Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jersey City passed stiff restrictions on AirBnB rental. The people who want to do those rentals have pushed a referendum to overturn those restrictions onto the November ballot.
For those who care either way, what do you want to happen, and what do you think will happen?
A yes vote is a vote in favor of implementing regulations on renting out short-term rental properties (such as Airbnb) including:
prohibiting short-term rentals from being operated in buildings with more than four units;
prohibiting renters from sub-leasing their rented property as a short-term rental and requiring those who operate short-term rentals to be the owners of the property; and
limiting the number of days a short-term rental property may be rented out to 60 days per year.
A no vote is a vote against implementing the above regulations on short-term rental properties.
IMO, the regulations are sensible but not perfect. They allow homeowners to rent out a room or a unit to make some extra money. The regs also try to weed out the investors who are buying up properties for the sole purpose of renting them short-term to visitors 365 days/year. I live in a neighborhood where I know most of my neighbors. We watch out for one another, receive each other's packages, shovel each other's sidewalks, etc. Each home that transitions from a home to a hotel eats away at that social fabric. Also, we have an affordable housing problem in JC, and I believe that taking inventory out of the long-term rental market contributes to driving rents up on the remaining supply. So I'm planning to vote yes.
I think if a renter has approval of their landlord, they should be able to sublease short-term for a limited number of days/year. But I'd rather vote yes and urge Council to tweak the regs to fix that issue, than to vote no, which seems to be interpreted as a signal that "no regs are needed," which isn't my position at all.
Most people I know haven't voiced an opinion on this issue, but the ones I have heard from seem to skew mostly to the "Yes" side. The "No" campaign has poured TONS of money on advertising, so I'm not sure how the vote will end up.
This isnt restrictive or ban on airbnb in fact, its smart and supports small homeowners who are getting priced out of certain areas due to exorbitant property taxes. The ban is on those buildings with 4 or more units that's a freaking hotel in many parts. I rather not make JC into the next vagrant-run LA
I will probably vote yes. I am in favor of common sense regulation, which this certainly is.
I think voter turnout is typically very low in JC for non-mayor or federal elections, so not many people will show up. Those who do show up will probably remember the 10,000 flyers they received by mail telling them to vote "no" (funded by Air BNB). So I'm guessing the final vote will be like 500 - 300 in favor of the "no".
IMO, the regulations are sensible but not perfect. They allow homeowners to rent out a room or a unit to make some extra money. The regs also try to weed out the investors who are buying up properties for the sole purpose of renting them short-term to visitors 365 days/year. I live in a neighborhood where I know most of my neighbors. We watch out for one another, receive each other's packages, shovel each other's sidewalks, etc. Each home that transitions from a home to a hotel eats away at that social fabric. Also, we have an affordable housing problem in JC, and I believe that taking inventory out of the long-term rental market contributes to driving rents up on the remaining supply. So I'm planning to vote yes.
I think if a renter has approval of their landlord, they should be able to sublease short-term for a limited number of days/year. But I'd rather vote yes and urge Council to tweak the regs to fix that issue, than to vote no, which seems to be interpreted as a signal that "no regs are needed," which isn't my position at all.
Most people I know haven't voiced an opinion on this issue, but the ones I have heard from seem to skew mostly to the "Yes" side. The "No" campaign has poured TONS of money on advertising, so I'm not sure how the vote will end up.
Regarding subleasing, most leases specify you can’t, but people do it anyway, opening the property owner to liability. I lived on the beach for 18 years and would have loved to sublease especially when I went to Houston for six months. But I was prohibited by the language in my lease. It also would have been unfair to my neighbors. We only had 7 total apartments, five of them set up along a hallway almost like a dorm. I’d have been very upset to find unvetted strangers in the apartment next door, on our common decks or in our shared laundry space. Our landlord was very picky who he rented to, he wanted good people who were there long term. If you saw the way that the summer people treat their rentals, you wouldn’t want them in your building either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
