Property Managers Italia president on housing myths, hotel lobbying and why stability matters more than restrictionsItaly’s short-term rental market has moved from rapid expansion to regulatory pressure in just a few years. New rules, rising taxes and increasing political scrutiny have reshaped the sector, while public debate often frames platforms like Airbnb as the main cause of the housing crisis.But is that narrative accurate?In this in-depth interview, the president of Property Managers Italia argues that the real issue is not regulation itself, but fragmented and politically driven regulation that lacks a long-term industrial vision. From housing affordability myths to hotel lobbying, he outlines why stability, clarity and professionalisation, not prohibition, will determine the future of the sector. 1) In recent years, regulation of short-term rentals has changed rapidly. What real impact are the new rules having on the sector?In recent years, the sector has shifted from an “expansive and unstructured” phase to one of selection and maturation. As I have written several times, the new rules are not stopping the market. They are raising the bar. The introduction of the national identification code (CIN), mandatory traceability, and increased scrutiny on safety, taxation and reporting to authorities are producing three concrete effects: Greater professionalisation.Those who operate in a structured way are not afraid of regulation. On the contrary, clear rules help distinguish professionals from improvised operators. Gradual exit of borderline operators.Those who were operating without full regulatory awareness or in an opportunistic manner now face greater difficulty. In the medium term, this makes the market healthier. Higher costs and greater managerial complexity.This is the critical point. If bureaucracy becomes excessive, the risk is that compliant operators are penalised without effectively tackling irregular activity. As President of Property Managers Italia, I state this clearly: regulation is not the problem. The problem is regulation written without an industrial vision of the sector. Short-term rentals are no longer marginal. They are a structural component of the tourism and housing supply. What we need are clear, enforceable and nationally uniform rules, not fragmented or symbolic interventions. In summary, the new regulations are transforming the sector, not destroying it. But the direction it takes will depend largely on how willing institutions are to engage with those who work in this field every day. 2) Is there a risk that overly restrictive regulation could penalise professionals and encourage irregular activity?Yes, the risk exists, and it is concrete. If regulation becomes excessively complex, fragmented between municipalities, regions and the state, or designed more to send a political signal than to function effectively, the result can be paradoxical: structured operators comply, while improvised ones move underground. The issue is not having rules. The issue is having rules that fail to distinguish between professional operators and occasional or irregular activity. A professional property manager: invests in staff, training and technology guarantees safety and regulatory compliance pays taxes assumes responsibility towards condominiums and the local community If the regulatory burden becomes disproportionate to the economic scale of the activity, distortions arise: barriers increase for transparent operators without truly addressing abuse. There is also a central issue of regulatory fragmentation. We would have preferred clear and uniform national rules. Instead, we now face regional laws and municipal regulations often pushed to the limits of their competences, generating: legal uncertainty operational difficulties for those working across multiple territories increased compliance costs Legal uncertainty discourages investment. Entrepreneurs invest when the framework is stable. If rules change constantly or are challenged, planning stalls and investment slows. Some measures also appear to result from pressure by stakeholders with business models different from ours. For example: the increase in flat tax from the second property onward the presumption of business activity from the third property the generalised requirement for fire extinguishers even in small studio flats without staff These interventions increase operational obstacles without producing proportionate benefits in safety or service quality. The real effect is reduced supply and greater market concentration. We need balanced, uniform and effectively enforced rules. A transparent professional market does not fear regulation. But a market overloaded with disorganised norms risks becoming less competitive and less attractive to serious investors. 3) Much is said about the “housing emergency” and Airbnb as the main cause. Is that accurate or oversimplified?It is clearly oversimplified. In certain central, high-tourism areas, short-term rentals do affect supply balance. Denying that would be dishonest. But claiming they are the primary cause of the housing crisis ignores broader economic realities. An IRPET study in Tuscany estimated that even if all short-term rentals were returned to the residential market, the impact on total housing supply would be at most around 10%. The effect on long-term rents would therefore be limited, not structural. The core issue in Italy is stagnant wages combined with rising living costs. The housing emergency is largely a purchasing power problem. European comparisons are often forgotten. In cities like Barcelona, London or Paris, where short-term rentals are heavily restricted, long-term rents remain significantly higher than in Florence. If bans were a structural solution, those markets would be more affordable. They are not. This does not mean the sector has no responsibility in delicate contexts, but turning it into the main culprit is reductive. Housing requires systemic policies: increased supply, recovery of unused properties, greater contractual certainty in long-term leases, and income interventions. Focusing solely on short-term rentals risks being more of a political shortcut than a concrete solution. 4) What role is the hotel sector playing in the regulatory debate? Is there a hotel lobby influencing policy decisions?The hotel sector is historically well organised and present in institutional discussions. It is legitimate for it to defend its interests. The question is whether the resulting regulatory framework is truly balanced. For example, in Tuscany, significant limitations were proposed for private short-term rentals, citing housing emergency and overtourism. At the same time, the regional tourism code allows hotels to increase their capacity by up to 40% through the use of apartments. This creates a distortion. If overtourism is structural, it should apply to everyone. If housing emergency is the priority, it should affect the entire hospitality supply consistently. Instead, private owners are restricted while hotel operators are allowed expansion. Organisations such as Federalberghi legitimately engage in advocacy. That is part of democracy. But it is equally legitimate to point out when rules appear to favour one model over another. Regulatory fairness means proportional treatment, not restricting one sector to protect another. 5) How widespread is improvisation in property management today?More widespread than many would admit. The short-term rental boom attracted numerous improvised operators lacking training, structure, regulatory knowledge and awareness of civil and fiscal responsibilities. Managing a short-term rental is not simply “posting an ad.” It requires: knowledge of national, regional and municipal regulations management of safety and mandatory communications consistent quality standards professional pricing seven-day availability for guests and condominiums economic and reputational responsibility Improvisation is not only an economic issue, but a reputational one. Every superficial management case becomes an argument against the entire sector. However, the sector has grown associatively. Representation bodies have emerged, promoting best practices and regulatory awareness. Property Managers Italia was the first national association and has worked on training, best practice sharing and institutional dialogue, helping raise standards across the sector. The market is now undergoing natural selection: more rules, more checks, greater complexity. In the medium term, structured operators with clear processes will remain. That is necessary if property management is to be recognised as a true profession. 6) Are you working on standards, certifications or ethical codes?Yes, concretely. We regularly organise webinars with experts on regulation, taxation and digital tools. Continuous updating is essential. We have also developed a code of conduct covering: respect for condominiums guest management safety and transparency If we want to be recognised as professionals, we must behave as professionals. 7) What is the difference between an owner, a professional property manager and an occasional operator?The difference lies in structure and responsibility. An owner rents their own property and assumes the asset risk. A professional property manager manages on behalf of third parties continuously, with processes, staff, insurance coverage, regulatory expertise and defined responsibilities. An occasional operator works sporadically, often without structured organisation or full awareness of obligations. The issue is not who can do it, but at what level of professionalism it is done. 8) Is investing in short-term rentals still profitable in Italy?Yes, but it has never been simple. It requires: the right property location professional management dynamic pricing cost and review control The market is more selective today. Less favourable taxation on multiple properties, increased obligations and stronger competition have reduced space for improvised operators, not for structured ones. Those managing professionally still achieve attractive returns, often exceeding long-term rentals while carrying lower default risk. The real brake is regulatory uncertainty. Frequent changes and fragmentation discourage long-term investment. Real estate requires stability. The sector remains profitable, but it needs regulatory clarity and continuity. 9) Which areas are emerging beyond Rome, Milan and Florence?Major brand cities like Florence and Venice always had high demand due to international recognition and the need for alternatives to traditional hotels. Today, interesting opportunities are emerging in smaller towns. Many minor centres lack hotels due to insufficient scale, yet have unused housing stock. Short-term rentals activate that supply without major structural investment. This revitalises towns, distributes tourist flows more evenly and promotes lesser-known territories. It is not just about returns. It is also intelligent territorial development when managed properly. 10) Is the sector sustainable long term?It depends on management. In major historic centres, saturation risk exists if supply grows without quality or rules. But it is localised, not national. The market is self-regulating: competition increases mediocre properties lose performance well-managed properties remain Long-term sustainability depends on: quality balance with residential use stable and proportionate rules I do not see a general bubble. I see a maturing, more selective market. 11) How do you see the sector in five to ten years?More mature and selective. Structured operators with clear processes and technological tools will remain. Improvisation will decline. Three likely evolutions: greater professionalisation integration with traditional hospitality growth in smaller territories Stability will determine the pace. But the model is now structural and will not disappear. 12) What dialogue exists between associations and government?Dialogue exists but is not yet structured. It often opens when politically sensitive, then closes. There is insufficient stable technical engagement. Decisions are sometimes ideological rather than data-driven. Short-term rental is legally and economically a real estate contract, not a hotel. Applying hospitality regulations risks reducing flexibility and even harming residential supply. 13) Do you feel heard when regulations are drafted?Partially. We are recognised interlocutors, which is progress. But often involvement comes after frameworks are defined. Rules shaped by media pressure risk misalignment with operational reality. We need less ideology and more data-driven policymaking. 14) What is the most urgent measure you request?First: stability. Rules can be strict, but they cannot change constantly. Real estate investment requires medium- to long-term certainty. Second: simplification. Currently we have fragmented obligations: statistical reporting to ISTAT tourist tax reporting to municipalities Alloggiati Web reporting to the Interior Ministry DAC7 and fiscal obligations to the Revenue Agency Often similar data is sent to different bodies, increasing costs without improving oversight. We need: clear and unified national rules reduced bureaucracy and greater digital integration between authorities Without regulatory stability, capital remains on hold.

