Short-Term Rental Reforms in NYC

Proposed Short-Term Rental Reforms in NYC

In late 2024 the City Council introduced Intro 1107, a bill backed by Airbnb to loosen the strict short-term rental regulations enacted under Local Law 18 (LL18) of 2022. LL18 essentially banned renting an entire unit for fewer than 30 days unless the owner is present. Hosts must register with the Mayor’s Office of Special Enforcement (OSE), be physically on-site for every stay, and limit guests to 2 people. Since LL18 went into effect in Sept. 2023, the number of Airbnb listings plunged by about 90%.

Intro 1107 would roll back key LL18 provisions for one- and two-family homes. The chart below compares the current law to the proposed changes:

Proponents (including bill sponsors and Airbnb’s lobbyists) call these “modest changes” to help small homeowners and increase tourism. For example, homeowner rights groups note that some Black and Latino families in the outer boroughs relied on Airbnb to afford their mortgages. Airbnb’s policy director argues Int 1107 is a “common-sense solution” that won’t worsen the housing crisis.

However, adversaries – particularly tenant advocacy organizations and housing justice groups – are alarmed. Councilmember Zohran Mamdani, a socialist candidate for mayor, has vowed to oppose “change[ing] the law while the city’s housing stock remains at record lows” (source), warning that “nearly 14% of all rental units” could vanish if households become Airbnbs.

Adams Administration’s Stance

Mayor Eric Adams’s administration has publicly defended the current law. In mid-2025 the mayor’s office announced a crackdown on unregistered short-term rentals and emphasized that “illegal short-term rentals reduce the supply of permanent housing, drive up rents, and threaten the stability and affordability of our neighborhoods.” Adams vowed to “use every tool at our disposal to make our city more affordable” and keep New York “a place where working-class New Yorkers can live and thrive.” (source)

City records show the administration sued a Greenwich Village building for illegally operating as an unlicensed hotel under LL18. And when Intro 1107 was filed, a City Hall spokesperson reportedly warned that relaxing the law would “lead to inflated rents and exacerbate the housing supply crisis.” (The New York Post quoted an unnamed source calling the bill “devastating” and expressing “serious concerns” for tenants.) In short, the Adams team portrays the bill as a gift to corporate profiteers that would undo hard-won housing protections.

Importantly, real estate interests are deeply entwined in City politics. Mayor Adams’s campaign coffers have been boosted by major property developers: for example, Manhattan’s largest office landlord SL Green and other big firms contributed heavily. Critics note that Airbnb’s political arm Affordable New York also spent millions on council races, supporting 7 of the 8 co-sponsors of Intro 1107 with over $1.1 million in 2025. The overlap of developer and Airbnb influence raises eyebrows among tenant activists, who allege that corporate campaign contributions — not working people — are shaping this debate.

Housing Justice and Tenant Voices

The bill has triggered a broad Tenants Not Tourists campaign. Dozens of housing and community groups have rallied against Int 1107, arguing it would “take thousands of apartments off the rental market, further deepening our housing crisis and driving up our rents.” (That warning, from the coalition webpage, vividly captures tenants’ fears that homes will be turned into de facto hotels.)

Local housing advocates note that Manhattan’s housing market is already strained. A Met Council on Housing study found that in parts of Lower Manhattan full-apartment Airbnb listings once accounted for 10–20% of rentals, especially in gentrifying neighborhoods like the East Village and West Village. These areas have seen skyrocketing rents and fierce competition for housing. In this climate, tenant organizations insist every unit must serve residents, not tourists. As one Legal Aid Society attorney put it, “Amid the ongoing housing crisis, it is nonsensical to convert residential homes into short-term rentals for tourists, instead of using this housing stock to help New Yorkers secure permanent housing.” (source) This sentiment was echoed by National Action Network leader Rev. Kirsten John Foy (a Brooklyn activist): she warns that allowing Int 1107 to pass would “take tens-of-thousands of homes off the rental market, drive rents even higher and make it harder for working families to stay in their homes.” (source)

Tenant advocates also decry the bill as a boon to “private equity investors”. Churches United for Fair Housing researcher Whitney Hu told amNewYork that carving out Airbnb-friendly loopholes is the opposite of helping renters: “The City Council can’t claim to be fighting for more housing and against deed theft while carving out loopholes that incentivize private equity vultures and weaken enforcement against bad actors… not giveaways to Airbnb and other corporate interests draining our housing supply.” (source)

At recent City Hall rallies, hundreds of tenants — many from Manhattan’s immigrant and working-class neighborhoods — carried signs reading “Homes for New Yorkers, Not Tourists.” Make the Road New York, Communities Resist, New York Communities for Change, Housing Justice for All and other member organizations of Tenants Not Tourists have mobilized in Chinatown, Harlem, Sunset Park and beyond. They emphasize that small homeowners exist because of affordable mortgages and rents; turning to Airbnb is a symptom, they argue, of a housing shortage that the city should solve by building more homes and keeping apartments rent-stabilized.

