I'm from a small ski resort in Norway. How this has been "solved" here is that it's always been "boplikt", aka "duty to live", in the residential zones. And then there are separate zones for cabins and rental apartments. So the normal houses, someone has to live in, or you will get fined. You can't just buy a normal house and use it as a cabin or for short time rental.<p>This creates two markets with different prices. A similar sized "cabin property" is probably 3-4x as expensive as the same house on a boplikt-property. But this has kept locals from being prized out.<p>(I write "solved", as it's not easy to just move to the small city and find somewhere to live, but that's not really because of airbnb like situations. It's more that no one dares to build housing hoping someone will move here, and possibly have it unsold for ages)
When I was living in Dublin Ireland, I was paying 1500 EUR a month for a one bedroom appartment, nothing special but expensive, the landlord say he was not going to renew the contract because he was going to change it to an AirBnB.<p>I met him a few months later and he was telling me he was making over 4000 a month. I can't blame the landlords in this case.. It's obviously the better option for them, even as the article suggests, the landlords can afford to have the locations close during the `off-season` because there is so much money to be made.<p>Some regulation around the pricing would be nice, but I have no idea how you would even navigate doing that.
We stayed in Aviemore (Scotland) last year and the local businesses were really struggling for staff. We were told that there was very little accomodation for seasonal staff, because it was more lucrative to rent it out to tourists. So you can go stay in Aviemore, but good luck finding anywhere to eat your dinner.
I wish AirBNB would leave Australia.<p>Even better would be house sharing either banned or severely restricted.<p>It is ruining our society, making renting impossible in some towns, driving up house prices, pushing society towards "houses for the rich, nothing for everyone else".<p>I'd really like to give a big middle finger to AirBNB.
OMG I know a girl who went through exactly this. She signed a 1 year lease on an apartment in a ski town, then a few months in out of nowhere, her landlady was kicking her out. Why? Landlord decided to Airbnb the place for a month to make twice the profit. And she had signed a lease! This was a town in France, and so it's affecting places around the world.
Denmark has limited it to 70 with ability to increase to 100 days for private renters. <a href="https://hostminded.com/denmark-new-airbnb-regulations/" rel="nofollow">https://hostminded.com/denmark-new-airbnb-regulations/</a>
House and food should be treated completely differently then other non-essential goods like entertainment and electronics.<p>Destroy housing -> destroy people's future and family creation.<p>Air b&b is cancer for people trying to start families as it destroys all local affordable housing.
For a start, I'd like to immediately outlaw short-term rentals (outside of traditional regulated hotels, etc.).<p>Then we need to end institutional and foreign investors ownership of single-family and few-unit homes. (I don't mean this as a "wouldn't it be great if someday, but we're never going to do it", but I think the housing crisis some places warrants state legislative efforts <i>this year</i>, requiring immediate halt to new purchases, and liquidation within 12 months.)<p>We might first have to outlaw campaign contributions.
I just visited Venice. The old city does not really have any economy <i>outside</i> tourism. There is a naval academy at one of the outer islands, but that is it. The rest of the old city is just one big tourist trap, end of story. All everyday activity moved to the mainland (Mestre). What an end to an ancient merchant republic - selling themselves.<p>Maybe this is an unescapable consequence of globalization and specialization. We have grown accustomed to the facts that the best microchips are made in Taiwan and the most influential software corporations reside in Silicon Valley. Perhaps some cities are destined to be tourist traps and nothing else. Many people want to visit Prague, Florence or Mecca; no one wants to go to Gary, Indiana.<p>Remember: the global tourist class is destined to <i>grow</i>. As numerous Asian nations are slowly (or faster) climbing towards the developed status (India, Bangladesh, Indonesia etc.), the # of people who want to travel and have the means to do so will rise enormously.<p>15 million people visit Rome yearly - now. It might be 50 million in 2050.<p>Edit: this comment attracted at least two downvotes. I am not too salty about it, but I would like to know why you think I am <i>misinformed</i>/<i>wrong</i>. Don't just downvote - argue, please.<p>I don't particularly like human mobs in tiny medieval streets either, but I believe the global trend does not depend on what I like or not.
From an economic point of view, the situation is very inefficient - holiday homes lie empty while locals struggle to find vacant places to live. Anyone care to propose an "economist's" solution to the problem?
Even as these are tourist destinations with natural or historical beauty, the local decision makers should still allow for building new homes. Not necessary right at the historical town center, but within 30 minutes walking or biking distance. When demand is high, you should allow to build more supply.
At what point did anyone at Airbnb what economic effects this would have, before proceeding anyway?<p>Was it in the first hours that the idea was conceived? When it started to take off? Not until they were projecting growth at those levels?
Honest and simple question: Have they just tried to build more?<p>Who would benefit from people not building more? Who's pushing for regulations against building more supply?
Please everyone, not everyone travels as a tourist. I’m always traveling for work and yes, I do prefer living like a normal person in a normal apartment.
Popular opinion: I wanna live in a tourist hotspot! Nice weather, beautiful scenery, exciting sites, etc.<p>Unpopular opinion: A lot of other people want to experience that too! Perhaps the best thing is to rent/share those prime locations, so a lot of people can enjoy them.<p>Fighting against people visiting is rent-seeking of a different kind.
I recently released <a href="https://stay100.app" rel="nofollow">https://stay100.app</a> - an AirBnB search engine for large screens.<p>Let me know what you think.
I don't really see why people are entitled to live in the most desirable places just because their parents happened to live there. Why should I be banned from visiting so that some rich lineage gets to continue to expand their portfolio?