Short-Term Rentals and Housing Affordability: What the Data Actually Shows
Over the next two weeks, NASTRA is going to take a close look at a new, data-heavy policy study that cuts through a lot of the noise surrounding short-term rentals and housing affordability.
The report, Short-term rental regulations: Principles, Pitfalls and Practical reforms, was released in January 2026 and synthesizes more than a decade of academic research, real-world regulatory outcomes, and post-crackdown market data across the U.S. and abroad. It is not an opinion piece and it is not written for hosts. It is written for policymakers — and that’s exactly why it’s worth paying attention to.
The core question the study examines is one NASTRA members hear constantly:
Are short-term rentals a meaningful driver of housing unaffordability?
The short answer, backed by extensive data, is no. The longer answer — and the reason this study matters — is more nuanced and more useful.
What the research actually shows
Early research during Airbnb’s initial growth phase (roughly 2012–2016) did find a measurable relationship between STR expansion and housing prices in some high-demand markets. One widely cited national study found that a 1% increase in Airbnb listings was associated with a roughly 0.02% increase in rents and home prices during that early adoption period.
Those figures have been repeated endlessly in public hearings and media coverage. What’s often left out is what happened next.
As STR markets matured and more comprehensive data became available, later studies found that the marginal impact of additional STR listings declined sharply. In other words, the strongest effects occurred during the initial market shock, when STRs were new and housing supply was especially constrained. Once markets stabilized, the relationship weakened and became highly localized.
A large county-level study examined what happened when STR regulations cut listings by roughly half across multiple jurisdictions. The result: rents and home prices fell by about 2%. Not zero — but modest, especially relative to the scale of the restrictions.
That same pattern appears repeatedly. Jurisdictions that removed 50–90% of STR supply consistently saw only minor or negligible changes in rents and housing availability, while broader affordability pressures remained unchanged or worsened.
Real-world crackdowns, real-world outcomes
New York City provides one of the clearest real-world tests. After the city implemented strict STR enforcement, legal STR listings fell by roughly 80–90%. If STRs were a primary driver of housing affordability, this should have produced visible relief.
It didn’t.
Vacancy rates remained critically low, hovering near full occupancy, and rents continued rising year over year.
Manhattan’s average one-bedroom rent climbed to record levels, with two-bedroom rents approaching price points that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. The city successfully eliminated STR supply — but the housing crisis remained firmly intact.
Similar outcomes were observed in South Lake Tahoe, where a near-total STR ban went into effect in 2018. Years later, housing prices had risen sharply, and the long-term rental market remained extremely tight. Former STR units largely shifted into second-home ownership rather than becoming long-term housing.
The takeaway from these cases is not that STRs have no impact anywhere. It’s that STRs are not a structural driver of housing affordability at the city or regional level.
Localized effects versus systemic causes
One of the most valuable contributions of this report is how clearly it separates localized pressure from systemic causes.
STRs can exert upward pressure in very specific micro-markets — historic cores, tourist hotspots, and neighborhoods where housing supply is both fixed and exceptionally desirable. Outside of those narrow areas, the effects dissipate quickly.
By contrast, the dominant drivers of housing costs are well documented and consistent across markets:
- restrictive zoning
- permitting delays
- density limits
- layered regulatory requirements
- impact fees and compliance costs
Regulation alone accounts for a substantial share of the final cost of new housing, particularly in high-demand areas. These are not marginal factors. They are structural constraints that affect every unit of housing built — or not built — in a community.
Why STRs remain the political focus
If STRs are not the main driver, why do they remain the focus of so much housing policy?
The study offers a blunt but realistic explanation: regulating STRs is politically easier than reforming land-use policy.
Zoning reform, density increases, and permitting streamlining provoke resistance from well-organized, reliable voting blocs. STR restrictions, by contrast, offer a visible action that can be framed as protecting neighborhoods without confronting deeper supply constraints.
The result is policy that appears responsive but delivers limited results — while carrying significant economic consequences that often go unexamined.
What comes next in this series
This first post sets the groundwork. Over the next several blogs, we’ll dig into specific pieces of the report in more detail, including:
- what actually happens after cities crack down on STRs
- who benefits economically from STR restrictions
- how STR income functions for middle-income households
- why resort and tourist markets behave differently
- and what evidence-based, balanced STR regulation actually looks like
The goal isn’t to argue that STRs should be unregulated. It’s to ground the conversation in data, outcomes, and real-world evidence — especially as more jurisdictions revisit or reconsider their policies.
We’ll take those topics one at a time.
Next up: what happened after cities cracked down on STRs — and why the results surprised policymakers.