Homeowner/Host Perspective

Airbnb hosts — many of them Black or Latino homeowners in outer borough 1–2 family houses — have offered a counter-narrative. At a Brooklyn rally of small landlords this summer, host Kerri Patterson explained that short-term renting “gave me something I hadn’t felt in a long time — financial security… Hosting changed everything for me and my family.” She said Local Law 18 abruptly canceled her bookings and threatened her mortgage. Other hosts point out that raising the guest cap (to 4 adults) would allow families to travel together, and that removing the “no locked doors” rule would protect guests’ privacy. In their view, the changes are necessary for “responsible home-sharing,” not endangering any renters.

These host voices are backed by some politicians. Council Speaker Adrienne Adams and borough presidents in the Bronx and Staten Island have joined co-sponsor Councilmembers in calling for reform. Progressive City Councilmember Brad Lander (former comptroller and socialist activist) explicitly opposes the bill, stating flatly “I oppose Intro 1107, which would further exacerbate the affordable housing crisis by allowing the conversion of existing residential space to short-term rental/hotel uses.” (source) (Lander has championed tenants’ rights for years, so his stance reflects the broad progressive caucus position.)

Impacts on Working-Class and Immigrant Neighborhoods

Although Intro 1107 is targeted at one- and two-family homes (mostly found in the outer boroughs), Manhattan communities feel the ripple effects. Many working-class families and immigrant communities in Manhattan already struggle with gentrification. In neighborhoods like East Harlem, Inwood or Chinatown, tenants worry that landlords will evict rent-stabilized tenants to chase higher Airbnb income. Even if a Manhattan landlord cannot directly use Int 1107 (because most Manhattan units are in larger buildings), the regional housing market is interconnected. Displacing a family in Queens or the Bronx for short-term tourists can push low-income tenants into overcrowded Manhattan apartments, driving up rents citywide.

Housing justice groups stress that these communities — disproportionately Black, Latino, Asian and immigrant — have the most to lose. Daniel Hochhauser of the Pratt Center notes that many small homeowners in minority neighborhoods have already been stretched thin by property tax burdens and foreclosures. If speculators are enabled to buy up such homes for Airbnb, it could hollow out entire neighborhoods. In Foy’s words, “for years, New Yorkers have watched helplessly as speculative investors and private equity vultures hollowed out our neighborhoods and turned communities into commodities. Local Law 18 was the city’s promise to do better — to put people before profit, and to preserve housing for New Yorkers first.” (source) Critics say Int 1107 blows that promise.

Data supports their fears: A city Comptroller’s analysis found that Airbnb’s rise contributed nearly 10% of rent increases across NYC from 2009–2016. Removing more homes from the long-term market — especially in scarce districts — could reaccelerate rent hikes and evictions.

Corporate Influence and Accountability

Socialist and progressive leaders also highlight the role of money in politics. A 2025 city finance report shows Airbnb’s PAC dolled out millions to electeds favoring the bill, while New York real estate titans pumped over $24 million into local races that year. Mayor Adams himself raised about $1.5 million from real estate firms in mid-2025. Housing organizers point out the irony of a self-styled pro-housing mayor taking developer campaign contributions while siding against tenants’ interests.

On Nov. 18, 2025 the Legal Aid Society published an op-ed by Robert Desir blasting the campaign as “Airbnb’s effort to overturn laws that protect New York City’s neighborhoods.” Desir warns that Int 1107 would explicitly encourage “large-scale investors and private-equity firms to buy rental properties from the very homeowners Airbnb is promising to protect,” leading to “an explosion of short-term rentals again, to the detriment of both renters and homeowners.” In short, he says, the bill would hand more homes to global capital and tourists, not to families.

Tenants & housing groups are demanding transparency and action. They have pressed Council members to reject lobbyist misinformation, and called on Mayor Adams to uphold his pledge to prioritize working New Yorkers. As Churches United’s Hu put it, at a time of crisis the City Council should not be “carving out loopholes…for corporate interests draining our housing supply” (source). Housing advocates insist the city needs more public accountability — not less regulation — to keep homes in the hands of residents.

Conclusion

The fight over Intro 1107 has become a proxy battle over the future of New York City’s neighborhoods. On one side are tenants, immigrant communities and socialists arguing that housing is a human right and should not be turned into a profit machine. On the other are homeowners, Airbnb executives and some elected officials emphasizing property rights and tourism dollars. The Adams administration has sided clearly with the former standpoint, warning against any loosening of rules that “drive up rents” and displace working-class New Yorkers.

As the Council debates the bill’s fate, the outcome will speak volumes about political power in the city. Many housing activists vow to hold elected officials accountable — through protests, community meetings, and, if necessary, through the courts — to ensure that affordable housing and tenant protections prevail over corporate profits. In their view, the measure should “protect our housing and our communities” (source) — not open new avenues for speculative real estate investment.