First, crime has been falling in American cities almost monotonically since the 1980's, aside from a slight uptick in the last several years as a result of the recession.

Second, nobody thinks that Section 8 doesn't increase crime in nicer neighborhoods. The rationale is that spreading out the poor families via Section 8 reduces overall crime in the city versus concentrating them into the projects.

I used to live in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in Chicago, and many of the surrounding high-rises took Section 8 residents. While I'm sure they raised property crime slightly in the area, I think most people preferred that state of affairs to having the Cabrini-Green projects next door.

  they raised property crime slightly

The article shows that they increased the murder rate substantially. Moreover, most people would prefer to have 10 murderers focusing their attentions on each other than having them next door. A spatially localized Cabrini Green which you can avoid is far superior to one that you cannot, especially when it is your tax dollars that are being used against your will to create this dangerous situation. By contrast, AirBnB is not forcing you to pay the rent for the hipsters boarded in your neighbor's domicile.

  nobody thinks that Section 8 doesn't increase crime in 
  nicer neighborhoods

OK. So we agree that official United States government policy increased crime in nicer neighborhoods and that nobody thinks differently. And we probably agree that murders are considerably more serious than any of the hypothetical harms caused by apartment rentals, especially given the statistical evidence for a direct causal effect of government policy presented in the article.

So: given that it is still official US government policy to increase the murder rate in middle class neighborhoods (Section 8's budget was raised to $19B in 2011), exactly why should anyone believe other government housing regulations would promote the common welfare?

The article doesn't show shit. It completely ignores the fact that murders in large cities hit record lows right before the recession, even though such cities are the heaviest users of Section 8.

As for mid-size cities? Look at the cities on that list and see what happened to their Hispanic immigrant profile over the last two decades. The article makes no attempt to factor out that phenomenon.

Section 8 is a solution to a problem that has no good solution. Segregation is worse--it destroys economic development in the ghettos and its not like those people can't go up to the nice neighborhoods. Moreover, it's not like people who live in Chicago want to take the suburb route and move to the suburbs, separated by distance so the poor minorities can't reach them.

I gave you an upvote for the interesting and unique stat. You're probably getting downvoted for almost paranoid conclusion you add after.

Like I said, the law isn't anyone's idea of a good first option. The law is where you go when talking to your neighbors has turned out to be useless, the lawbreaking is obvious, and the damage is great enough that you need to coerce someone into stopping. Also want to be fair here, - in general, I would not expect airbnb rentals to lead to this kind of dispute very often.

But the gov't wouldn't be interceding in the minutiae of a dispute between neighbors here, they'd be creating and enforcing legislation around minimum lease duration, which I think is a much less objectionable role for government.

  But the gov't wouldn't be interceding in the minutiae of a 
  dispute between neighbors here, they'd be creating and 
  enforcing legislation

Every new law makes something that was previously discretionary either compulsory or forbidden. Do you trust the DoJ to enforce these new laws for the benefit of the guy with loud neighbors? Or do you think instead that they will be used to help landlords and hoteliers with deep pockets come up with excuses to chuck tenants and soak internet rental startups?

If you don't want AirBnB rooms nearby, (a) talk to them, (b) talk to your landlord, (c) move, (d) look on a map to see whether AirBnB rooms will be rented nearby.

Most people in SF, NYC, or the Valley don't even know their neighbors. A large NYC apartment is like a hotel anyway, there might be 1-2 faces you'd recognize in the elevator but that's it. These fears have zero stats behind them while the USG moving in murderers next door unfortunately has plenty of statistical backing.

I'm not sure what this has to do with long vs short term rentals, other than that you don't trust the government to do anything. I also see absolutely no reason why supporting regulation of short term rentals somehow commits you to supporting a failed section 8 program, other than that the government is involved in both.

You left out option e) urge your representative in government to limit short term rentals, and once this laws are in place, bring a civil lawsuit or take some other legally coercive measure if your neighbor refuses to comply.

That said, I would prefer to see these laws kept as local as possible, and many communities will be perfectly happy to allow short term rentals, as it will provide them with a new way to profit from their property. I'd agree that if a local district decides to allow AirBnBs to proliferate, and you aren't happy, then you must move - preferably to a place that doesn't allow them. You will accept that restriction in exchange for the benefits you believe it brings you.

Keep in mind, there's a strong undercurrent of libertarianism that supports heavy decentralization rather than zero regulation across the board - you just have to promise not to try to impose your will on the next township over.

  e) urge your representative in government

Well, there are 700,000 people in the average Congressional district. Go ahead and urge, it will do nothing. You need some kind of political megaphone (like a newspaper) to get them to listen.

  I also see absolutely no reason why supporting regulation 
  of short term rentals somehow commits you to supporting a 
  failed section 8 program, other than that the government is 
  involved in both.

The point is: should we trust the same government which is moving in murderers next door to intercede? As for whether the program is failed, no argument there from me, but has "urging your representative" done anything about it?

The idea that new laws will solve a problem is the fundamental fallacy. Who is enforcing the laws? What is their track record on other problems? And so why do you trust them?

Exactly what pommefrites said: this is a city or town zoning issue (or I suppose county for unincorporated areas). And yes, I totally support the rights of local goverment to regulate property usage.

Geebee is correct, the vacation rental issue is real in vacation destinations. Unregulated B&Bs were always an issue, but AirBnB just makes it easier for others to do the same.

Why do you keep ramming Section 8, DoJ, and Congress down our throats? This sort of regulation, if it were to happen, would be done at the state or local level.