Yesterday I saw an article in the Boston Globe about an enterprising fellow in South Boston who was making a bit of side income by AirBnB-ing his spare bedroom for $36 a night. The room was pretty much advertised as no frills, the building “ungentrified”, but with the benefit of being close to public transportation and, on a nice day, not a bad walk into downtown. No frills and “ungentrified” didn’t quite capture the full ambience of the digs which were, as it turns out, in the Mary Ellen McCormack housing project.
Not that people living in public housing shouldn’t be encouraged to flex their entrepreneurial pecs, but if someone’s got a spare bedroom in public housing, they should probably be downsizing and letting someone who desperately needs that spare bedroom get the larger flat. Anyway, I’m sure that “the authorities” will be crawling all up and down this guy’s arse and shutting his AirBnB operation down.
I’m of two minds here, mostly because I don’t know the public housing rules. On the one hand, if you don’t need the room, cede the apartment to someone who needs it more and move into a smaller place. On the other hand, if it’s okay for someone to have a larger flat than he technically needs, then it’s okay to rent out the spare room. Don’t know all the details, of course. Maybe the man has a kid away in school, so just lets the room out when it’s free. I also don’t know whether AirBnB is allowed in these buildings. It’s certainly not in plenty of places, as people mostly don’t like unvetted strangers flitting in and out of their buildings. But if it’s allowed…
I would, of course, like to see the looks on the faces of those who showed up for their bargain rental in Boston and find out that it’s in a project.
Not that the McCormack is the worst project in Boston. Historically, it has been the “crown jewel” of Boston public housing. But it does have its share of drugs and shootings. And, oh yeah, Whitey Bulger grew up there.
So, that’s the story about the South Boston AirBnB.
And then there’s the story about the the dog park in Tribeca.
Seems like a decade or so a go, a bunch of Manhattan dog owners took over a public dog park:
…installing a lock, charging fees, banning non-member mutts, and enforcing its 22 rules with an iron fist — yet the city never noticed. (Source: NY Post)
It’s pretty surprising that the coup organized by the Dog Owners of Tribeca (DOOT) didn’t have any initial opposition. You would think that some pooch owners would have been pissed off and reported this to the Parks Department. But apparently the type of pooch owner who would have been pissed off was the type of pooch owner who’d join DOOT.
Founders installed a keypad lock on the gate and sent members a secret 4-digit passcode after they paid a $120 annual fee over Paypal on the group’s Website. The code was updated every few months.
Members were to live by 22 strict rules, the first being that non-members were not allowed into the park and members were mandated to chase them out if they tried. If members failed to do so, they were kicked out of the group.
Those 22 strict rules? They included no kids under 12 and no “socially inept dogs.”
Who sets the standards for a “socially inept dog”? Is butt sniffing and ball licking allowed?
I ask because I was once out walking my sister’s late and still greatly lamented dog Jack when we encountered a woman walking her pooch. The dogs went into meet and greet mode, and the woman pulled her dog back, admonishing her dog that butt sniffing is “disgusting.” Well, it would be if dogs were human. It would, in fact, be “socially inept.” But dogs being dogs…
Anyway, over the years, DOOT – which is set up as a non-profit – took in $83K in dues.
They claimed to use the doggie dough for upkeep, such as pressure-washing the blacktop three times a week, maintenance and repairs, insurance and supplies such as poop bags. Money was often left over after each year, the filings show.
Apparently some of those using the park didn’t know it was a public space:
“That’s crazy,” said John Ellett, 33, a professional dog-walker. “They even require the dogs to wear special tags, so I thought it was totally private.”
It’s back to being public now.
Parks officials snipped the lock Friday, after receiving a complaint.
The NYC Parks Department likes to partner with local groups to maintain its dog parks, but charging a fee (and locking out non-members) is strictly verboten.
DOOT members say that they’ll fight back. I’m guessing that they don’t have a leg to lift stand on. Nice if they want to maintain the park and collect fees to do so, but they can’t shut others out of a public space. And, yeah, there may be some “socially inept” dogs – over aggressive, running wild – but they’re mostly the result of “canine inept” owners. If you want a private space where you can exclude them and theirs, best you look for a slice of land in Tribeca to rent out. (Good luck with that…)
No comments:
Post a Comment