These laws seems to curb an efficient market process, which I don't like if true.
Also I think the government loses out on special taxes from Hotel business, but maybe those taxes could also be collected from these B&B type operations? Hotels have no business using the law to fight a competitive threat, in my opinion anyway. Does not seem to make sense to me.
This looks like a classic example of regulatory capture, where the regulator becomes an effective barrier to new entrants to the market.
Factor in the concentrated nature of the hotel industry (fewer of them, more at stake) and you can see why they are motivated and able to put pressure on the bureaucracy.
The whole thing does strike me as morally irresponsible in that a city with a persistent and undealt with homeless problem should not be limiting the availability of housing units until the blatant market failure has been dealt with.
The whole thing does strike me as morally irresponsible in that a city with a persistent and undealt with homeless problem should not be limiting the availability of housing units until the blatant market failure has been dealt with.
Red herring. These people are not inviting the homeless into their homes. They are operating a hotel/B&B without following any registration, safety, health, or tax rules.
It is a related question, there are plenty of people with marginal housing arrangements who live in weekly rate motels for more than half of each year; paying more for housing that would cost them less if they had the economic stability to rent those same rooms by the month. So at the margin, the availability and constraints on the supply of housing units do directly affect some people who are homeless.
The competition is not homeowners. As noted many times by others, the competition is "home owners" who use AirBNB to run undeclared hotels out of their buildings, evading the costs and taxes associated with a declared hotel. This obviously hurts other hotels, who cannot compete with such costs. Over time, this can (but not necessarily will) drive down hotel investment in upgrades and maintenance, making the city less attractive to visitors.
This also hurts renters--rooms that would otherwise be rented out to long-term tenants (monthly or longer) are now instead "rented" out to transient visitors. This decreases the available supply of units to renters, driving up prices across the board.
Also I think the government loses out on special taxes from Hotel business, but maybe those taxes could also be collected from these B&B type operations? Hotels have no business using the law to fight a competitive threat, in my opinion anyway. Does not seem to make sense to me.