Airbnb can’t go on unregulated – it does too much damage to cities
The problem with AirBnB is not AirBnB. It&#x27;s hotel regulation.<p>What ABnB has demonstrated is that there is a vastly underserved market for regular travellers, who have no interest in &#x27;having their sheets changed every day&#x27; - rather, they just want a decent and convenient space - and they can&#x27;t afford the $250&#x2F;night for a boring room &#x27;corporate&#x27; rate.<p>If hotels and their regulations were efficient - then AirBnB would only be used what is was kind of meant for: either sharing&#x2F;hosting - or - renting out fairly &#x27;special&#x27; places that just don&#x27;t fit regular criteria.<p>Most AirBnB stays are a matter of price and convenience.<p>The fact that I can stay in cities, in a decent place for less than 1&#x2F;2 the cost of a hotel is what makes me hate AirBnB less than hotels and city regulators.<p>Something is deeply wrong with the hotel and regulatory areas there or else AirBnB wouldn&#x27;t be a huge-huge thing.<p>A commenter below about a building that seemed to be AirBnBers ... think for a moment how even <i>more</i> efficient it would be if the whole dam thing were just a hotel, with a maid staff that only cleaned and changed the sheets between stays and could provide keys&#x2F;keycodes. As it stands, even AirBnB is not near real &#x27;cost efficiency&#x27; because there&#x27;s so much &#x27;little overhead&#x27; with each rental.<p>Not only should that building be a hotel but it should be <i>cheaper</i> than AirBnB! In fact, if markets were reasonably competitive AirBnB should generally be more expensive.<p>I understand that individual patrons don&#x27;t have nearly the safety and regulatory expenses ... but it doesn&#x27;t add up.<p>City regulators and hotel operators need to figure out a slightly different model.