No, I'd rather see people staying at the little inn up north that's for sale because people rent out other families 2nd and 3rd cabins instead. Which I realize is a total edge-case but that's primarily what I use AirBnb for. A couple of issues I have with AirBnB which kleinbl00 hasn't already keyed in on. "$55 per night - $240 total" is actually $269. "$30 per night - $119 total" is actually $133. There's so many fees and associated dollars I'm paying which don't go to the AirBnb renter and the existence of AirBnB directly impacts the amount of money I'm paying in rent, and others too. Here's a bunch of resources confirming that: HBR CityLab EPI Phys Also and this is me being petty but when I type in where I live, AirBnB gives me a picture of Seattle and fuuuuuuuck that.
People are free to stay at little inns, but many travelers have other preferences. I've had similar frustrations with Airbnb, so it helps that there are dozens of alternatives. If you are concerned about how well the owner is treated, there are guides oriented toward the host. One of these points out that there is some compensation for Airbnb fees in that they have the largest community. If you live in a nice place, there's going to be demand to live and visit there, and housing/accommodation prices will rise if supply doesn't keep up. As b_b observed, policy bears some responsibility when Apartment buildings are illegal to build in 76% of San Francisco.
You know what? No. There's a patchwork of federal, state, city and zoning legislation that permits or does not permit transient accommodation and licenses or does not license transient accommodation. All of these regulations were passed through the legislative process, by stakeholders in their municipalities, to maintain or improve the standard of living of the communities they live in and are responsible for. These regulations are not new, are not controversial, and have never been questioned. AirBnB's entire business model is "come at me bro." The fundamental operating principle behind AirBnB is "you don't have the manpower or budget to enforce this." And when people try to pass measures to drum up the manpower or budget, AirBnB spends millions to defeat it. As is their due, of course - grifters gonna grift. But the whole point is not "people are free to stay at little inns" the point is that people settled on and voted on how they want their neighborhoods to run and AirBnB knew they could get away with a smash'n'grab. If AirBnB had the vaguest interest in keeping those places nice they'd handle the lodging tax that pretty much every municipality requires. As it is, they only do it where it's been mandated, saying it's the responsibility of the host to deal with it literally everywhere else. If you live in a nice place, there's going to be demand to live and visit there, and housing/accommodation prices will rise if supply doesn't keep up.
Apartment buildings are illegal to build in 76% of San Francisco.
Yeah when you look anywhere rural you see a lot of dead bed'n'breakfasts killed by AirBnB. it was actually comparing "hey, this house in my LA neighborhood doesn't suck, wait it's how much, okay how much would that get me where I actually want to live" that got me out of LA. There was a 2200sqft house with no ocean view in Playa Del Rey going for a mere $600k more than this place. I think I've seen eight (?) bed'n'breakfasts cack it just watching real estate listings. it ends up being awkward because usually you've got an innkeep who knows they need four or five rooms to make the economics work out so they build a massive addition that doesn't really make sense for a homeowner and unless you have a bunch of burnout college students around, you end up with a big HELOC and a lot of space to heat and nothing to show for it.