>And short term renters tend to spend more per day than long-term residents, so they probably contribute significantly more to the city's tax base.

Per day costs, sure. But if you add recurring payments, don't think they are outspending it. Also, you are ignoring the entire point to begin with. A City should look after it's long term residents first and foremost. Unless you want it to eventually become a ghost city.

I haven't seen any evidence that long-term residents contribute more to the tax base per capita. The spending differential between short term and long term renters is so large that it seems not just plausible, but likely, that the former contribute more on balance.

>>A City should look after it's long term residents first and foremost.

I don't see why it should. A city should look after those within its boundaries, whether they're there for a day or a year. It shouldn't set up walls and promote long term residence over visits.

> A city should look after those within its boundaries, whether they're there for a day or a year. It shouldn't set up walls and promote long term residence over visits.

So a citizen of a country and a visitor of the country should get equal rights and opportunities as well?

Rights? Absolutely. Surely you don't dispute that? Inalienable rights, endowed by creation and not by citizenship, are a cornerstone of the western tradition of liberty. I think it's racist and totalitarian to suggest walking that back.

Opportunities? Yeah, although that's not the case now, I'm ready for a world where people have the same opportunities regardless of the text on their passport.