RENTERS: No license, no rent

[Anonymous]

What’s the obsession with the poster harping on unlicensed landlords not having eviction rights? Nobody rents to anyone who is a likely eviction candidate anyway, and few tenants are scheming to find unlicensed landlords so they can skip the rent. That’s not how the world works for the vast majority of the population.

Making an argument based on worse case scenarios is never a persuasive one. Compelling arguments are based on common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here. Let me add that there are two Airbnb basement rentals within a half block of our row home, neither is dodgy, and both bring in tens of thousands of dollars a year income.

Really, a year?! Under the new laws that started being implemented [checks the calendar] 6 months ago? Is this a projection? Let’s see how you go. Still need a license of sorts though.

Under the new law, any D.C. homeowner who wants to rent out a bedroom, basement, or entire home on Airbnb or any other platform has to get a short-term rental license from DCRA. (The two-year license costs $104.50.)

If the owner is present in the home during the rental (say they post their basement unit for Airbnb), they can host short-term renters as long as they want over the course of each year (but for up to 30 days each time). But if they are not present (say they are renting their primary home while they are gone during the summer), those rentals are limited to a combined 90 days each year. Short-term rental licenses are not allowed for second homes.

Lawmakers crafted that distinction as part of what they said was a legislative balancing act — it allows people the ability to rent out spare bedrooms and basements to make some additional money, while preventing property owners and companies from using entire apartments and houses for short-term rentals instead of for long-term leases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, live there if you really want, just don’t pay your rent. They can’t do a thing

If you live in an unlicensed apartment and are not paying rent then you are just a person trespassing in someone else's home and they can certainly kick you out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s the obsession with the poster harping on unlicensed landlords not having eviction rights? Nobody rents to anyone who is a likely eviction candidate anyway, and few tenants are scheming to find unlicensed landlords so they can skip the rent. That’s not how the world works for the vast majority of the population.

Making an argument based on worse case scenarios is never a persuasive one. Compelling arguments are based on common sense.

Illegal rentals kill people. If you are not that obsessed with it, get a license. If you can’t, go short-term rental, it’s that simple.

But if you are above the law, so should be your renter.

I’m incensed by it because it’s dangerous and it’s feudal and people who think like you suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, live there if you really want, just don’t pay your rent. They can’t do a thing

If you live in an unlicensed apartment and are not paying rent then you are just a person trespassing in someone else's home and they can certainly kick you out!

Hahaha. I’d love to see you argue that in the DC Superior Court. Please send me the link.

No people, it’s not a trespass. Your so called landlord advertised illegally, gave you an illegal lease and self-help evictions are illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, live there if you really want, just don’t pay your rent. They can’t do a thing

If you live in an unlicensed apartment and are not paying rent then you are just a person trespassing in someone else's home and they can certainly kick you out!

In fact, the opposite is true. You’ll probably fight to get your place back for many many years. Good luck!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm no proponent of illegal rentals, but I also think we also have to acknowledge that there's a wide latitude between units that lack a BBL because they have serious safety issues and units that lack a BBL because of issues that are not unsafe but are difficult to correct. A center beam in a rowhouse basement that's a few inches lower than the limit for rentals is not a fire hazard; virtually everyone who has such a beam and doesn't rent their basement uses it as finished space without issue. Utilities that are not separated by unit are not a fire hazard. On the other hand, overcrowding, insufficient egress, those are very serious issues.

What we should really have are a set of more limited restrictions for getting a BBL that are solely focused on fire safety, coupled with more stringent enforcement of those limited restrictions. Maybe some of the eliminated requirements could be replaced by disclosure requirements to tenants. The current regulations end up pulling a lot of units out of the rental market that might otherwise be available, and that tenants would be happy (and safe) to live in. This exacerbates our issues with affordable housing, and it probably actually makes much of the remaining housing less safe by ensuring that many rented units go uninspected to avoid the more onerous restrictions that have little to do with safety.

BINGO.

