But that’s the thing, that’s not what these properties are generally here. These are homes bought in cash by developers in neighborhoods occupied by residents. People lived in these homes prior and somebody else would have likely bought and lived in it if they left.

When my wife and I were buying our first house we had two houses taken out from under us because somebody came in with an all cash bid tens of thousands higher than ours. Both are still Airbnb’s.

> These are homes bought in cash by developers in neighborhoods occupied by residents.

This happens because hotel accommodation is generally overpriced. But if you tax the airbnb rentals, it deters profit-minded developers from engaging in this practice, while still allowing it as a last resort for homes that cannot be rented long-term and would otherwise sit empty.

Maybe in theory but that’s not what happened here at the end of the day. That’s the entire issue. This type of construction and renovation is bad for housing. My city’s story is very common - it was especially in the 2010’s.

House-Hotels managed by companies based in other states (sometimes even other countries!) don’t belong in residential neighborhoods. We have zoning for a reason.

> Maybe in theory but that’s not what happened here at the end of the day.

If you mean that levying targeted taxes/fees to mitigate the bad side-effects of STR's has not been tried, I agree of course. I'm not denying that the detrimental side-effects exist.

I think my larger point here is that we can’t say “all construction is good” if we have to have a ton of qualifiers that ignore when it isn’t and/or expect all sorts of parameters and rules that aren’t being implemented. Tons of bad building goes on all the time, and it is reasonable of people to oppose it. Belittling them and accusing them of not understanding basic economics is not fair at all. There are plenty of examples of construction that should be opposed.