But, if affordability really is your top goal, you'll do even better if you go with a hotel that offers kitchenette suites. In my experience, they typically offer a lower nightly fee than having an airbnb to yourself (especially if you are staying at least a week and don't require someone else to come make your bed for you ever day), and still let you save on meal costs.

(Airbnbing a room out of someone's house is even less expensive, but I don't think that style of airbnb rental is really the subject of much controversy.)

I've also seen articles about how tourism is destroying cities, destroying the environment, etc.

Meanwhile, an upside to the current pandemic is a massive drop in pollution so extreme it's visible on satellite imagery.

I am reluctant to agree that optimizing for the right of "ordinary people" to pursue jet set lifestyles is really in the best interest of humanity.

I'm happy to let people travel. But "Let's ruin the planet for touristy shit and claim it to be some egalitarian ideal to open that path to less rich people so they can join in on that" is not really a value that strikes me as belonging in the wise and idealistic column.

Mayhap we can find something better if we put a little effort into it.

Absolutely not something I'm advocating. I talk a lot about housing issues. I think it can be solved without making landlords into the victims here.

That's a long conversation I don't really want to have at the moment. This comment might cast a little light on it:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22589980

In a "fair" world, property would appreciate at the inflation rate. No more, no less. It's also not fair to help people make money on property at the expense of the poor and the younger generations. So where does that leave us?

Also, I had no car. Hotels always had some eateries and the like in walking distance. If an Airbnb is basically in the middle of fuck nowhere with no amenities nearby, it does you no good if you have no car and very limited funds.

I stayed a lot in two hotels in Fresno. One had a Chipotle, McDonald's, two restaurants and a 7-11 right on top of it and the bus stop was also practically right on top of it. There was more shopping about a 15 or 20 minute walk away.

The other had a Taco Bell practically up against it and more stuff a few minutes walk away even though it was in the worst part of town with the fewest amenities. This also meant it cost less than the other one.

Clearly a greater good than, say, having a place to live, no?

You have a point with your first paragraph - it would have been a good place to stop. Until the bigger issue is addressed, optimizing for a hypothetical situation is premature.

Hypothetical? We've seen travel numbers increase significantly over the last decade, and Airbnb now claims a large chunk of that. I think it's important point to remind people why Airbnb exists -- it's a great service with positive benefits. I have stayed in far more Airbnb's than hotels over the last few years, saving money and typically getting a better overall experience.

> Clearly a greater good than, say, having a place to live, no?

This goes back to the first point. Let people build more units. If that doesn't fix the problem, then start evaluating more extreme measures that limit the amount of people that are able to travel to an area at a given time (in the name of making sure people have a place to live.)

To be absolutely clear: you have identified a greater good if and only if your proposed solution for making housing more affordable is implemented successfully.

The post would read almost exactly the same if it addressed your points in the opposite order. Saying it would 'answer' the question as if you're the total arbiter of this is just not true. They're not confused about what you mean, they're disagreeing.

And it's really not a step one, step two situation anyway. Both parts are important at the same time, in different ways.