I hate saying this, but the UK actually had a good set of guidelines for this.
You’re allowed to earn income from the short term rentals up to something like a thousand pounds. So you can rent it out here and there, but you can’t eliminate a local rental unit to rent out to tourists, and you can’t make it so often that it essentially impacts local traffic.
Agreed 100%.
However, I will NEVER use an AirBNB. Too many unknowns and I’m not going down the list of risks here.
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?