The exception should not make the rule.
Your example is one of the few edge cases where AirBnB works. The OP is talking about an everyday situation where AirBnB has instead had a detrimental effect on residents as well as would-be residents.
Your example is one of the few edge cases where AirBnB works. The OP is talking about an everyday situation where AirBnB has instead had a detrimental effect on residents as well as would-be residents.
Personally I don't mind AirBNB if it's only people renting out rooms in their residences. For instance here in Portland the law requires this. But it's poorly enforced.
Currently we hear it a lot regarding housing density, but it's also a factor in locating sewage treatment plants, nuclear waste disposal sites, etc.
I'm going to choose door number 2 every time. Any time I am given the choice to buy something, especially a higher-quality experience at a lower price, from a human being versus a corporation, the human gets my money.
Just like I prefer Uber to taxis, I prefer AirBNB to hotels. Even Hostels now, if I go into Amsterdam I will pay $35-$50 per night. If there are two of us, the $50 per night AirBNB is our choice.
These businesses flourish because the social contract is broken. Creating artificial scarcity will harm the community in the long run, preventing tourism and limiting the ability of home owners / tenants to make a couple of extra bucks on under-utilized resources.
Whatever this social contract is, I've never signed it, and I don't really recognize anybody else telling me I must abide by this contract upon which I was given no opportunity to vote or discuss.