Airbnb is not the problem. You're bothered by tourists.
And it's wholeheartedly AirBnB's fault and problem. Not to mention there's often new apartment blocks being built to act as de-facto hotels but having none of the regulations in place, which isn't quite competition at all.
Basically, tourists aren't locals, they should have a right to live like locals. Especially at the expense of the locals.
The lack of regulations is an issue of local governments not catching up to tech companies, as usual, not Airbnb's.
> Basically, tourists aren't locals, they should have a right to live like locals.
What if those tourists do eventually become locals after staying at an Airbnb? Are you against migrants as well?
> Especially at the expense of the locals.
The locals do benefit financially from tourism. Markets like Airbnb's simply accelerate this, which of course introduces issues, but governments should carry more of the blame for this than a company that disrupts the hotel industry.
And tourism is planned into this with the way zoning permits work. But AirBnB skirts those rules. Also the negatives of losing housing in a city far outweigh any financial benefit that could come to it, especially as most won't be reaped by the people that are being forced out...or it will be taken from them in terms of increased rent because the supply is much smaller.
> The lack of regulations is an issue of local governments not catching up to tech companies, as usual, not Airbnb.
Or it's because AirBnB actively lobbies against it and refuses to enforce rules, saying it's up to the individual providers. They facilitate it, and often most things on AirBnB are illegal and against the zoning laws of whatever building they're being used for.
> What if those tourists do eventually become locals after staying at an Airbnb? Are you against migrants as well?
What a ridiculous question. Obviously I'm not against migrants. I'm against tourists thinking they have a right to live like locals. > The locals do benefit financially from tourism. Markets like Airbnb's simply accelerate this, which of course introduces issues, but governments should carry more of the blame for this than a company that disrupts the hotel industry.
> The locals do benefit financially from tourism. Markets like Airbnb's simply accelerate this, which of course introduces issues, but governments should carry more of the blame for this than a company that disrupts the hotel industry.
The locals benefit nothing from AirBnB. The landlords do, sure, but the actual residents and regular workers do not. If anything, it makes matters worse as rents are driven up, or they have to move further away from work. In the worst case scenarios, the town just becomes tourist-oriented and there's no other jobs left. That's a horrible thing as if the tourism ever dries up, the town is left up the creek.
But also tell the locals they benefit financially when their local bar closed down because the landlord thought it'd be better to make it a shop that caters towards tourists; or when all their neighbors move out because of the rambunctious drunken tourists coming in at 2 every night of the week; or when their landlord decides to evict them/up their rent because the landlord knows they can make more on AirBnB than renting to residences.
It's a wholly negative impact to everyone except those people who own the AirBnBs, who are often skirting multiple regulations, facilitated by AirBnB itself. It is a net negative for the city, and I know personally that housing crisis in at least one country (Ireland) has been facilitated by it, as the amount of houses on the market in Dublin doubled during the pandemic when tourism was shut down.
The fact you are conflating these two issues and even asking this question indicates how anyone should interpret your overall argument.
The objections to "overtourism" are in small part the same ones to gentrification, which essentially boils down to a large amount of migrants moving into a community and "disrupting" the local lifestyle. I'm not saying this isn't a problem in many cities, but that a) it's often viewed in a xenophobic light instead of accepting that communities change rapidly due to globalization, and that this change is not always entirely negative, and b) that efforts to regulate this should come first and foremost from governments, and not expected from companies whose only goal is increasing profit. This is the same way it has worked for the tobacco, pharma, food and many other industries, but it's clearly not working well for the tech industry, as governments struggle to catch up to the sheer amount of rapid changes affecting almost every part of society.
None of that works when an operator like Airbnb ignores it all. Nimby’s give community consultation a bad name, but the alternative is the Wild West. No thanks.
Another way to interpret your comment, would be to replay the OP but substitue... hmm... oil/chemical refinery next to your house. Then how does it feel if random Internet stranger replies to your post: "So, basically, Not In My Backyard, no?" It sounds low empathy. My point: There are plenty of stories on HN/Twitter/Internet about living next door to a nitemare AirBnB rental that hosts loud drunken parties each weekend.
When it reaches that level, it is a problem.
Because they have pushed back hard on cities’ attempts to regulate and enforce what is happening due to the influence of their service. They have no respect for what is happening in some places and how residents are impacted.
Your argument is similar to saying that Facebook is not to blame for the spread of misinformation. Tech platforms create a new world and then want nothing to do with the consequences of their influence. It is arrogant and irresponsible.
This is not similar to Facebook, since "overtourism" is not as obviously harmful as misinformation. How would you even define it? It could be argued that it's another aspect of globalization which benefits the local economy, the travel industry and mixing of cultures.
Please do not use this kind of attitude and communication style on HN.