Also, 2 bedrooms. 1 single shared family room for 4 means we have to go to bed with the kids at 7pm. Yeah some hotels have those interconnected room things, but until you see it for yourself it's hard to know things like is the door handle in the second room high enough that the kids can't reach it and get out into the hall in the middle of the night.
I'll keep it in mind though. Thanks.
Just be honest and say you like it cause its cheaper and you think your vacation is more important than the needs of residents.
AirBNB clearly identified a market under-served by the existing hotel industry.
And please let's keep this civil.
And extended-stay hotels accept any length of reservation.
In fact, this is a major factor in urban planning. Assuming that this is unique to AirBNB is poorly thought out.
I think there are only a few cities, like NYC, where it creates a significant problem. Where it is a problem, laws and regulations should be enacted in response and companies like AirBnB should be cooperative.
The argument that zoning laws reduce housing costs is backwards.
The only reason people want to convert long-term housing to short-term rentals is bad zoning that has led to a shortage (and thus high prices) of short-term rentals.
The solution to that, as is the solution to high housing costs in general, is to build more housing.
Which is the thing zoning laws stand in the way of.
The city is becoming a place for tourists and the wealthy because tourists and the wealthy have decided they want to live in the city. AirBnB and rising prices more broadly are an effect of this, not a cause of it.
When people are willing to pay more to live somewhere, then prices there rise, and people that can't afford to pay those prices are forced to live somewhere else.
You can try to fight this by fighting the symptoms, like regulating AirBnB, or like Prop 13, and while you might advantage a few grandfathered-in homeowners, you're going to end up with negative externalities that will just screw over the poor even more.
The question we should be asking, as a society, is the new status quo one we want? Is it making life better overall? Or is it one that only a few of us want, because they're getting rich while the rest of us are getting more hard done by?
If tech is pushing us to a new status quo, and it's one we want (like a lot of medical technology), then that's great, the societal conversation will be short: yes, we like it, let's go.
If the tech is pushing us to a new status quo that we don't want, that's when we need to reevaluate, and maybe regulate it.
Here's a little video that explains it, for those that haven't yet heard of the tragedy of the commons: