[ke88y]

If you are going to do this, it needs to be paired with price controls on rental housing. Otherwise the expense is passed on and becomes a de facto regressive tax on (usually poor) renters.

With respect to short term rentals in particular, outright bans are the easiest and most effective policy. Some cities allow for 30 days of short-term renting as long as the unit is a primary residence for the property owner for the other 335 days of the year. I think that's a fair compromise that achieves the ostensible goal of the "sharing economy" without hotel-ifying the entire city's housing stock.

[mixdup]

>If you are going to do this, it needs to be paired with price controls on rental housing. Otherwise the expense is passed on and becomes a de facto regressive tax on (usually poor) renters.

I would expect a jurisdiction progressive enough to have a scheme as previously described to also probably have rental price controls/subsidies/etc to assist with high rents. That said, the market price for a rental will be what it is. Landlords charge exorbitant rents because people pay them.

If the landlords' taxes cause their cost basis to be too high to make the rent hit the market, the landlords will get out of the market. Which is kind of the whole goal.

[friend_and_foe]

I don't know how effective this is in encouraging home ownership. The primary goal for tax incentives on primary residence vs investment property is that it makes owning a home cheaper than renting. Rent controls have the opposite effect, and so create a situation where nobody is incentivized to own property at all.