Airbnb and uber for all their benefits have taken away a lot of urban planning capabilities of local govts. At the same time, they expose the general unwillingness of local govts to accomodate the need of the population or those who bring in economic value (tourists, transplants).
If you are becoming a tourist hub, then create an off-town tourist area and add a convenient transit line/people mover to the central parts of town. Tourists get reasonable housing, locals don't get displaced and the influx of population does not destroy the cultural vibe of your town.
Prohibition never works, and piracy is a reflection of an unmet need. Banning things merely airs out open wounds, and leads to grey-markets such as shady uber/airbnb equivalents within the city. If you want to reduce abortions, banning merely leads to riskier abortions. Examples of this are dime a dozen.
When demand arrives, the cities MUST adjust to incoming demand. Couple examples of working uncomfortable compromises are: 1. Paris - Choose a small district and allow it to go full skyscraper. The rest of the town maintains its architectural identity. 2. Barcelona - Go full superblock. Means that tourist activity gets neatly distributed across the city (removing bottlenecks) and tourists do not lead to increase in car traffic.
I could go on and on, but 1 fundamental truth stays. Bottlenecks only help those who control access to it. The key is to eliminate the bottleneck (more housing). Band-aids (rent-control) or equitable distribution of bottleneck gains (no-renters->only-homeowners/ more single-family-housing) never works. It only leads to the situation festering (see Bay Area / SF), and makes for an even harder problem in the future.
I'm not sure if my comment conveys any cohesive point, but I hope folks get something out of it.
p.s: fuck NIMBYs
If you are becoming a tourist hub, then create an off-town tourist area and add a convenient transit line/people mover to the central parts of town. Tourists get reasonable housing, locals don't get displaced and the influx of population does not destroy the cultural vibe of your town.
Prohibition never works, and piracy is a reflection of an unmet need. Banning things merely airs out open wounds, and leads to grey-markets such as shady uber/airbnb equivalents within the city. If you want to reduce abortions, banning merely leads to riskier abortions. Examples of this are dime a dozen.
When demand arrives, the cities MUST adjust to incoming demand. Couple examples of working uncomfortable compromises are: 1. Paris - Choose a small district and allow it to go full skyscraper. The rest of the town maintains its architectural identity. 2. Barcelona - Go full superblock. Means that tourist activity gets neatly distributed across the city (removing bottlenecks) and tourists do not lead to increase in car traffic.
I could go on and on, but 1 fundamental truth stays. Bottlenecks only help those who control access to it. The key is to eliminate the bottleneck (more housing). Band-aids (rent-control) or equitable distribution of bottleneck gains (no-renters->only-homeowners/ more single-family-housing) never works. It only leads to the situation festering (see Bay Area / SF), and makes for an even harder problem in the future.
I'm not sure if my comment conveys any cohesive point, but I hope folks get something out of it.
p.s: fuck NIMBYs