4 ms·

The issue is always a shortage of housing caused by zoning. Case closed. But let's pretend for some reason we can't build. As you say, there are two housing su

The issue is always a shortage of housing caused by zoning. Case closed. But let's pretend for some reason we can't build. As you say, there are two housing supplies in a city. One for long term residents and one for short term residents. The larger the ratio of short term supply to long term supply, the lower the prices and the more people will have an opportunity to visit the city, while prices will rise for property overall (assuming the city refuses to build). The more you constrict the supply, you start pricing out visitors from poorer areas who could never afford to live in that city, even if short term housing was banned altogether. Everyone wants to use an example to show how your policy helps the little guy, but the reality is that there are winners and losers on both sides. Arguably, the poorest are those who could never afford to live in the idyllic tourist hotspot in the first place, so you don't want them to ever get a chance to see it? The people making the biggest fuss about AirBnB always seem to be middle class NIMBY's.

thenaturalist 6y ago
I actually fully agree with your point on zoning and building, and your conclusion that the poorest on both sides are being hit is also 100% on point. Though, let's be realistic: zoning exists and building regulations are - very much unfortunately - a hot mess, and I guess it is a complex topic. As a society, we don't benefit from hyper growth which eventually and inevitably collapses, externalizing the cost of the cleanup to everyone. I guess the Financial Crisis - caused by housing (!) - showed that quite clearly. I hear your NIMBY sentiment and again, agree on that one, but I guess it's clear that both extremes are not beneficial: Neither totally uncontrolled building nor totally forbidden short term renting is optimal. So what about finding a compromise of limiting short term rentals to allow for the possibility, but make it unattractive for institutional business sharks and probably much more attractive for the average Jane and Joe? Still not perfect, but I can much more get behind that idea.

thenaturalist 6y ago

I actually fully agree with your point on zoning and building, and your conclusion that the poorest on both sides are being hit is also 100% on point. Though, let's be realistic: zoning exists and building regulations are - very much unfortunately - a hot mess, and I guess it is a complex topic. As a society, we don't benefit from hyper growth which eventually and inevitably collapses, externalizing the cost of the cleanup to everyone. I guess the Financial Crisis - caused by housing (!) - showed that quite clearly. I hear your NIMBY sentiment and again, agree on that one, but I guess it's clear that both extremes are not beneficial: Neither totally uncontrolled building nor totally forbidden short term renting is optimal. So what about finding a compromise of limiting short term rentals to allow for the possibility, but make it unattractive for institutional business sharks and probably much more attractive for the average Jane and Joe? Still not perfect, but I can much more get behind that idea.