[devit]

That seems a good thing economically.

Imagine there's a place on Earth that is somehow truly amazing and fills you with happiness for a long time for just visiting it.

Obviously, it makes sense to have as many different people as possible be able to appreciate it, which requires having them visit only one or a few nights.

Clearly, people should not be able to monopolize a flat there for 365 days a year, and if they do they should pay a fortune since they are denying other 364 people access to the place.

This also works for less amazing but still touristically interesting places.

Also the best solution would be to have enough housing to meet needs both from one-day-per-year demand and for 365-day-per-year demand, but if that's impossible tourists should definitely be the priority over wanna-be residents.

[notfromhere]

cities aren't tourist destinations, people live and work there. skyrocketing rent just so tourists can frolic is a disservice to the people who live there day-to-day

[lmm]

> cities aren't tourist destinations, people live and work there.

Cities are both in various ratios. Those cities that tourists particularly value should probably allocate a large proportion of their limited housing to tourists, those cities that people particularly value living and working in should probably allocate a large proportion of their houses to homes. Fortunately the market can sort this out.

[srtjstjsj]

PP's "service worker" job won't exist long without people to provide service to. Frolicking tourists sustain your economy.

[sudouser]

lost you at obviously. you’re saying that cities should be ghost towns where nobody lives and every single place is an airbnb... because obviously we would like to have as many people see this amazing place