[exclusiv]

But mostly the city wants to ensure they get paid and keep the lodging industry off their backs. Hotels pay occupancy taxes and want AirBnBs to have that encumbrance.

I have a property in an area that has it all figured out and I had to get it certified by an inspector, pay some fees, and submit occupancy taxes. Most skirt the laws.

Chicago did it right in my opinion by requiring AirBnB to manage and submit the taxes and fees.

[jacobolus]

The city is facing huge pressure from local residents because the price of housing has gone up dramatically in the past few years. Property owners taking rental properties off the market to turn them into unlicensed full-time hotels through Airbnb further reduces housing stock, in addition to forcing a bunch of negative externalities onto neighbors who have little recourse. Most local residents who aren’t themselves Airbnb hosts are on the city’s side here.

The hotel industry is certainly unhappy with Airbnb, but they’re far from the only ones.

[exclusiv]

Yes but citizens and activist groups aren't flushing policy makers and the city with money. They're enraged, and rightfully so in many areas.

My point was - if the city can get their $ from their policies they will enable airbnbs like Chicago recently did.

At the same time - Airbnb is just one small piece of the puzzle for the rise in housing prices. I don't understand why some people think they are entitled to live in an area in demand?

If someone wants to start scooping up real estate and homeowners are selling at higher prices, comps go up, everyone's values go up along with property taxes. That's how it works.

Now - homeowners whose values go up should be enraged about property tax increases. The city's budget shouldn't vary much from year to year, but if home prices go up substantially they get more property tax revenue. Why? And then if they go down - they don't help you out.