It takes what would otherwise be rental units for SF residents off the market and instead provides them to tourists. So my opinion is that yeah, that hurts the residents of the city.
You could make the argument that increasing tourism, or increasing the available footprint of where tourists stay (ie not just downtown where all the hotels are) is beneficial. I would actually love to see legit bed and breakfasts open in many more parts of the city. As it is your hotel choices are basically limited to downtown and Fisherman's Wharf. But I don't think helping tourism in SF should come at the cost of making the city less affordable for residents.
> It takes what would otherwise be rental units for SF residents off the market and instead provides them to tourists. So my opinion is that yeah, that hurts the residents of the city.
By lowering the supply of long-term rentals, it would drive the cost up, which would incentivize the production of more long-term housing.
You could make the argument that increasing tourism, or increasing the available footprint of where tourists stay (ie not just downtown where all the hotels are) is beneficial. I would actually love to see legit bed and breakfasts open in many more parts of the city. As it is your hotel choices are basically limited to downtown and Fisherman's Wharf. But I don't think helping tourism in SF should come at the cost of making the city less affordable for residents.