I've only seen this on rare occasions in North America
Have to be careful about that one to avoid "company towns", but otherwise that seems like a good idea.
I am using Airbnb purposefully to avoid hotels and enjoy the authentic locations. I like to experience for a week how it feels to be part of that neighborhood. Hotels are all alike, no matter where you go. I would use hotels when I travel for work, but when I am with my wife I prefer a cozy AirBnb with a terrace and view.
At one point I was in Amsterdam and rented an apartment in one of those 3-window wide tall houses, they had a flight of stairs going straight up for 3 floors in a line at 45% angle. Interesting experience pulling my suitcase to the attic.
Another time I was in Tokyo in the Roppongi district. My flat was at ground level. An old lady (the proverbial "obaasan") was watering the flowers from the outside and took care to splash us with some water while we were sitting in the balcony. I also had to learn their garbage sorting rules.
That's what I am looking for, and I am not turning back to using hotels.
Here's the thing - you aren't. You don't contribute anything other than a modest payment, you enjoy the "culture and views."
And because the apartment you are staying in isn't regularly occupied, it's not really part of the neighborhood anymore than a bench would be.
That person, for better or worse, would be part of a community and contribute to it.
At some point, a community resembles swiss-cheese because so many people who would otherwise be in the community are absent because the housing they'd live in is absent. AirBNB's are just one part of this equation though.
But, at the same time, these city and town governments have an obligation to sustain a reasonable amount of housing for their residents.
AirBNB is of course not itself the issue (though one might argue that their aggressive anti-community lobbying is).
I believe that town administrators have a duty to severely curtail the presence of STR businesses like AirBNB in their towns as one of the several paths to maintaining a healthy community with adequate housing.
It’s a contradiction, if you pander to it your town is inauthentic, if you don’t people complain that you don’t build enough.
Towns should build sacrificial fake downtowns and really pour on the Disneyland vibes just to get tourists to bugger off.
The tradeoff for those infrastructure investments is usually individual(s) who participates in some degree with their community and city.
An AirBNB takes up most of the same cost of infrastructure with the community footing the bill.
I don't think this is seeing the issue the right way. Building sufficient housing to reduce the pure free-market price of temporary / hotel stays to a level where housing is still accessible to locals is likely to permanently change the character of many locations. Perhaps from a quiet mountain town to Disney World. IMO, the residents of such towns, and other potentially attractive locations, have the right to keep their community the way it is rather than be swamped by tourists and high-rises to house them.
It is likely better to regulate the short-term housing volume instead, such that the free-market price of that housing goes high enough to reduce the demand to a level that the community feels is consistent with maintaining its character.
Change is a constant, you just have to figure out what form it takes.
I agree, better hotels is the solution, but we couldn’t force a private company to build actually good hotels that cater to modern expectations now could we? /s
The easiest way to fix housing right now is to ban STRs. The supply available to long term renters / home buyers would increase dramatically, quite literally over night.