> "smart policy solution that works for the the people, not the powerful"
This is so duplicitous. AirBnB is a for profit company. They have zero skin in the game in terms of exposure to and responsibility for lowered quality of life, apartment hoarding, rental increase, etc.
The hotel industry works within the legal framework of my city. And as far as "power" goes, I'm pretty sure the $30B company playing the role of advocate for the weak and people is pretty powerful in its own right.
[& p.s. the hotel industry, afaik, has a pretty small footprint in terms of side effects on the average resident. Further, it provides a natural cap on the tourist flux in the city, which is a certain plus in my opinion.]
The poster was arguing against something that was never said, I was clarifying. Despite what anyone may think about whether or not the hotel industry is "powerful", the article was describing the hotel industry.
That doesn't change because someone lands on a specific side of the argument and feels they have to make an argument about whether or not the hotel industry is actually powerful. None of that is required in order to understand what the article was saying. And indeed, it actively takes away from it by doing shit like spawning this particular tangent.
Is political self interest nobler somehow than economic self interest?
Even if it was, does it make Airbnb wrong? Should people not be able to freely make living arrangements with whom they choose for arbitrary amounts of time?
This is so duplicitous. AirBnB is a for profit company. They have zero skin in the game in terms of exposure to and responsibility for lowered quality of life, apartment hoarding, rental increase, etc.
disclosure: a "New Yorker" since 1989.