If there are communities where AirBnB is deliberately breaking the law, those cities ought to be collecting punitive fines.
In a civilised society, you don't get to pick and choose which laws you think are worth following, and just ignore the rest. Don't like a given law? Then engage in the political process to seek changes to it.
Because it directly impacts the residents who live there full time and pay all the taxes to that city and state? Every day that you don't live in the city and make a purchase outside the city is a tax-dollar that city is missing out on and that someone living full time in the city is paying.
I live in downtown Toronto and here are some of the issues i face due to Airbnb:
i) Some of the residents make living a hell. They come to party, don't respect the neighbours, are loud till late, trash the place and some have even gone to break the buttons in elevator.
ii) With Airbnb, new owners and renters are priced out of market. People with more money but new units as secondary investment and just Airbnb it instead of renting it, thus creating artificial shortage of available units to full-time renters.
One of the fascinating things about NYC is it's vast array of local businesses. Guess who do these local businesses need? Full time employees who go to work every day and not for 3-11 days.
>>Every day that you don't live in the city and make a purchase outside the city is a tax-dollar that city is missing out on and that someone living full time in the city is paying.
Another short-term resident would be there in his place on the days he's not in NYC. Year round there will almost always be someone staying in his unit.
And short term renters tend to spend more per day than long-term residents, so they probably contribute significantly more to the city's tax base.
>And short term renters tend to spend more per day than long-term residents, so they probably contribute significantly more to the city's tax base.
Per day costs, sure. But if you add recurring payments, don't think they are outspending it. Also, you are ignoring the entire point to begin with. A City should look after it's long term residents first and foremost. Unless you want it to eventually become a ghost city.
I haven't seen any evidence that long-term residents contribute more to the tax base per capita. The spending differential between short term and long term renters is so large that it seems not just plausible, but likely, that the former contribute more on balance.
>>A City should look after it's long term residents first and foremost.
I don't see why it should. A city should look after those within its boundaries, whether they're there for a day or a year. It shouldn't set up walls and promote long term residence over visits.
> A city should look after those within its boundaries, whether they're there for a day or a year. It shouldn't set up walls and promote long term residence over visits.
So a citizen of a country and a visitor of the country should get equal rights and opportunities as well?
Rights? Absolutely. Surely you don't dispute that? Inalienable rights, endowed by creation and not by citizenship, are a cornerstone of the western tradition of liberty. I think it's racist and totalitarian to suggest walking that back.
Opportunities? Yeah, although that's not the case now, I'm ready for a world where people have the same opportunities regardless of the text on their passport.
In a civilised society, you don't get to pick and choose which laws you think are worth following, and just ignore the rest. Don't like a given law? Then engage in the political process to seek changes to it.