgage, then don't get one.
By Boston_res
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 2:16pm
I myself have very little room in my heart for anyone who takes on more debt than they can handle. Can't follow the equation in the link below? Then don't get a mortgage.
https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/8/88/Calculat...
"...keep our heads above water...", learn how to manage your money and live within your means.
I would say.......
By anon
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 4:08pm
Uber is to the taxi industry as AirBnB is to the hotel industry. The reason Uber is popular is price, easy access and better service; I would say this is same reason AirBnB's are also popular.
I find it ironic that the City worries about permits, hotels and available housing when AirBnB is mentioned, but doesn't worry about the taxi industry and employee/contractor wage law violations when discussing Uber. It must be Uber has some REALLY GOOD lobbyists.
AirBnB didn't play ball with the City and they are now paying; meet the new boss same as the old boss.
Know who else paid for not playing ball?
By Will LaTulippe
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 4:42pm
People who crossed John Gotti.
Either both of these scenarios should make peoples' skin crawl, or neither of them should.
The difference is that Uber
By anon
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 11:03pm
The difference is that Uber is a net benefit for most people in Boston. AirBnb is a net benefit for only a few.
Agreed, however......
By anon
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 12:34pm
I'm looking at it more globally. Uber is obviously used by a lot more people, more regularly - but I'm sure a good amount of people have used AirBnB for either a vacation stay or business trip. What if other places were as unwelcoming to AirBnB as Boston? You wouldn't be able to rent that house on the lake in Maine, or the cottage on the Cape.
The industry should absolutely be regulated. The housing shortage due to AirBnB is a complete red herring, and Boston/Mayor have their feelings hurt over AirBnB not bowing down before the king.
1998: "We'll all make a living selling stuff to each other...
By UHub-fan
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 4:11pm
...on EBay!"
2008: "We'll all make a living selling houses to each other!"
2018: "We'll all make a living driving each other around and sleeping in each others' houses!"
The law can always be changed
By Anonyme
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 4:13pm
It will probably take some time to get this right. I hope it does give some relief to the residents of the North End and Chinatown. As vacancy rates change, the city can always adjust the legislation. It will also give city agencies time to figure out how to inspect units and make sure they are safe and up to code.
I'm not sure how I would feel if one of my neighbors started renting out rooms, or one or two units, all year long. It would probably get down to how considerate they and their guests are.
Can anyone defend the
By Steve Brady
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 5:44pm
Can anyone defend the complete ban on renters using Airbnb to sublet their apartments or spare rooms?
I'll take a shot at it.
By Wiffleball
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 7:29pm
Suppose that I'm your landlord. I went to some effort to ensure that you're not a complete deadbeat loser who's gonna trash my investment. If you turn around and rent out this property to some hobo from the internet who trashes the place, all my effort was in vain. Sure, I've got your security deposit, but if they really trash it that's not gonna cover it.
Suppose that I'm your neighbor. I decided to rent this place, in part, because the landlord had standards and did background checks so he knows I'm not a complete deadbeat loser serial killer. I like to think that my neighbors went through the same scrutiny--and even if they didn't, at least I know them by name and where they live, so if there were a problem I could sue them. But now, because my broke-ass neighbor decided to put his spare room on AB&B, every night I have to walk down the hallway and share a wall with a random hobo from the internet. I don't know who the random hobo is, so I don't feel safe. I can't complain if the random hobo makes a lot of noise because they'll probably be gone the next day to be replaced with another random hobo. So thanks a pantload for reducing my quality of life, broke-ass neighbor.
Don't worry! I'm not a
By Random Hobo Fro...
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 7:49pm
Don't worry! I'm not a stabbing hobo, I'm a singing hobo!
To your first point, what if
By Steve Brady
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 10:10am
To your first point, what if your landlord is okay with you doing it? This is a blanket ban on all circumstances.
The second part is just an argument against AirBnB period. Which, fine if we want to ban it entirely, but why are we exempting homeowners? I grew up in Westie and people were extremely wary of anyone in the neighborhood we didn't know, and I'm sure my parents would have been upset if our next door neighbors had a different tourist sleeping in their spare room every night.
Extremes
By anon
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 11:10pm
The city council focused too much on extremes (banning vs allowing) instead of on degrees (levying taxes).
The owner of a three family operating two AirBnb's ought to pay a MUCH higher tax on their property than they do now. Boston's commercial property tax rate is 2.5x the residential rate. On top of that, a property zoned commercial (like a hotel) has a valuation that's 1.5-2x the same property zoned residential.
Those multifamily homeowners operating mini-hotels need to be taxed like owners of hotels. Instead, the city council just made a six-figure donation to all these owners.
Baker and Campbell sell out voter...again
By homeless
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 11:52pm
Baker and Campbell are very interested in in giving Boston neighborhoods to highest bidders. These two clowns cannot return an email answer or question unless you threaten their fragile egos. They will both trot out their "up my bootstraps personal" mythology stories at the slightest pushback. Frank survived 15 brothers and sisters and the fiery destruction of Dorchester, while Andrea dodged bullets hiding in the Library because she was loved by all. i grew up here tooo and sorry Boston was never the South Bronx. People are displaced, moving to towns away from their supports and while an illegal scary cottage industry catering to businessmen and hookers is supported by the council members who should protest it the most. .
Pages
Add comment