AirBnb may or may not be a big problem here but, if it is, it's a subset of a bigger problem: buy to let. I'd like to see buy to let severely curtailed within the city, as it's certainly driving up already high prices for buyers.
If the problem is tourism: ban tourists from the city. It doesn't make sense to ban short-term rentals but continue to build hotels and run advertising campaigns promoting tourism to Amsterdam
Why doesn't it? Why should tourists get to say in the same type of places as locals, often at the expense of locals? To me, it makes perfect sense to ban short-term rentals but still let tourists stay in hotels and places meant for them, without taking up real estate that can be used for residences.
I'm familiar with the argument that AirBnB reduces rental stock by devoting it to tourism. But I rarely encounter someone who is mad that more rental stock is being added.
Wouldn't you want rental prices to fall by increasing the availability of rental stock? Is a big gap between the cost of renting and the cost of owning a good thing?
The government has made some moves towards making BTL less profitable, but realistically this has only had the effect of discouraging new entrants, and driving the sector to a corporate model, which is even worse.
Let's say you borrow at 0% interest and with zero down. And you take out an interest-only loan -- that's the loosest possible lending standard, right?
Still you would not pull the trigger and buy to let unless:
rent > interest + maintenance + cost of dealing with tenants.
That means that lax lending standards can at most drive the price of ownership up to the price of renting (but not really, since there are gaps between renters). At the same time, the more rental stock is added, the more rents fall, making housing cheaper in the area.
So I disagree that low mortgate rates can allow rental investment to create a bubble. Rental investment is the one place where you are guaranteed there isn't going to be a bubble, because they are approaching this as a cashflow decision.
Where you see bubbles is in people buying homes for themselves to occupy, so there is no sanity check to see if it pencils out our not in terms of rental cash flows.
So cheap credit can absolutely cause high prices as a result of owner-occupants, but not as a result of buy to let. When that happens, you see rental stock being taken out of the market and used for owner occupancy.
This is why nations with a large share of renters, like Germany, are also nations with the fewest housing bubbles. Housing bubbles are a phenomena for owner-occupants, because the value of living in a place is so subjective and can be devoid of actual incomes. Rent, on the other hand, must be paid with income.
You can argue about whether buying property is a good model or not: in lots of countries in Europe it's not considered the norm, but I'm talking specifically about the UK where it is. Having more rental properties here is fine, but it's also not necessarily what people here want: many people want to buy their homes, and it's better that they do so in a market that isn't skewed by private landlords mopping up large quantities of property. In some parts of the country, though as I've already acknowledged it's unclear to me that this applies to Cambridge, AirBnb (and holiday homes in a more general sense) are a significant contributor to a lack of available property for long-term residents, or people who want to be long-term residents.
Real estate isn't a particularly attractive investment, even in the best of times. Single family homes net around 8%, which is 2-4% less per year than what you would expect to get with an index fund. This is with leverage. It only becomes lucrative when you have a change in interest rates (lower mortgage payments leads to higher cash returns), demand (which is why AirBnB rentals are so popular), or regulations.
Of course, the occasional property will sell for well under market, but so will any other type of asset.
> Maybe it should generate 1-2% a net per year and in 50-100 year timeframe depreciate to zero.
I think you're suggesting that real estate should have a lower annual return than other forms of investing, which I agree with and - in general - is what actually happens.
[0] Table on page 15 from the pdf: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19817584
On the one hand the city wants to encourage growth and innovation. On the other they do this by promoting the most tedious urban sprawl around the edges because of some arcane rule about buildings not being allowed that are taller than, is it Great St Mary's or Kings College Chapel? I forget, but it's too irritatingly stupid to think about. Oh, and the rent and business rates are an absolute outrage. How's anybody supposed to make any money[0]?
At the same time the infrastructure and public transport situation is awful. Infrastructure is rarely upgraded to keep pace with new developments and increases in population. The addition of Cambridge North station is welcome but it took far too long to get it done. Likewise the busway. And there are huge swathes of the city and county that aren't adequately served by any public transport which, of course, forces everybody into their cars and clogs the also inadequate road network.
From where I live, within certain restricted hours of the day (e.g., not after about 6.30pm), and not on Sundays, it's pretty easy to get a bus into the city centre and back again. It's not frequent enough, and it takes too damn long, but it can be done. The trouble comes if you want to go somewhere that isn't the city centre or somewhere in a direct line from here to there. Then you have to go into the city centre and wait however long for another bus. The last time I did this it took me about 2.5 hours to get from my place to a business located in Shelford - a total distance of something like 13 miles. Never again. I literally could have run it quicker.
I don't know what's gone on with the sewage plant, but I remember that moving it was being discussed at least as far back as 2002 and yet, 19 years later, here we still are. Not to labour the point but that's a quarter of a human lifetime. It clearly takes FAR TOO LONG to get things done that will improve the lives of people who are alive here, now, and today.
[0] On this point it annoys me intensely when I hear handwringing about vacant shops and business premises in the city centre where nobody addresses the obvious point: it's unreasonably expensive for businesses to be there.
If you go directly against the wishes of most of the residents, you will not find yourself in the city government for very long. So I think this "simply build enough housing" is only a good solution in internet forum comments.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/27/buildi...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/may/30/readers-reply-...
Also you still want to keep tourist concentrations low in certain areas to keep neighbourhoods liveable.
It's not just about the housing shortage but also the fact most people don't want to live in a hotel.