[nrb]

The flip side is also true, the lack of "arbitrary" rules are sometimes making airbnb guests comfortable at the expense of neighbors/communities.

Isn't it the case he's making that there should be sensible middle ground?

[msellout]

It's a debate over the definition of "owning property", which is something that changes frequently over the years. We're always trying to find some sensible middle ground.

[toomuchtodo]

At some point, we're going to need to decide what's more important: tech startup revenue/profits or quality of life.

[grossvogel]

Unfortunately there are two different concepts of "we" at play. The "we" who get pushed out of our neighborhoods by tourism-driven rent increases will most certainly not be the "we" who decide what's more important.

[morgante]

What about the "we" who like to travel, stay in nice apartments, and rent out their apartment while we're gone (because we're not plutocrats)?

[toomuchtodo]

Vote. That's how democracy works. If you lose, you accept your loss.

And when you say "apartment", I'm assuming you mean with permission from your landlord/management company with a lease that doesn't prohibit unapproved sublets, right? Because to do otherwise would violate their property rights.

[morgante]

Travelers can't vote. That's an incredibly reductionist answer.

[toomuchtodo]

That's my point; travelers don't get a say in local politics. Its up to the local populace to decide what they want.

[toomuchtodo]

The "we" who votes is most important.

[msellout]

The quality of life of travelers and hosts seems to line up quite nicely with startup revenue.

[toomuchtodo]

But will it last as local jurisdictions add short-term rental restrictions? That's the question. Those governments are accountable to their local voters, not AirBnB, and definitely not the travelers who use it.

[msellout]

Too bad. They're probably chasing local optima that are quite different from the global maximum.