I have a fairly libertarian view of local regulations, and, unlike many commentators on the issue, have little sympathy for NIMBY attitudes from neighbours. In

I have a fairly libertarian view of local regulations, and, unlike many commentators on the issue, have little sympathy for NIMBY attitudes from neighbours. In my opinion, if someone rents out a rented apartment, that should be subordinated to the subletting clause in their lease, but if someone owns an apartment, they should be able to rent it out to whomever they please, at whatever frequency, and charge whatever price they like to do so. They are, of course, obligated to take responsibility for any disruptions, nuisances, damage, etc. caused by the guests, as per normal building regulations, but I don't think the possibility of renting itself should be impaired by any local regulations. The Airbnb model is simply disruptive, and hotels don't like that. That's how I see it. I am especially unsympathetic to the argument that the neighbours have a "right" not to live "next to a hotel". There's nothing inherently hostile about a hotel as an application of an apartment, versus any other less controversial applications of an apartment that result in occasional comings and goings of strangers, such as parties and social gatherings. If the hotel causes them specific problems, they have a right to redress those specific grievances. That's about it. My view of this is strongly connected to the idea that property rights to real estate should incorporate the freedom to use the property as you'd like, as long as it doesn't harm anyone. I don't find much plausibility in the idea that renting it out in and of itself harms anyone. Many things that Airbnb renters can do can cause annoyance or harm. So can a drunk friend getting rowdy at my dinner party. So what? I can't have guests? Oh, I can? What about guests that stay a few days? Yeah? Why not paying guests then?