For many living next to a constant stream of strangers is undesirable.
Typically we consider those desires morally invalid and not something to be supported. Why is "short term" a morally valid way to characterize the "wrong type of people"?
When you operate on the assumption that people aren't affected by AirBnB rentals in their buildings this is an easy argument. But sometimes people are affected.
Are you unable to see the difference and how that might affect you?
I don't see any difference that matters, nor do I see the underlying moral principle that allows me to distinguish between one and the other. The principle you've stated clearly isn't it, unless you also favor regulating Grindr.
(I'm deliberately choosing Grindr here in order to make my example conflict with left wing mood affiliation.)
Are you willing to admit that this may change the local community dynamics in a negative way for long term residents?
I use Airbnb. I think it's great (from my perspective). However, I understand why some may want to limit it.
I guess I'm just the kind of person who believes that two consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they like in the privacy of their own bedroom.
In many US cities renting out a home is a violation of local zoning code. The government places a large number of restrictions on what you can do on 'your land.'
Simplicio (historical): "In the US the answer is clearly 'yes you can regulate his private business'. In many US cities renting out a home to a negro is a violation of the local zoning code."
Do you see the fallacy of this argument? I'm arguing "should", not "is".
I do. If you go read the historical justification for zoning law in the US (by the way zoning and land use laws were originally intended to keep negroes out rich neighborhoods) they rest on the idea that as long as the government can come up with a "rational basis" that the law would "improve the public welfare" than zoning laws are a legitimate exercise in state police power. This was around the 1920's.
Later you have a concern for civil rights but the courts pretty much ignored the issue of how zoning might impact poor minorities.
There's been some lefty rumbling about maybe modifying the zoning code so that poor minorities can still afford to live in rich areas. Of course the remedies proposed are better zoning laws, not no zoning laws.
My concern is that these land use laws take away yield from capital (ie rent from landowners). The US economy has not been growing very fast lately - I don't think the US can any longer afford the costs of an extensive regulatory state. Locking away the returns to land in exchange for centrally planning all the land uses might make things feel "nice" in the short run but in the long run could impoverish the country.
All the reasons cited in this thread seem pretty bad. I say they are bad because when you apply the same reasons to regulating anything other than AirBnB, suddenly they don't seem like good reasons at all.
The Supreme Court says otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review
In order to justify the New Deal the Court lowered its standard for state infringement of liberty to: "You just need any reason for this law, it doesn't have to be a good one"
When did this become a valid reason to regulate an activity? Can I use this as a reason to regulate other private activities as well? If not, why not?