The problem AFAIK with airbnb is that it takes supply from the residential side, and people using the properties for living in the area should be prioritized over visitors who should book hotels.
If anything, cities should encourage property owners to rent out spare rooms or empty apartments to tourists to bring in that spending money.
How do you think it's different?
Which of these groups do you think it is more important to serve?
There are a large class of landlords that will favor longer term tenants because it is lower risk / less hassle.
There are also many cases where renting long term is more profitable as well if the home can't be booked consistently. There has always been a "volume discount" incentive for business owners.
I would say there is economic incentive for both interests.
I don't claim to have the right to assert my opinion on other renters and landlords. I don't think others should either. Who I think is more important is none of my business. That's between the renter and the landlord IMO.
Markets, based on supply and demand, have a natural tendency to find balance between the interests of multiple parties.
I dunno, let the market decide? From your question, it seems like you claim to have a self-evident answer, why?
Also because residents pay for public services via taxes, and tourists staying in illegal Airbnbs don't even pay hotel taxes.
Also because residents, not tourists, vote.
Seriously? Cities love tourists, they contribute a lot of $$$ to the economy