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.
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
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.
That makes sense, but it’s a rare case that it’s one beam. Until you manage to win this fight, keep your illegal rental of the market. But renters honestly hold all the cards as they should because you don’t care about their safety if you are renting an illegal unit
Every illegal landlord thinks they are a beam away from legal. That is almost NEVER the case and for a good reason. Why don’t you call the inspector in and find out? I dare you to post the report on here. I’m willing to bet I’m right
Is it a rare case? It's how every basement in my neighborhood was constructed. The only ones with higher ceilings paid $100k to have their foundations underpinned and their basements dug out, and many of them now deal with water issues as a result. It's not hard to see why people make the choice to rent anyway; you can self-insure against a lot of tenant issues with that $100k still in your pocket.
We opted to stop renting the basement (the previous owner had rented it) rather than digging out or renting without a BBL. That's one less unit on the rental market, and now our guests get a whole floor to themselves instead. Great for our guests, but bad for the rental market, and it also puts rowhouses further out of the reach of first-time homebuyers. Nothing unsafe about the basement though, I let my own mother sleep down there.
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.
That makes sense, but it’s a rare case that it’s one beam. Until you manage to win this fight, keep your illegal rental of the market. But renters honestly hold all the cards as they should because you don’t care about their safety if you are renting an illegal unit
Anonymous wrote:During house hunting we came across a house in NW with an illegally rented basement. The ceiling was way too low to be legal, which was surprising because the entire house was rebuilt. Turns out the couple didn’t want to spend the money there according to the builder because they figured they could rent it out anyway. So the way they had to rent is as a room share. By the time people got there and figured it out the house sat and sat in the hottest market and sold for far less than they ever could have made on their sorry excuse for a rental. In theory the renter had the run of the house and all
sorts of rights. Turned out in the press the guy was also a total sexual harasser creep, things like that tend to go hand in hand.
Anonymous wrote:This actually happened to my neighbor. Basement renter stopped paying then moved out with no notice approximately four months after moving in. Neighbor realized that he had no grounds to collect anything from renter, and immediately afterwards, put in an application to make the rental legal. This was in Maryland. It had been rented for about 6 years before then by a few different tenants without issue.