[hectorlorenzo]

> people who think that a city or neighbourhood is "theirs" just because they happen to live there for a long time — without actually owning anything.

Are you saying that only owners can decide what happens on a given neighbourhood? This is a really narrow way to define a community: suddenly people who do not own become second-class citizens.

> While Airbnb violated local laws, I haven't seem them violating laws that I would ever consider moral or justified.

That is not how local laws work. They are contextual, not absolute. And they are definitively not written while thinking "would golergka think this is _cool_?".

[LanceH]

>Are you saying that only owners can decide what happens on a given neighbourhood?

I think they're saying owners should be able to dispose of their own property as they see fit.

[arrrg]

That’s an absurd view if we are talking about real estate that probably has never been true (in complex societies but maybe also beyond) and probably cannot ever be true if we are talking about non-dystopian societies.

[LanceH]

> non-dystopian societies.

I would say that your view is extreme or at least hyperbole.

A lot of people believe they should be able to do things with their property so long as it doesn't impose on others.

Whether I live in my house or a guest who is paying me shouldn't be a legal concern. All this talk about party houses or too much parking, or other externalities pushed on neighbors are misleading. There are laws or could be for all of these.

Instead we have cities which have de facto taken ownership of other's property. Sure, reasonable things will be mentioned like fire codes or proper sewage. But then there are things like not being able to paint your house a certain color. Or have tenants.