The prevailing view on short-term rentals right now seems to be this: That is, its viewed as a zero-sum game between residents and tourists. There are only so many homes within a city, and so if any of them...
The prevailing view on short-term rentals right now seems to be this:
That is, its viewed as a zero-sum game between residents and tourists. There are only so many homes within a city, and so if any of them are to turn into short-term rentals, then it is a direct reduction in the supply of available long-term homes. This can also happen very quickly given the asset-light nature of Airbnb and the fact that these spaces arent usually purpose-built.
It is for this reason that many cities have enacted strict short-term rental laws that basically only allow you to rent out your principal residence when youre not around or if you happen to have extra space. In the case of New York, you have to be physically present when the dwelling is being rented, and so the use case is exclusively I have extra space for you.
Either way, the basic idea is to stop people from removing homes from the long-term market. I do, however, find it curious that reductions in housing supply seem to be generally viewed as bad, but that increases in housing supply are often met with skepticism. Doesnt housing supply work in both directions? Why arent more people clamouring for new homes to be built?
Where my head is at on this issue is that I dont see it as a zero-sum game. I believe that there should be rules and regulations around short-term rentals, but that they shouldnt stamp out all use cases other than heres an air mattress in my living room. At the same time, I think we should be viewing this as an opportunity. Clearly we need more homes, more hotels, and more short-term rentals.
Its only zero-sum if we make it that way.