zlacker

>>voisin+(OP)
Honest question: does this work?

It seems to me that this change will have unintended effects and will fail to produce the desired results.

AFAIK rent in NYC hasn’t gone down since they changed their short-term rental regulations.

I might be naive, but I’d assume that the solution is to build more housing to increase the supply instead of curbing the demand?

Genuinely curious about others’ takes on this.

>>lucasf+f2
Where in Barcelona would you increase density?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/barcelona-pop...

from >>40752920 ("Barcelona has a 16,000 people per square km density - that’s already one of the highest in Europe.")

Capital moves faster than meat space. To defend the human (affordable housing), you have to regulate. The whole "just build more, I want my AirBnB" argument boggles the mind considering the physical system constraints in play. Easier to just ban AirBnB.

>>toomuc+X2
Except there don’t appear to be anywhere near enough airbnbs to put a dent in the rent increase. I’m not saying it won’t do anything; I’m just saying it won’t do much. If you want to lower rents, you’re going to need to find a place to build, and if you can’t find any place, then prices will continue to go up and who will you find to scape goat then?

>>Gimpei+Da
It doesn’t have to do much, it just has to show some net benefit considering the cost to ban is low. Locals receive the consumer excess through reduced housing costs that would’ve otherwise been real estate investor and AirBnB short term rental profits.