The battle over short-term rentals in New York City has reignited, with Airbnb at the center of a renewed push to loosen regulations. Following a significant setback in 2023 when Local Law 18 imposed strict limitations on home-sharing, effectively forcing Airbnb to delist tens of thousands of properties, the company is now investing heavily in what appears to be a grassroots movement of homeowners advocating for their right to rent out their properties. This million-dollar investment, however, has drawn criticism and accusations of astroturfing – creating artificial grassroots campaigns – as critics question the authenticity of the movement and the transparency of Airbnb’s involvement.
The crux of the current debate revolves around the requirement in Local Law 18 that hosts must be present when guests are staying in their homes. Airbnb is backing a new bill introduced by Councilmember Farah Louis and supported by Speaker Adrienne Adams that would amend this rule, allowing short-term rentals in one- and two-family homes even when the owner is absent. This proposed change has raised concerns among housing advocates and tenant groups, who argue that it could exacerbate the city’s already strained housing market and lead to a proliferation of illegal hotels. They contend that the supposed surge of homeowner support for this change is largely manufactured by Airbnb itself.
Further fueling suspicions of astroturfing, Airbnb has channeled its funding through seemingly independent organizations. One such group, Communities for Homeowner Choice, has received nearly $400,000 from Airbnb, according to lobbying reports. Despite this significant financial backing, the group lacks a readily accessible online presence, raising questions about its genuine grassroots nature. Its website lacks contact information, and its social media accounts have been dormant for months, leading skeptics to question the extent of its actual membership and organic activity.
Another group, Restore Homeowners Autonomy and Rights (RHOAR), has also received substantial funding from Airbnb, primarily for an advertising campaign targeting the City Council. Although RHOAR claims to have over 600 members actively engaged in advocating for short-term rental rights, critics argue that this number is inflated and that the group primarily serves as a front for Airbnb’s lobbying efforts. While RHOAR asserts that its members communicate regularly through private message groups and virtual town halls, the lack of independent verification makes it difficult to assess the validity of these claims. The fact that both Communities for Homeowner Choice and RHOAR have employed the same political consulting firm, Bamberger & Vlasto Strategies, further strengthens the perception of a coordinated and orchestrated campaign.
Airbnb, however, denies any attempts to conceal its involvement. The company’s policy director, Nathan Rotman, maintains that their support for these groups is not hidden and is consistent with their practices in other cities. He argues that the proposed amendment to Local Law 18 is necessary to empower homeowners to generate extra income by renting out their properties while they are away, aligning New York City with practices common in other major cities worldwide. Airbnb frames this as a matter of fairness and economic opportunity for homeowners.
The opposing side, however, remains unconvinced. Critics like Michael McKee, treasurer of the Tenants PAC, argue that there is no widespread demand from homeowners for these changes and that Airbnb is artificially inflating interest in the issue. They see the company’s actions as a calculated attempt to circumvent regulations designed to protect the city’s housing stock and prevent the proliferation of illegal hotels. The lack of transparency surrounding the groups receiving Airbnb funding, coupled with the absence of robust public discourse among homeowners on this issue, lends credence to the accusations of astroturfing. The debate ultimately centers on the balance between homeowner property rights, the integrity of the city’s housing market, and the transparency of corporate lobbying efforts.
