It seems self evident to me that someone on vacation for a weekend would be willing to pay more for a days worth of lodging than someone who lives there full ti

It seems self evident to me that someone on vacation for a weekend would be willing to pay more for a days worth of lodging than someone who lives there full time. Of course you're willing to splurge on a vacation. However, with the prevalence of AirBnB, permanent residents are now competing with vacationers and it appears to be contributing to the increase of rents unilaterally. Of course, you can respond that that is the free market at work; however I'd reply that the free market doesn't always work out, and seeking a local maximum in daily rental prices is not in the long term best interests of the city. There are plenty of examples of cities which stopped being inhabitable when transformed into primarily tourist destinations, and that's not a plight I'd like to see for New York. Basically, long term airbnb rentals are artificially inexpensive because of the negative externalities at play. I've lived in the same apartment building as airbnb rentals and it sucks; someone crashing for a weekend does not feel the same responsibility towards their neighbors as a full time tenant. The costs of these temporary dwellings are spread among uncompensated neighbors. In agreement with the article, I agree that it's reasonable for someone to recoup some extra money when they go on vacation, and that's totally in spirit with the brand of AirBnB; the problem to me is when they become corporate ventures where someone is renting out an apartment full time, and not living there. At that point, it's an illegal hotel.