We alll know corporations sole existence is making money, and most show zero restraint.
In the USA, foreigners can buy real estate with a click, or a phone call.
(I don't believe foreigners should be able to buy our land. Become a citizen first, but that's another matter.)
And yes---I don't want to live next to tourists, and short term renters.
There's a delicate balance in most neighborhoods. The last thing Americans need is rich guys buying up housing to rent short term.
The rentals are never near the mansions, so they don't care who's there.
In my county, one, or two towns (Sausalito, and Belvedere) stopped short term rentals. (I believe it's still in effect, but to tired to look it up?).
What you describe is only profitable if lots of people want to travel to the destination and they can keep the properties busy (it's a lot of work). What I hear is "I don't like to travel as much as other people so I don't want to be inconvenienced by them, and I'd rather they don't get to travel."
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-11674-3_...
This has a real impact on the people that live in those cities. Without it, there would still have been plenty of people that wanted to travel to these places, but without part of the housing supply meant for citizens going to tourism, the price of a room would simply go up.
It is a lot of work, but not for the property owner if you just hire someone to manage the property. Short term rentals are far more profitable than long term rentals (even though most of it is adjusting for risk, for both vacancy and property damage).
It is a serious problem, especially in the current housing market, that people with marginally more access to capital are able to buy investment properties and take priority over people looking to buy their primary residence. Sellers are incentivized to take cash offers instead of financed ones.