Italy’s short-term rental market has moved from rapid expansion to regulatory pressure in just a few years. New rules, rising taxes and increasing political scrutiny have reshaped the sector, while public debate often frames platforms like Airbnb as the main cause of the housing crisis.But is that narrative accurate? In this in-depth interview, the president of Property Managers Italia argues that the real issue is not regulation itself, but fragmented and politically driven regulation that lacks a long-term industrial vision. From housing affordability myths to hotel lobbying, he outlines why stability, clarity and professionalisation, not prohibition, will determine the future of the sector. In recent years, the sector has shifted from an “expansive and unstructured” phase to one of selection and maturation. As I have written several times, the new rules are not stopping the market. They are raising the bar. The introduction of the national identification code (CIN), mandatory traceability, and increased scrutiny on safety, taxation and reporting to authorities are producing three concrete effects: Those who operate in a structured way are not afraid of regulation. On the contrary, clear rules help distinguish professionals from improvised operators. Those who were operating without full regulatory awareness or in an opportunistic manner now face greater difficulty. In the medium term, this makes the market healthier. This is the critical point. If bureaucracy becomes excessive, the risk is that compliant operators are penalised without effectively tackling irregular activity. As President of Property Managers Italia, I state this clearly: regulation is not the problem. The problem is regulation written without an industrial vision of the sector. Short-term rentals are no longer marginal. They are a structural component of the tourism and housing supply. What we need are clear, enforceable and nationally uniform rules, not fragmented or symbolic interventions. In summary, the new regulations are transforming the sector, not destroying it. But the direction it takes will depend largely on how willing institutions are to engage with those who work in this field every day. Yes, the risk exists, and it is concrete. If regulation becomes excessively complex, fragmented between municipalities, regions and the state, or designed more to send a political signal than to function effectively, the result can be paradoxical: structured operators comply, while improvised ones move underground. The issue is not having rules. The issue is having rules that fail to distinguish between professional operators and occasional or irregular activity. A professional property manager:

