Destroy housing -> destroy people's future and family creation.
Air b&b is cancer for people trying to start families as it destroys all local affordable housing.
Land owners didnt create the land. Rights to land are always acquired, ultimately, through violence.
Land owners dont make it valuable - a good teacher drives up her own rent.
Supply and demand work in reverse. The more land owners buy and hoard it the more valuable it becomes.
Unlike, say, income taxes, which discourage work, taxing land just discourages hoarding and unproductive use. Higher taxes would thus relieve shortages on top of bolstering government budgets.
Airbnb isnt a direct cause of those shortages, it just partook in the rent bonanza driven by the global property hoarding frenzy. Banning or strictly regulating it in tourist hotspots is probably a good idea but doesnt resolve the underlying problem.
you are out of your mind
Rather: they feel entitled as tourists to live in a Disneyland version what they imagine to be the locals' lifes.
Maybe we should just build enough housing for everyone.
If you play "count the lockboxes" in the centre you realise almost every flat in the centre is an AirBnB. Those flats take in 4x what a normal rented flat will make, so of course there's a strong incentive for landlords to rent on AirBnB. Right now the city is going through a huge housing shortage - people are having to defer degree courses or live outside the city because they literally can't find anywhere to rent.
Of course, tourists aren't the only cause of this. There's a huge intergenerational issue (I know countless people in their 60s living in very large houses), and the city has historically been very conservative about building new houses to match population growth.
Ultimately the city is owned and run mostly by the people who live there. Most of them have no choice about the level of tourism, and it's pretty reasonable to want to have a discussion about whether you really want to have your city turned into a theme park.
This is the main problem. Solution is simple: Allow more new construction, lots of it.
Local people have voted against their own long term interests, if they have voted for politicians who have opposed new construction.
It is easy to succumb to short term selfishness: "I already have a home, so I don't want any new construction near me. I oppose building new homes." But in time, every one of us will need to move to a new home. Then you will start to wish that if you had supported building new homes, it would be easier for you, too, to find a new home.
Specifically in Edinburgh, the problem is the city is a World Heritage Site. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/728/
It's an inherent problem in tourism: tourists want an "unspoiled" view, which means not building infrastructure for tourists or locals.
Building definitely is happening. See the Plan: https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/25264/edinburgh-... - but of course you can't build just houses, you have to build roads and schools and waste disposal and public transport to go with them. The city has struggled with its tram project and the railways are at capacity.
I don't know what the answer is, but there is something to be said for retaining some beauty at the expense of fewer people, and maybe rethinking the idea that growth is necessary to success, 'cause we're running out of room and that definition can't last forever.
Change is inherent in a situation where you have however many billion people we have now. We are a dynamic system, and a huge one.
What you say is true, and also isn't anything new to the discussion. Change is awesome, and isn't even the point. It's more about the unsustainable quest for growth that is the foundation of our economy.
I'll let you argue with the "why aren't people having children any more?" people.
Vancouver built lots of new housing but it was mostly snapped up by investors.
That Norwegian ski town got it right.
Even speculators who buy and hold empty houses aren’t a problem. No investor is satisfied with no returns (ie, no sale and no rent) indefinitely. Speculators that are dumb enough to be happy with zero returns ought to be, and always are, separated from their capital.
Within a short time the market will balance out between the builders, the buy-to-let landlords, the single-family owners, and the flippers and speculators… assuming you don’t have some crazy regulations putting a thumb on the single-family owner end of the scale by blocking construction.
But if downtowns of cities are being hollowed out and filled with tourists, it’s not going to go well for anyone - because eventually even the tourists won’t really want to be there anymore.
The issue isn't tourists, it's where they're staying. Tourists are welcome, they're not entitled to live like 'locals' at the local's expense. Stay in a hotel.
> Maybe we should just build enough housing for everyone.
Except that won't ever be enough because more and more will just come. And there's already even a glut on AirBnB for tourists, so none of that housing will go the locals. Building isn't the only solution.
I maintain that the issue can be fixed with more development - build a new tourist zone with hotels that appeal, or AirBnB friendly zoning, or something like that. And for locals, more housing = more options. The local housing can be built outside tourist zones if it has to.
The fact is we have a growing population, a growing global economy, tons of people exiting poverty and entering the global middle class and travelling. This will all accelerate for hundreds of years to come.
I feel this is an artificial distinction. It's not really the type of building that's involved. People tend to pick whichever of AirBnB or hotel is the most economical for their stay. It's the massive conversion of property from residential to "hotel" by the (often local!) owners that's the problem.
Hotels and hostels are a thing, you know?