As noted on the other thread, t's perfectly legal to use your basement apartment as an Arbnb without jumping through all the hoops required -- many of which are not safety related -- to rent the apartment out long-term. And why is that? It's because the city wants to make sure that Arbnbs benefit actual residents who want/need to supplement their incomes to afford their housing -- not people who want to start a business that displaces residents. Insisting on so many ridiculous requirements to rent out your basement long-term undermines the city's efforts to provide more affordable housing.

For up to 90 days a year! Enjoy that. Also, insurance policies in place and I gotta say I’m not seeing too many dodgy basements to swoon over on AirBnB

You don’t understand the new Airbnb law. Look again. If you’re living upstairs you can rent out the basement through Airbnb for as many days as you’d like. There’s no 90 day limit.

No, there’s a consecutive up to 30 day limit. How many of these you think you can cobble together and make it worth your while? At what price? Who wants an illegal basement unless it’s dirt cheap? AirBnB is a clever way for DC gov to mute the my basement should be legal crowd. Now it’s your opportunity to not make any real money and you can’t complain. And I think it’s a bit harder to get around AirBnB rules than cheat the DC government

Yea, I’m sorry but you just don’t understand the law or economics. The law says you can’t rent to the same tenant for more than 30 days as an Airbnb. Fine. The overwhelming majority of Arbnb rentals are for less time than that. And many basement apartment owners have made the calculation that, even taking into account days when the apartment is empty, they still come out ahead with Airbnb because they charge by the night which is typically more expensive than by the month. Plus you have the luxury of empty space for part of the year that you can use personally.

In fact, this is the VERY reason for the new law restricting Airbnbs. The city determined that too many landlord were being enticed by the greater earning potential of short-term rentals and were removing too many places from the long term market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the obsession with the poster harping on unlicensed landlords not having eviction rights? Nobody rents to anyone who is a likely eviction candidate anyway, and few tenants are scheming to find unlicensed landlords so they can skip the rent. That’s not how the world works for the vast majority of the population.

Making an argument based on worse case scenarios is never a persuasive one. Compelling arguments are based on common sense.

Illegal rentals kill people. If you are not that obsessed with it, get a license. If you can’t, go short-term rental, it’s that simple.

But if you are above the law, so should be your renter.

I’m incensed by it because it’s dangerous and it’s feudal and people who think like you suck.

Ok. So you’re ok with me killing short-term renters but not long term ones? Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm no proponent of illegal rentals, but I also think we also have to acknowledge that there's a wide latitude between units that lack a BBL because they have serious safety issues and units that lack a BBL because of issues that are not unsafe but are difficult to correct. A center beam in a rowhouse basement that's a few inches lower than the limit for rentals is not a fire hazard; virtually everyone who has such a beam and doesn't rent their basement uses it as finished space without issue. Utilities that are not separated by unit are not a fire hazard. On the other hand, overcrowding, insufficient egress, those are very serious issues.

What we should really have are a set of more limited restrictions for getting a BBL that are solely focused on fire safety, coupled with more stringent enforcement of those limited restrictions. Maybe some of the eliminated requirements could be replaced by disclosure requirements to tenants. The current regulations end up pulling a lot of units out of the rental market that might otherwise be available, and that tenants would be happy (and safe) to live in. This exacerbates our issues with affordable housing, and it probably actually makes much of the remaining housing less safe by ensuring that many rented units go uninspected to avoid the more onerous restrictions that have little to do with safety.

BINGO.

As noted on the other thread, t's perfectly legal to use your basement apartment as an Arbnb without jumping through all the hoops required -- many of which are not safety related -- to rent the apartment out long-term. And why is that? It's because the city wants to make sure that Arbnbs benefit actual residents who want/need to supplement their incomes to afford their housing -- not people who want to start a business that displaces residents. Insisting on so many ridiculous requirements to rent out your basement long-term undermines the city's efforts to provide more affordable housing.

For up to 90 days a year! Enjoy that. Also, insurance policies in place and I gotta say I’m not seeing too many dodgy basements to swoon over on AirBnB

You don’t understand the new Airbnb law. Look again. If you’re living upstairs you can rent out the basement through Airbnb for as many days as you’d like. There’s no 90 day limit.

