> They do not address the possibility that the atypical minority (which presumably is apartments used exclusively for AirBNB and not otherwise occupied by a ten

> They do not address the possibility that the atypical minority (which presumably is apartments used exclusively for AirBNB and not otherwise occupied by a tenant) might cause the $626M rent increase illustrated by the study. This paragraph seems to be a diversionary tactic, "No, look only at these facts". IIRC, NYC passed a law against this and Airbnb has bee cracking down on those types of listings. I think SF has a similar law as well. I also wonder if NYC now charges any occupancy taxes in Airbnb like SF does. If so, the revenue collected should also be weighed against any increases in rent. I also wish the article had actual calculated how much of a per month rent increase the $600m figure resulted in. In a city as big as NYC, I don't know if 600m is a big deal or not.