If you think of it as a You vs Landlord negotiation, indeed, the landlord is permitted to do whatever he wants such as not renting to you because he has a better offer elsewhere.

If you think of it as Society vs Landlord, there are many reasons that Society can give to justify preventing the Landlord from Airbnbing. Such as, society has a duty to provide housing to locals, airbnb guests make residential areas more dangerous, dirtier and noisier, other standard reasons why businesses are not permitted in residential areas.

If these reasons trump the positive impact on the region from encouraging tourism, then, regulating airbnb makes sense.

Yeah, it turns out that property rights come into conflict with human rights a lot, and this is why property rights should not be fundamental.

The people in responses saying owners "should" be able to do anything with stuff they own - well, the owners of property certainly think so. What about the majority of the population? I expect people's opinions about this will change rapidly, in a radical left direction, when the COVID eviction and foreclosure wave hits the US.

I have a good friend who is a Law Professor and we had a pub conversation about the concept of "property ownership" a few years ago.

It was really mind blowing- I had never really thought about how abstract the notion of property ownership actually is, especially when you factor in inheritance. We should definitely be more critical of political systems that seek to justify concentrating property in the hands of the few.

It's a pretty crazy thing. An interesting question for libertarians is where did private property originate? Like, taking libertarian assumptions, once you own it, hypothetically you can expand your property profitably. But how did the first resources and land, which before private property were all used more or less collectively, become privately owned?

Right? Its pretty crazy. And extrapolating further, you can show that the concept of private property is what necessitates tax, since the modern state is in large part an apparatus for enforcing the concept of private property. Therefore libertarian complaints about taxation quickly fall apart under close scrutiny.

> and this is why property rights should not be fundamental.

No thank you, sir. I was born in a country, where that was the case.

This system has failed in my country and in many others like mine. Let us hope we never try this again.

The question I posed, with 2 very clear answers, is: should property rights or human rights be supreme? I know what I would say in the common case of a poor person being evicted.

A big issue with property rights is that one person using their property can harm other users indirectly. As such, it makes a lot of sense to curb property rights.

Humans not having property seems to be the premise on which this whole society is built. Why else wod people work at eg Walmart? Because they really like greeting people and stacking shelves?

I think it’s more complicated than that. While it does lead to higher rents, it also leads to more visitors and tourists who spend more at local establishments. Those places hire local people.

So there is an argument to be made that it helps with jobs, higher pay, and retail establishments in the area as well.

This does appear to be a good argument on face however it's not guaranteed that tourists do in fact spend more at local establishments. Furthermore, is an economy boosted by tourism stronger or are there just a lot of low wage jobs available? These kinds of questions should be answered by rigorous study not economists or travel lobbyists.

How much greater the tourist spending is versus the spending from locals? Which were displaced. As those displaced locals won't be spending money any more at local businesses.

> Obviously there is the argument "I own the apartment so I can do whatever I want"

I mean, zoning is a thing, right?

The thing that sucks is that a lot of the publicised grievances are always with the demand side, and never the supply aka the home owners. Since they are richer or something, denying them side income or filling an empty room that would otherwise go unused is supposed to be a loss they should stomach, not to mention the savings/ better experience for the renter who doesn't want a hotel experience.

And yes, there are lots of serial property owners who run lots of homes on Airbnb but I really don't think regulation can be nuanced enough, at least what's been proposed.

> Since they are richer or something, denying them side income or filling an empty room that would otherwise go unused is supposed to be a loss they should stomach

Quite simply, yes. If this were all it was, nobody would have a problem. The issue is short-term rentals taking over reliable lease stock. Landlords can make more money with less downside renting out one weekend a month than an entire month, so why wouldn't they? So rental properties simply vanish from the market at key price points.

If everyone had a home that they owned, I would not have a problem with airbnb. But this is not the case, and we have no intention of making this the case, so as long as we have obligatory renters, we can't have this incentive.

Even though I've used Airbnb. I have to agree with you.

Personally i'd rather there just be more housing so the market can balance out.

Like in theory, all things being equal, long term rentals should be much better for the landlord. You don't have to worry about vaccines in the downtime, you dont have to clean/etc between tenants, you have less regulatory concerns (in theory), long term tenants have incentive to be respectful to neighbours and not destroy the place.

But there is just more demand for short term. Personally i would rather there was just more housing in general (maybe that's naive).

There are definitely some nice things about staying in an airbnb other than costs - having a full kitchen, having a bit more "room" [especially if travelling in a group], usually being in an area near things like grocery stores and less near generic tourism BS.

> Personally i'd rather there just be more housing so the market can balance out.

to build houses there is a need for a underlying infrastructure (roads, electric grids, gaz pipes, whatever...). Who's going to pay for all that when often existing ones are barely maintained?

Now cities could have more skyscrappers to house more people as well... but there is a lot of NIMBY involved as well, it's a complex subject.

I'm not opposed to Airbnb as long as they are subject to the exact same standards and laws as hotels, in dedicated buildings for instance. Obviously, very little hosts would want that.

Airbnb'ing an appartement can drastically affect the quality of life for neighbors as well.

Taxation is a interesting thing. In some countries those utilities like roads and their upkeep is paid from income taxes. And Airbnb renters don't pay income tax. Maybe it would be reasonable to move that burden to be a tax on such renting. With long term rentals the income tax isn't a problem.

In most of the big airbnb markets, it is assessed via Property Taxes.

City taxes may make up a portion, but if you break down where the money goes, it usually is schools, and emergency responders, not per se utilities, easements or roads.

Maybe in USA. In many European countries the property tax is low sub-1% range. Which isn't nearly enough to cover those services.

> to build houses there is a need for a underlying infrastructure (roads, electric grids, gaz pipes, whatever...). Who's going to pay for all that

For a new development, the developers pay for it, either by actually installing the infrastructure themselves or by paying "connection fees" to the utilities to establish the service. For a truly "greenfield" development they also build the roads, which may stay private or be turned over to public ownership.

Ongoing, the gas/water/electric customers pay for maintenance as part of the cost of the service.

Where I live, the only utility persistently moaning about cost of maintenance and infrastructure is the water/sewer service, which is run by the city. Gas and electric are private utilities and they seem to just deal with it.

> Who's going to pay for all that

Taxpayers! That is what a government is for after all.

To be clear, i think airbnbs should be subject to appropriate taxes in order to pay their share of that sort of thing.

I'm also not sure why this would be such an issue with airbnb relative to normal long term rentals. Its not like an airbnb uses roads & electric grids differently than a normal tenant.

> I'm not opposed to Airbnb as long as they are subject to the exact same standards and laws as hotels

Why not the same standard as BnB's or traditional short term rentals of small dwellings? Its not like hotels have ever had a monopoly on short term rentals to tourists.

Owning real estate on this finite planet is a privilege granted by the community, not an inaliaenable human right.

Living next to an Airbnb sucks. In certain cases, our laws put the good of the community ahead of an individual's potential profits.

> They do own the fuckin apartment. They should be able to do whatever they want with it

I live in a condo building where there is a HOA rule where leases of less than 12 months are forbidden. I'd never live in a building where AirBnBs were allowed. Similarly cities can ban or severely regulate short term leases if they want.

That's assuming that property rights are absolute. Maybe that is the case in your country, but that's definitely not true everywhere.

And it's not just countries that might have a hint of socialist nuance: even the USA wouldn't accept if you buy a ranch and then declare that on this property only the laws of the PRC apply (or that you declare it part of the UK). There are limits to what ownership allows you to do and those limits are very much subject to legislation.