Hey, this is not actually what we are saying. Here is what we are saying. The vast majority of people in these cities (~85-90%) are renting the homes that they live in (also know as their primary dwelling) - either a living room, bedroom, or their whole home when they are gone. 60% of them depend on the money they make to pay their rent or mortgage - this according to the surveys we have done for our economic impact studies. These people were living in these homes before Airbnb, so they had a choice to either move out and find a cheaper place (presumably in a different neighborhood or out of the city) since they cannot afford the vacant space, or put it on Airbnb. Many of these people are self employed or under employed. A classic example are artists. This was my story when I moved to San Francisco. If these people moved out, the likely new tenants would be people who could afford to move in without renting on Airbnb. Now, of course some people could move in with the intention of renting on Airbnb. We are not saying this never happens. What we are saying is that more people are using Airbnb to keep their homes than using it as means of displacing people. The property manager issue is a real problem that we are dealing with.
By increasing the value of extra rooms and allowing people to monetize their vacancies, AirBNB necessarily increases the demand for rooms and the ability of people to pay more rent. This must push up rent. It is impossible for it not to.
Laws restricting short term rentals may partially be to protect the hotel industry, but they are also to encourage the environment and pricing necessary for longer term residency.
There are widespread stories, including some friends of mine, of people running large networks of properties leased expressly for subleasing on AirBNB. This reduces the supply of housing units substantially, and increases their prices. AirBNB needs to actively limit such usage in order to be defensible. Right now AirBNB rewards users who are obviously abusing the system and violating the law.
If your studies were conclusive, I'd expect you to release actual data instead of whitewashed PR like this.
