[esc_colon_q]

If other people want to pay more for your place, why should that place's owner be forced to let you pay less than they could make with someone else?

Seriously. What is better about you, other than that it is you?

"Long-term is better for the community" may be an argument that I can get behind re: a tax, but that's not worth very much at all. Maybe a couple hundred a month in a good location? Less in a poor one.

They do own the fuckin apartment. They should be able to do whatever they want with it, within reason. Go pound dirt may be right.

[srtjstjsj]

Owning real estate on this finite planet is a privilege granted by the community, not an inaliaenable human right.

[Rebelgecko]

Living next to an Airbnb sucks. In certain cases, our laws put the good of the community ahead of an individual's potential profits.

[x87678r]

> They do own the fuckin apartment. They should be able to do whatever they want with it

I live in a condo building where there is a HOA rule where leases of less than 12 months are forbidden. I'd never live in a building where AirBnBs were allowed. Similarly cities can ban or severely regulate short term leases if they want.

[usrusr]

That's assuming that property rights are absolute. Maybe that is the case in your country, but that's definitely not true everywhere.

And it's not just countries that might have a hint of socialist nuance: even the USA wouldn't accept if you buy a ranch and then declare that on this property only the laws of the PRC apply (or that you declare it part of the UK). There are limits to what ownership allows you to do and those limits are very much subject to legislation.