Yes, we understand that AirBNB is having negative effects on communities. Perhaps something should be done. But banning “investment properties” in a way that de facto bans rental units is not only a nonstarter but also a terrible idea in general.
I'm not saying rich people can't have their second place on the lake or that companies aren't free to build apartment complexes. What benefit to society does allowing businesses and landlords to own portfolios of single family homes and rent them out offer?
That's rich coming from someone who thinks that owning should be the only way to have a dwelling.
No, I don't think that renting is the only way to have a dwelling.
However, I do think that renting is a better option than owning for many people.
Moreover, I don't think that telling people how they should and shouldn't have dwellings is good.
Like I wrote above, a friend of mine owns two houses. Under the proposed "no investment residences" rule, he can't, unless he leaves one of them vacant almost all of the year.
For some people, renting is the right thing. It's unclear how banning rental properties makes their life better.