Interesting. I agree with most of what you said. AirBnB is relatively new, laws have not yet been efficiently enforced, so some costs are being offset on neighbours/cities.
But I'm not convinced that a) the costs are currently so bad it requires market restrictions on AirBnB-style units and b) this a problem that the courts, cities and property owners can't handle on their own - by adapting to change.
Whereas the incentives to add restrictions on the basis of protecting existing industry incumbents are very clear.
^ That motivation which so often dictates modern government policy is the basis of my villainization. Once again I see the opportunity for real economic/social benefit via technology and opportunities to address this without restricting technology or markets (such as an evolution in property law and defence).
Instead I see a government rushing to add new policy, without a clear indicator that they are being representative of the best interests of their citizens ... or even themselves.
This same narrative has repeatedly recurred a hundred times in the tech scene (copyright, wiretapping, unlocking phones, etc). As long as the state refuses to even attempt to evolve along with technological change and takes the market incumbents interests first, then you'll keep seeing these posts.