I absolutely read your link, it was talking about hotel consumers. But I was never concerned about hotel consumers; I was concerned about the effects on everyone else.
Studies into various markets have shown that AirBnB increases rent for residents by converting long term rentals to short term rentals, reducing housing supply. The question is whether or not the increased tourism offsets the damage caused to the housing market. Studies point towards the answer being “no”.
This is not an out there theory on my part; the name for this is the “AirBnB effect”, and searching for that shows articles in Forbes, EPI (linked), the Guardian, The Harvard Business Review, among others.
You absolutely did not, because it very clearly states it's not just about hotel consumers: It's about the welfare effects on hotels, travelers (including those who otherwise wouldn't have been hotel consumers), and hosts [1]. Why do you keep mischaracterizing it?
The EPI thinktank report you linked to simply states the costs outweigh the benefits without any numbers to support that conclusion. This paper, on the other hand, does look at the numbers. I appreciate the reference, however.
Studies into various markets have shown that AirBnB increases rent for residents by converting long term rentals to short term rentals, reducing housing supply. The question is whether or not the increased tourism offsets the damage caused to the housing market. Studies point towards the answer being “no”.
Source: https://www.epi.org/files/pdf/157766.pdf
This is not an out there theory on my part; the name for this is the “AirBnB effect”, and searching for that shows articles in Forbes, EPI (linked), the Guardian, The Harvard Business Review, among others.