However, building new supply is very much demand driven. And AirBnB pushed up demand, which lead to more units built. (Probably some hotels were not built, etc.)
This "parasite" thinking is just impotent rage. The real problem is the lack of housing supply. City dwellers are rather resistant to change. Development is noisy, draws more traffic, casts a shadow, etc. Yet most of them are also renters.
It's the classic participation asymmetry. The vocal minority trumps the silent majority.
I guess one group of people are suggesting that we adjust the demand to the local people who live and work in the city rather than allowing the demand of tourists to take the supply. In some areas it's also simply not possible to change the supply as all the land who could be built on, is already built.
I for one would love to see a re-prioritization for the local people in favor of tourists, and we're slowly seeing that shift happening now.
But directly prohibiting short-term rentals just because they take up units is the same short sighted "solution" as prohibiting high-density mixed-use development.
Cities that are growing/booming/trending are attracting people all over the world nowadays. For work, for leisure, for simply living there. I'm not saying just start building high-rises like there's no tomorrow. (Actually I think simple quotas with lottery systems would work best.) Control the influx, not just one symptom.
> land who could be built on, is already built.
Could you describe such an actual example? I can't really think of any place on Earth where we can't easily increase population density by building up.