Lets say I have a condo in a nice location and I also have another place to live. I have these choices:
1. I can sell the condo
2. I can become a landlord and rent the condo
3 Or if AirBnb is a choice, I can list the condo and let short term visitors stay and charge more than the monthly rent.
It seems to me that this situation will be market limiting. I will do what seems to be the highest and best use of my property and take into consideration how much work I have to do. For example the AirBnb may be the most lucrative but I may have to do a lot of cleaning and laundry every time a guest leaves.
Why would the City government want to disturb this arrangement? How much are the local hotels paying the city government for the ability to snuff out option 3?
How will the city know whether this condo is a regular rental unit or not? Do they find out because I rented it for a while and now want to use AirBn? That seems pretty cruel. This would mean that when you find yourself with a piece of real property, the next thing you do may commit you to a policy that can never be changed. Ug. Sorta like rent control.
As for the traffic, it would seem that any option that results in people at the condo will result in traffic. I cannot see that using rentals for local tourism would impact the traffic at the condo any more than would a tenant. Am I missing something?
The city/state government want their rooms & meals tax.
I think many AirBnB properties do not pay tax on their rental income. Therefore, it is cutting into the governments piece of the action. This is why.
Some condos associations don’t allow it———better check the condo docs first.
.
AirBnb is big business now. People buy multiple properties solely to rent them out on AirBnB. That is a hotel and not a private residence. Regulation is inevitable here, IMO.