[borne0]

So people who simply want to live in a city near to where they work and their children go to school have to be subject to market corrections where a single massively financed pseudo-hotel can massively distort a major cost of living assignment? Ridiculous. This is where common-sense regulation is needed.

[conanbatt]

Why do you call it distortion? Its the opposite: the distortion is having empty properties, hotel taxes and zoning.

You make a weird argument: you mention the people that work in the city and want to live near it, and this argument has at least 2 flaws. The first one is that in a numbers game, the people that lose out on this exchange is a much smaller number than all the rest. That is, a small proportion of people see their conditions relatively worse because of how a third party does with their property. IF you put it up to a vote of all people involved, they would lose out big time.

The second is that you dont take into consideration that airbnb has made it cheaper and easier to travel for people of that socio-economic status as well. Its not only hipsters and software engineers that user airbnb. You have to weigh in the benefit of the consumer.

[borne0]

Your argument is absurd, the first sentence gives it away 'empty properties'. Vancouver has no empty properties.