I wouldn't say restricting new construction is negligible but it seems more like an SF/bay area problem. New housing is going up everywhere but if the airbnb rentals all went to new owners who lived there you would not need the new housing for awhile.
Another search states that there are 329,283 airbnbs in California in 2021. These should go to families first.
New York has 955,437 empty houses according to a quick search, and it's 4th behind Florida, California, and Texas. Take away renting out houses, short-term or otherwise, and sell those houses to people who don't have a first house, the crisis would away. It's simply greed.
If Airbnb was the major problem, we would only have a housing crisis in California, NY and other highly touristic places. We don't, we have it even in mid-sized non-touristic cities in the US, Canada and Europe.
There are houses for $50k in the Canadian prairies on nice big lots. They will need some work, and there probably isn’t much around for jobs and services. The old saying location location location stands
> New York has 955,437 empty houses ... 4th behind Florida, California, and Texas. Take away renting out houses, short-term or otherwise, and sell those houses to people who don't have a first house, the crisis would away. It's simply greed.
But not this particular greed - only. Maybe not even mostly. Whatever (temp) relief would be found by (permanently) forcing owners of empty dwellings to divest - that relief would be quickly overrun by the issues of an overly-constrained housing supply.
Another search states that there are 329,283 airbnbs in California in 2021. These should go to families first.
New York has 955,437 empty houses according to a quick search, and it's 4th behind Florida, California, and Texas. Take away renting out houses, short-term or otherwise, and sell those houses to people who don't have a first house, the crisis would away. It's simply greed.