Hacker News Reader

Comment by more_corn | Hacker News Reader

It’s Barcelona in July. I would pay to get squirted.

But also, Being mad at tourists seems weird to me. These are people who want to come and experience your city, learn about your culture, pay to eat food at your restaurants. Buy local art, have gelato with you.

If your gripe is increased housing costs (which it almost always is) The problem is not tourists. The problem is short term rentals are more profitable than renting to locals (the fact is it pays 5x as much so property owners will do it if allowed). Go squirt the mayor and demand he accelerate banning short term rentals. Give him a second squirt and ask him to accelerate permitting new housing construction while he’s at it.

Tourists bring money to your city. They pay your wages, they elevate the economy. Embrace them and make rules to prevent them from damaging the city they’re coming to experience. Don’t shout at them.

View on HN

>They pay your wages, they elevate the economy.

Even if I don't work in those industries? And what about the places where this money came from, and could have been spent?

Point being, tourism isn't all good for all people. There are tradeoffs.

It's kind of like the resource curse isn't it? Such that easy money from the resource ends up impeding the rest of the economy?

> Point being, tourism isn't all good for all people.

Depends on your definition of "good". If by good, you mean an increase in economic activity and therefore wealth, then yes tourism can certainly benefit that. Let's just look myopically at restaurants. All things being equal, if no tourism existed in Barcelona versus its current form, then restaurants would not be operating at their current capacity. Even if let's say this meant all restaurants could continue to operate (e.g. didn't fire anyone), but at like 50% operating capacity, it would mean no restaurant owner could profit enough to invest profits into new decor, new capital equipment, better cooking materials, etc. All of those service providers now suffer and will hit economic hardships. Those people now have less to spend on food, housing, etc.

Yes, absolutely yes! Even if you don't work there. Your butcher gains profits of it, your hairdresser... Omg, I just can't believe people can be so short-sighted...

Either ban short-term rentals or heavily tax them, which serves to make them less profitable.

Maybe hotel chains could look into providing what modern tourists want and need. More spaces for families/groups and people happy to cook their own meals. These are the natural users of Airbnb-style properties, but I'd be happier going to a hotel if they offered a practical alternative.

Look into "extended stay hotels", which often have separate bedroom / living areas and full kitchens.

They exist, but a common problem with them is they are for really extended stays, like people working in a city for a month or whatever. Often not possible for a few days as a tourist. But yeah, they can be really good if they work out.

Or the reasonable option, which to enact regulations, including applying for a permit, and then to enforce them.

The issue is not short-term rental, the issue is too much short-term rental.

All touristic flats will be forbidden in 2028.

> Embrace them and make rules to prevent them from damaging the city they’re coming to experience.

+1, squirting the tourists who are already there does little to discourage other tourists from coming, or to solve the problem that they're competing for the same housing.

That said, I can't help but think that AirBnB(/VRBO/etc...) is just faster to respond to market conditions than traditional hotel businesses because it leverages already built private residences. If land is 5x as profitable as accommodation for tourists, then anywhere where a hotel could be built the value of the land will increase, and thus housing costs. I guess the local govt. has zoning as a lever it can use to restrict where hotels can be built though. Maybe that's the point though, that AirBnB sidesteps zoning, extracting more value from the land than other users can.

> is just faster to respond to market conditions than traditional hotel businesses because it leverages already built private residences.

It's faster because it breaks the law. It's easy to react quickly if you don't bother paying taxes and ignore rules on subletting, etc. It remove a lot of work.

> AirBnB sidesteps zoning

It's not side stepping anything it's often breaking the law, or at least encouraging other people to do so.

I've been a transplant in many cities, and residents of literally every city points fingers at everyone who can afford the rent instead of pointing fingers at their neighbors that are gambling at trying to get the highest price possible. the neighbors that have the choice not to, the neighbors they can actually influence.

sure, price fixed algorithm based corporate landlords are a problem to address. and there are some people that will propose an even higher rent to ensure they get to be a tenant.

but random people who were unilaterally told a price and saw it fit in their budget? that's not really the target

On question is if the tourism wages paid support living in the city that one is working in. If they do not, then it is not paying in a sustainable way for it city culture that is being sold

Reply on news.ycombinator.com