Here at London’s first unhotel, we are big believers in what we do. Our hosts believe in us, too: we provide a service that makes the most of their space while they are out of town and earns them a little extra income to help pay for the next holiday, or offset the cost of the mortgage. Our guests, whether families who couldn’t bear to visit our city unless they can stay in a home, or business travellers who want to cook themselves dinner after a day in the office, seem similarly delighted. And houses are filled rather than standing empty, preventing waste and keeping local shops and restaurants ticking over. Everybody wins. 

So we were disappointed to learn that this past weekend New York passed a law which bans apartment rentals for less than 30 days. 

This law was drafted in response to a very specific activity that’s been going on for years in New York: landlords have converted swathes of apartment buildings into temporary hotels without the necessary zoning permits. Some of the units are even rent controlled or rent stabilized and would otherwise offer affordable housing to those in need. Besides the ethical implications, this practice causes other problems. Because such operators are cutting costs, they often play fast and loose with health, fire and safety regulations and the rooms are often misadvertised, giving the guest limited recourse. Off the back of lightly-policed Internet listing services, which provide free advertising for this kind of activity, the number of these ‘no-tels’ has exploded over the past few years. 

Recently, however, several innovative business models have emerged, which embrace more respectable business practice. Rich photography and apartment descriptions greatly increase transparency. Reviews and user generated content are shown prominently next to listings on sites, ensuring that guests have complete information before committing. Care is taken to exceed statutory fire safety standards. Lines of communication between property owners or their representatives and guests are available during guest stays. Payment is made with reputable means that do not evade tax. And there are is a reliable middle man to mediate should guests be dissatisfied with their experiences.

The law passed in New York was drafted so broadly it doesn’t discriminate between these two extremes. It lumps the respectable entrepreneurs with the shady traders. Unless there are clarifying amendments, when this act kicks in next year it will mean everybody loses. First guests, who can’t afford New York hotel rates of $232 on average will be forced to rely on the anonymous and less reliable alternatives. Next homeowners, who will either find their private arrangements criminalised or be forced to forego much-needed income. Then city authorities, which by criminalising this activity lose the potential for significant tax revenues from a $1bn short-term sublet industry—and exacerbate the issues of transparency, legitimacy and safety. And last but not least, the city itself, whose local restaurants, shops and attractions rely on tourists to keep the lights on: last year, each visitor spent $700 on average during their trip to NYC. 

We want to see unhotels in every major world city, and it would be a great shame if New York wasn’t on that list. As such, we hope that respectable innovators will have the freedom to operate their businesses in a manner that can fully benefit local New York property owners, visitors and the local ecosystem.