On the other hand, Barcelona has suffered from tourism for a long time. Barceloneta (neighborhood right next to the beach) is a famous example of this where families who lived there for a very long time been driven out of their neighborhood, solely because of AirBnb and their like. Hotels were already regulated but when AirBnb appeared, regular folks started kicking people by raising the rents, then converting it to short-term rentals.

So, while AirBnb is both good and bad, I prefer to value native peoples ability to live in their places, rather than helping the rental market, that was just already stretched when AirBnb arrived.

So what’s the criteria for getting to live by the beach then? Is “I was here for a long time but didn’t want to buy anything” a valid reason?

In line with rest of the human history, the criteria will be set by the ones holding the most power in that region. In this age, it would be the Barcelona government. And if it is like other western governments, it will be a tussle between moneyed interests and populist sentiments.

I get the sense that a better solution would be to make home ownership as simple as renting. A few ideas:

- One page contract

- Ban loans for private home ownership (or socialize them but you would have to do that in a a very particular manner)

- No property taxes for up to two homes

I am genuinely curious to understand what you mean by “make home ownership as simple as renting” as I can see both ways that it is, and I can see ways that it is far more complex with good reasons, so I’m curious to understand your perspective here. I’m also curious your reasoning for banning loans for private home ownership and how you would make up the difference in services in the absence of property tax revenue (as in my area, property taxes pretty much go directly to schools, police, and fire).

I think the first idea alone would be highly beneficial. If someone could read one page and actually understand what they are getting into.

Maybe an additional required indicator on that page of “is purchasing this home a good financial decision for the purchaser given their income” on a scale from 0-10.

Just a month ago I saw a coworker get screwed financially on a home purchase. And now with a recession knocking on the door, oof.

As I look at home purchase contracts every day, to me they are really simple - in most states, they are a standardized fill-in-the-blank form. So is it the contract or the mortgage docs that are concerning here?

I’m curious to better understand your co-workers situation as well - was it a case if overextending themselves or caveat emptor on some part of the transaction?

solution: a recently renoed house can be airbnb'ed, but after two years it has to be rented?

Good for the owners to be precise.

* A lot of properties that might have previously been purchased and renovated by investors sit idle because the investors can't turn them into short-term rentals.*

This is a good thing. Because it means that the properties can be occupied by people actually living there.

We have a lot of cottages / really small properties here, that are good short-term rentals but not great regular rentals. so basically a lot of garbage rentals came available that did nothing to actually help our rental market.

Cottages are great rentals. They may not fit your needs, but in large cities, there will definitely be thousands or hundreds of people for who cottages are the perfect fit.

Most of what you describe is actually good for the rental market for the people actually living and working in the community.

The hotels knew they now had a more captive market than previously.

Hotels cannot "capture" the market. They are dependent on tourists coming in to the town, and that means that other parts of the town must provide a reason to visit. Right now, hotels are bleeding money.

You took my comments about my local market and twisted them to fit your argument about other markets. I assure you, the reduction in short-term rentals in my local market has not had the expected outcome. Source: I am both a landlord and a real estate agent in my local market. Likewise, look up the term “regulatory capture” if you want to understand what the hotels did here. Making a corona virus argument at this moment in time does not justify the actions taken by those hotels and city council 18 months ago.

What was the expected outcome, and what has ended up happening in your local market? Are people buying homes and just letting them sit vacant?

The expectation was that Airbnb type properties would become available as long term rentals, and fewer people would turn dwelling into short-term rentals. But, those houses that were already in use for Airbnb remained so, and many houses in need of renovation that might have otherwise become rentals (long or short) instead sit dilapidated. Those cottages I mentioned end up difficult to move on the real estate market because they are just too small for most people’s needs - again, great for a weekend stay, not so great as ongoing living places. Our local market is a more “traditional” market than say California or what’s happened to Seattle and Vancouver, so of course our experience is going to be different.

> those houses that were already in use for Airbnb remained so

the lesson there is not to grandfather privileges if you want to actually fix something.

> Hotels cannot "capture" the market.

This happens all of the time. They frequently lobby cities to push out other short term rental options that they have difficulty competing with, which leads to regulatory capture.