Proponents of the new measures argue that the current legal framework is fundamentally unfair to property owners who act in good faith. By allowing individuals to exploit a loophole in short-term rental contracts, the system effectively rewards those who breach their agreements and refuse to vacate. Supporters emphasize that a property owner’s right to their home should not be undermined by a technicality that treats a temporary tourist as a protected tenant.
For many hosts, the financial and emotional toll of a prolonged legal battle is unsustainable. When an occupant refuses to leave, the owner loses rental income and often incurs significant legal fees, all while being unable to access their own property. Advocates for the reform argue that the state has a duty to provide a clear, efficient path for eviction in these cases, as the current reliance on civil courts is too slow to address what is essentially a violation of property ownership.
Furthermore, supporters believe that closing this loophole will strengthen the overall housing market. If owners fear that they cannot easily recover their property, they may be less likely to offer their homes for short-term rental, potentially reducing the supply of available tourist accommodation. By providing a swifter mechanism for eviction, the government can ensure that the rental market remains a viable and secure option for both hosts and legitimate travelers.
Ultimately, this is a matter of restoring balance. The law should protect those who are vulnerable, but it should not be used as a shield for individuals who intentionally overstay their welcome. Strengthening the rules will provide the clarity needed to prevent abuse and ensure that property rights are respected across the country.