Are you implying that tourists/visitors/non-locals should have as much say in local rules/policies/etc as the people that actually own property and live in those locations? If so I 100% disagree. While airbnbs are a less extreme example, look at tourist locations all around the world and how they are being destroyed and local populations are being displaced. The "social contract" SHOULD be biased in favor of people that actually live in and contribute to the area
As much? No. (However, I do strongly believe that locals who rent should have as much say; often their interests are not aligned with those of homeowners.)
I agree that in some cases, such as locations with huge numbers of tourists where local populations are being driven out, drastic measures are required.
In general, personally, I would favor a compromise involving a lot more regulation (e.g. of AirBnBs in apartment buildings) on the one hand, and making it easier to operate hotels on the other. I support homeowners who don't want informal hotels to be operated out of their apartment buildings; less so, homeowners who don't want hotels (whether formal or not) to be opened anywhere nearby.
So you're saying I don't have the right to want those things? That new people coming into that kind of environment should be allowed to, even though there is nearly literally anywhere else in the f-ing world they can go.
I'm not saying you, in particular, are going to bother me, you sound quiet - but why should I give up on upholding the social contracts the neighborhood has established for decades for a rowdy party animals to blast through every weekend?
But, I also believe that new people coming into that kind of environment should be allowed to. People step on each other's toes, and it can be annoying. But I still don't believe that people have the right to keep other people out.
They generally are. But it's not practical to enforce them in a condition of a lot of short-term rentals, where people rotate on a weekly basis. Before AirBnB, that might not have been a problem, but now that's trivially easy to become a pirate hotel anywhere in the world, people are pushing to ban such rentals in residential areas, because it's the only way to make the problem go away.
That's another negative side effect right here. Occasional vacation sublet by a thoughtful homeowner doesn't hurt anybody. But those cases become collateral damage of the effort to fight off AirBnB's pirate hotels.
You could be right. I would like to think that there is some option which would make everyone more-or-less happy, but it could be that I'm being too optimistic.
My neighbours are much more careful at 4am, and each might only leave like this a couple of times a year. An apartment on AirBnB has this pretty much every week.
You don't of course. Anyone shouting at 4am is being exceedingly rude; if there's any social contract in place, then they certainly aren't honoring their end of it.
Under these circumstances, I certainly wouldn't blame you for advocating to your municipal government that they crack down on AirBnBs. I would just hope that that government try to find some way to simultaneously keep the needs of visitors in mind. Maybe there is not a true win-win scenario here, but the status quo doesn't seem to be working well for anyone.
I noticed this particularly in Princeton, NJ. A cute, small, and overly expensive town. Anyway, I was visiting the university on business, and if you stay downtown it is easy to get everywhere without a car.
Except... there are few hotels downtown, and no budget hotels. For those you have to stay near the highway (and hence rent a car).
The "social contract" would require that I view my own presence as a nuisance, even though I was being quiet and going to bed early. I decided that I didn't have any qualms about renting via Airbnb/Craigslist.