No, because it's zoned for being a hotel. What's happening with AirBnB is completely different as you're having people (1) buy up existing housing to convert it to AirBnB and (2) it's not zoned for tourists. Believe it or not, tourists are considered in city planning, and that's why they have special zoning laws for hotels and hostels. What's happening is tourists now feel they have the right to 'live as a local', and that eats up the housing supply the locals would use, which is zoned for residential use. Thus forcing the locals out. To suggest hostels/hotels suffer from the same issues is to ignore the fact that they're often planned into the city to accommodate tourists, whereas residential housing is, well, for residents.

Couldn't you say that city planners are to blame for not providing enough supply to meet the demand?

Also, I wonder if maybe lots of people don't like existing hotels for some reason?

It seems the locals get forced out wherever demand vastly exceeds supply, like in the beach town where I used to live, where so many people want to visit and there just isn't enough housing/hotels for them. The locals are opposed to more housing, so inevitably prices goes up and they eventually turn into weekly rentals.

> Couldn't you say that city planners are to blame for not providing enough supply to meet the demand?

But there often is enough supply to meet the demand. The issue is tourists feeling entitled to living in a house, not the fact that all hotels are 100% booked all weekend.

> Also, I wonder if maybe lots of people don't like existing hotels for some reason?

I'm sure that's it, honestly. But when you're traveling away from home, well, don't expect to have a home waiting for you. That's the entitlement.

> It seems the locals get forced out wherever demand vastly exceeds supply, like in the beach town where I used to live, where so many people want to visit and there just isn't enough housing/hotels for them.

Or, just stop short-term rentals. Then the demand wouldn't exceed the supply (at least by the same margin). Or have specific areas designated for them (which most do, and which AirBnB conveniently ignores)

> The locals are opposed to more housing, so inevitably prices goes up and they eventually turn into weekly rentals.

I mean, I can understand why the locals would be opposed to more when there's enough for their demand, it's just the entitled tourists coming in and taking over things that makes it an issue.

That said, there are some fundamental differences with beach condos and mountain cabins (usually built to be rent out, not for locals) as opposed to what goes on in most AirBnB situations (built for residential, then moved away). The former two are generally considered in city planning, whereas people taking over residential neighborhoods is not.

Why do the locals feel entitled to housing over non-locals? Sounds like a lot of entitlement, which goes both ways.

The issue is that locals feel entitled to corral scary outsiders into certain zones, which is a high level of entitlement that exacerbates the problem.

When you realize your argument just boils down to xenophobia and "outsiders bad" it mostly falls apart. Locals don't get special rights because they're locals.

> Why do the locals feel entitled to housing over non-locals? Sounds like a lot of entitlement, which goes both ways.

I mean, if you don't believe that the people who actually reside, work and live their lives permanently in an area are more deserving of the housing in that area than people who come maybe once a year for a week, then we'll never agree.

> The issue is that locals feel entitled to corral scary outsiders into certain zones, which is a high level of entitlement that exacerbates the problem.

> When you realize your argument just boils down to xenophobia and "outsiders bad" it mostly falls apart. Locals don't get special rights because they're locals.

Nobody said anything about 'scary outsiders', or xenophobia. I'm not advocating for the abolition of tourism. I'm saying tourism shouldn't come at the expense of the people who literally live and work and provide the amenities those tourists so desire when they visit. And AirBnB facilitates all of this. Locals absolutely should get special rights, especially in terms of housing, when they're the ones who will still be there after the tourists have left. The fact that you try to make this an argument about me being xenophobic or saying 'outsiders bad' shows you're not arguing in good faith.

> I mean, if you don't believe that the people who actually reside, work and live their lives permanently in an area are more deserving

An area like the beach is an interesting. Do the limited set of people who happened to move there first get to exclude everyone else from a limited desirable natural resource?

Or what about a city that incentivizes job creation but doesn't allow more housing to be built?

>I'm saying tourism shouldn't come at the expense of the people who literally live and work and provide the amenities those tourists so desire when they visit

No one is forcing locals to provide those amenities - they're taking them in exchange for the dollars they so desire from the tourists who visit. Locals are free to deny all tourist dollars and turn down money for Airbnbs in exchange for renting it cheaper to other locals.

But they feel entitled to tourist dollars for some reason, without having to put up with tourists. Can't have it both ways, no matter how "special" you feel.