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.
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.