because supply and demand matter, and units that are AirBnB'ed are taken off the market for long term rentals, leading to rents for locals rising higher than trend. Even given that in the perfect economy construction would keep up with demand, there is a ~5-10 year lag between demand signal and correction in construction (prices rise, new construction breaks ground, new construction opens, new constructions absorbs marginal demand, filtering from less expensive units to more expensive units, rent prices stabilize/decrease). 5-10 years is a sizeable chunk of my life and I would strongly prefer to not have a 5-10 year chunk of my life with elevated rents due to airbnb listings.
You're missing the forest for the trees here. AirBnB only makes problems because we're all forced to work in designated commercial zones, and they "subverted" zoning laws.
Now we're "subverting" zoning laws by allowing people to work from rural areas or wherever. People can then use market pressures to live wherever is cheapest and has the amenities they want! That will decrease demand for hot cities and should make it easier to live in them.
Of course, that is presuming that our current demand craze has anything to do with residency at all, and isn't being driven by corporations like Blackstone buying up properties as investments, and Russian/Chinese oligarchs buying properties as wealth shelters. Funny how the Canadian market has suddenly chilled a little since the government banned foreign buyers. Must be a coincidence.
Apply this logic of maintaining the status quo historically. Imagine someone creates something to do (Y) with good X. Price of good X goes up due to increase demand. Consumers of good X lobby that this is bad and there should be laws to prevent good X to be used for Y.
Also why are you optimizing for lower rents (as long as they are not AirBNB short term rentals)? What about the homeowners who benefit from having more things they can do with their property? Or the people that are coming to stay short term?
> Also why are you optimizing for lower rents... What about the homeowners who benefit from having more things they can do with their property?
Because basic shelter is WAY lower on the hierarchy of needs than rental income, and shelter is not a need that the US is adequately meeting even for its middle class.
If you think the US should be doing more the shelter people without adequate shelter it should do so directly. Creating market distortions that purposely reduces the value of property and discourages production of the good is not the way to go. That would be like banning expensive restaurants because they're running up rent on inexpensive restaurants and soup kitchens. After all, desert is way lower on the hierarchy of needs than basic sustenance and food is not a need that the US is adequately meeting even for its middle class
What kind of actions are you considering that do not affect the market? Government housing affects the market by creating artificial supply. Regulations affect the market. just about anything that the government does will affect the market.
If you believe that housing is a basic right and everyone should be housed, then relying on supply and demand is not going to work. There's nothing inherent about a market that would house everyone, if anything, a market would reach an equilibrium where supply meets demand at some point where some people are not able to afford the supply and suppliers do not have an incentive/are unable to meet the price point of the remaining demand.
> Creating market distortions that purposely reduces the value of property and discourages production of the good is not the way to go.
Zoning laws already create market distortions. A zoning law that prevents building denser residential property is no more or less distortionary than a policy that prohibits short-term rentals.
Also, reducing the future expected value of property does not discourage builders; they only care about the sale price today (or, today + build time).
> That would be like banning expensive restaurants because they're running up rent on inexpensive restaurants and soup kitchens.
Restaurants are also far higher on the hierarchy of needs than shelter.
We do distort the market in favor of soup kitchens -- they have substantial tax benefits and in many places they can operate out of differently zoned property.
