Having stayed in ~50 AirBnBs, we have very seldom used sketchy ones that have the problems you describe (once).
Are you certain you are representing most unit owners fairly?
Are you certain you are representing most unit owners fairly?
I check Airbnb when I move, and I'd rate a full time rental next to me similarly to a busy street. Not a deal breaker, but certainly a strike against it. If others do the same, that translates to a direct reduction in property value for the host's neighbours.
I don't have any moral issue with Airbnb hosts or travellers - I have used it about as much as you have. I don't mind people making money from it.
But when a city decides to quantify the externalities and impose restrictions, it is absolutely not appropriate to talk about financial losses hosts have. They made a cynical bet on relaxed (poor) governance, and lost. You or I shouldn't care any more than they should care about my startup failing.
I’m just stating the obvious.
That your plan for a house with a rental unit attached isn't profitable under the new regime isn't a disaster, it's the market doing its job. If residents wanted it enough, they'd be willing to pay for it. There is no disaster by definition.
You're not stating the obvious, you're talking your book.
I personally know property owners, large and small, and their properties are fluidly exchangeable between long and short term rentals.
Reducing the production of new rental units will have the obvious result.
I'm not even suggesting that cities should ban or restrict Airbnb, just that doing so can be rational and business owners need to take the risk of this into account. Given the delta in profitability, the market does understand this.
I did not claim that Airbnb units aren't fungible with rentals, that's obviously true, and rereading this discussion I don't understand how you believe I made that argument.