• kristina [she/her]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    obviously there should be limits on how many things / what places should be allowed to be rentals or whatever. but the fact that they are rentals for temp housing would never change. people like to visit nice places, but like to live where their family is. that wont change. and in some cases having a high permanent population in the nice place is actually detrimental to making the nice place nice

    but i really dont think theyre worse than forcing someone to rent full time in a place inherently. i should also mention that china and cuba use rentals like this for poverty alleviation by handing it off to a commune or groups of families. so in a way it can be used to the benefit to the local populace if you make certain groups the 'landlord' of the temp housing

      • kristina [she/her]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        i mean yeah most hotels in those areas are actually condos owned by individuals. some are big name and all rooms are owned by a corporation. obviously turning a normal house into one with say an airbnb is far worse than a condo or something built expressly for tourism