People who "come to the city for a couple of weeks" are at best visiting for work or family -- in which case, they can get work to subsidize the housing, or stay with the family they're visiting -- and are at worst tourists who are only visiting the city to have fun.

People's lives should be prioritized over fun affordability. Or work saving a buck when employees visit HQ in person. Or even the affordability of someone choosing to visit family.

The people who live in the city are the people who work there, bleed there, eat there, love there, etc. etc. etc. They are the city. The people who visit are just passing through. Livers should not subsidize visitors.

Vote there. Obviously, laws will (and should) side with voters.

The question of "Why do you think that they should have less rights that people that live in the city full-time?" doesnt really matter. Because the reality is that they have no power/sway over the politicians who are responsible for governing the city.

That's an exaggeration. The alternative to airbnb is not no accommodation, it's better-regulated and therefore more expensive accommodation. Regulations force tourists to bear the costs of their trip (hotel taxes, etc.) and give the city some pricing power to control quantity of tourism.