No, there’s a consecutive up to 30 day limit. How many of these you think you can cobble together and make it worth your while? At what price? Who wants an illegal basement unless it’s dirt cheap? AirBnB is a clever way for DC gov to mute the my basement should be legal crowd. Now it’s your opportunity to not make any real money and you can’t complain. And I think it’s a bit harder to get around AirBnB rules than cheat the DC government

Yea, I’m sorry but you just don’t understand the law or economics. The law says you can’t rent to the same tenant for more than 30 days as an Airbnb. Fine. The overwhelming majority of Arbnb rentals are for less time than that. And many basement apartment owners have made the calculation that, even taking into account days when the apartment is empty, they still come out ahead with Airbnb because they charge by the night which is typically more expensive than by the month. Plus you have the luxury of empty space for part of the year that you can use personally.

In fact, this is the VERY reason for the new law restricting Airbnbs. The city determined that too many landlord were being enticed by the greater earning potential of short-term rentals and were removing too many places from the long term market.

I totally do get it. Maybe what I think is worth my while and inconvenience and cleaning fees and insurance and overhead and the hassle is just not the same. I don’t think your basement airbnb can compete with prime properties and I wouldn’t rent it. In fact, we just looked at a super host 5* place in Europe and cancelled because they didn’t disclose it was partially underground. Got a full condo penthouse for barely $10 more per night. That’s what I’m talking about. But if the economics work for you, go for it.

I’m questioning the possibility that anyone who has a unit that would otherwise not be possible to license and goes airbnb route, would make bank. It certainly will not be making the money it could on rent. So it could still be worth it for some. But I think tens of thousands is more like ten thousand per year if you’re very lucky. Worth it? Dealer’s choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. Let me add that there are two Airbnb basement rentals within a half block of our row home, neither is dodgy, and both bring in tens of thousands of dollars a year income.

Really, a year?! Under the new laws that started being implemented [checks the calendar] 6 months ago? Is this a projection? Let’s see how you go. Still need a license of sorts though.

Under the new law, any D.C. homeowner who wants to rent out a bedroom, basement, or entire home on Airbnb or any other platform has to get a short-term rental license from DCRA. (The two-year license costs $104.50.)

If the owner is present in the home during the rental (say they post their basement unit for Airbnb), they can host short-term renters as long as they want over the course of each year (but for up to 30 days each time). But if they are not present (say they are renting their primary home while they are gone during the summer), those rentals are limited to a combined 90 days each year. Short-term rental licenses are not allowed for second homes.

Lawmakers crafted that distinction as part of what they said was a legislative balancing act — it allows people the ability to rent out spare bedrooms and basements to make some additional money, while preventing property owners and companies from using entire apartments and houses for short-term rentals instead of for long-term leases.

Man you really are clueless. Yes, the new law is new and less than a year old, but before then Airbnb’s WERE legal across the board and many landlords saw that they WERE making more money that way than with long term rentals AND THATS WHY THE LAW CHANGED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If anything, the new law will make renting your basement out legally through Airbnb eve more profitable than before, not less, because there will now be fewer Airbnb’s on the market and that will drive demand, prices, and occupancy up. The DC government estimated that changing the law would remove 79 percent of Airbnb renters from the market. How do you think that is going to impact the remaining 21 percent?

You really need to get a clue.

[Anonymous]

I think people with legal-ready, nice basements that are not a 6’ shitshow may make some money. People with nice ADUs will make money.

People with basements they couldn’t make legal will make change. These are typically townhouses that anyway have a rodent and crime problem, can’t wait to read the reviews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm no proponent of illegal rentals, but I also think we also have to acknowledge that there's a wide latitude between units that lack a BBL because they have serious safety issues and units that lack a BBL because of issues that are not unsafe but are difficult to correct. A center beam in a rowhouse basement that's a few inches lower than the limit for rentals is not a fire hazard; virtually everyone who has such a beam and doesn't rent their basement uses it as finished space without issue. Utilities that are not separated by unit are not a fire hazard. On the other hand, overcrowding, insufficient egress, those are very serious issues.

What we should really have are a set of more limited restrictions for getting a BBL that are solely focused on fire safety, coupled with more stringent enforcement of those limited restrictions. Maybe some of the eliminated requirements could be replaced by disclosure requirements to tenants. The current regulations end up pulling a lot of units out of the rental market that might otherwise be available, and that tenants would be happy (and safe) to live in. This exacerbates our issues with affordable housing, and it probably actually makes much of the remaining housing less safe by ensuring that many rented units go uninspected to avoid the more onerous restrictions that have little to do with safety.

BINGO.

As noted on the other thread, t's perfectly legal to use your basement apartment as an Arbnb without jumping through all the hoops required -- many of which are not safety related -- to rent the apartment out long-term. And why is that? It's because the city wants to make sure that Arbnbs benefit actual residents who want/need to supplement their incomes to afford their housing -- not people who want to start a business that displaces residents. Insisting on so many ridiculous requirements to rent out your basement long-term undermines the city's efforts to provide more affordable housing.

For up to 90 days a year! Enjoy that. Also, insurance policies in place and I gotta say I’m not seeing too many dodgy basements to swoon over on AirBnB

You don’t understand the new Airbnb law. Look again. If you’re living upstairs you can rent out the basement through Airbnb for as many days as you’d like. There’s no 90 day limit.

No, there’s a consecutive up to 30 day limit. How many of these you think you can cobble together and make it worth your while? At what price? Who wants an illegal basement unless it’s dirt cheap? AirBnB is a clever way for DC gov to mute the my basement should be legal crowd. Now it’s your opportunity to not make any real money and you can’t complain. And I think it’s a bit harder to get around AirBnB rules than cheat the DC government

Yea, I’m sorry but you just don’t understand the law or economics. The law says you can’t rent to the same tenant for more than 30 days as an Airbnb. Fine. The overwhelming majority of Arbnb rentals are for less time than that. And many basement apartment owners have made the calculation that, even taking into account days when the apartment is empty, they still come out ahead with Airbnb because they charge by the night which is typically more expensive than by the month. Plus you have the luxury of empty space for part of the year that you can use personally.

In fact, this is the VERY reason for the new law restricting Airbnbs. The city determined that too many landlord were being enticed by the greater earning potential of short-term rentals and were removing too many places from the long term market.

I totally do get it. Maybe what I think is worth my while and inconvenience and cleaning fees and insurance and overhead and the hassle is just not the same. I don’t think your basement airbnb can compete with prime properties and I wouldn’t rent it. In fact, we just looked at a super host 5* place in Europe and cancelled because they didn’t disclose it was partially underground. Got a full condo penthouse for barely $10 more per night. That’s what I’m talking about. But if the economics work for you, go for it.

I’m questioning the possibility that anyone who has a unit that would otherwise not be possible to license and goes airbnb route, would make bank. It certainly will not be making the money it could on rent. So it could still be worth it for some. But I think tens of thousands is more like ten thousand per year if you’re very lucky. Worth it? Dealer’s choice.

See, now you’re humming a different tune - because you’ve been proven wrong. It may not be worth the hassle to you, personally, and you personally may not want to rent a basement, but the broader market disagrees with you and that’s why DC changed the law. None of this is about you.

[Anonymous]

To summarize:

Illegal landlords can try their luck in the short term rental market. They need a license.

Renters renting from illegal landlords should in my opinion take the cue from these law-breakers and push the envelope as far as it would go. If your rental is not licensed, most likely it can’t be and for a good reason.

For the rest of you out there, pay $200 and get yourself a license, you cheapskates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people with legal-ready, nice basements that are not a 6’ shitshow may make some money. People with nice ADUs will make money.

People with basements they couldn’t make legal will make change. These are typically townhouses that anyway have a rodent and crime problem, can’t wait to read the reviews.

Again, worse case scenario arguments are not persuasive. There are many, many basements that are not the shitshows that you describe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, live there if you really want, just don’t pay your rent. They can’t do a thing

If you live in an unlicensed apartment and are not paying rent then you are just a person trespassing in someone else's home and they can certainly kick you out!

That is 100% false in DC.