• invests in staff, training and technology
• guarantees safety and regulatory compliance
• pays taxes
• assumes responsibility towards condominiums and the local community

If the regulatory burden becomes disproportionate to the economic scale of the activity, distortions arise: barriers increase for transparent operators without truly addressing abuse. There is also a central issue of regulatory fragmentation. We would have preferred clear and uniform national rules. Instead, we now face regional laws and municipal regulations often pushed to the limits of their competences, generating:

• legal uncertainty
• operational difficulties for those working across multiple territories
• increased compliance costs

Legal uncertainty discourages investment. Entrepreneurs invest when the framework is stable. If rules change constantly or are challenged, planning stalls and investment slows. Some measures also appear to result from pressure by stakeholders with business models different from ours. For example:

• the increase in flat tax from the second property onward
• the presumption of business activity from the third property
• the generalised requirement for fire extinguishers even in small studio flats without staff

These interventions increase operational obstacles without producing proportionate benefits in safety or service quality. The real effect is reduced supply and greater market concentration. We need balanced, uniform and effectively enforced rules. A transparent professional market does not fear regulation. But a market overloaded with disorganised norms risks becoming less competitive and less attractive to serious investors. It is clearly oversimplified. In certain central, high-tourism areas, short-term rentals do affect supply balance. Denying that would be dishonest. But claiming they are the primary cause of the housing crisis ignores broader economic realities. An IRPET study in Tuscany estimated that even if all short-term rentals were returned to the residential market, the impact on total housing supply would be at most around 10%. The effect on long-term rents would therefore be limited, not structural. The core issue in Italy is stagnant wages combined with rising living costs. The housing emergency is largely a purchasing power problem. European comparisons are often forgotten. In cities like Barcelona, London or Paris, where short-term rentals are heavily restricted, long-term rents remain significantly higher than in Florence. If bans were a structural solution, those markets would be more affordable. They are not. This does not mean the sector has no responsibility in delicate contexts, but turning it into the main culprit is reductive. Housing requires systemic policies: increased supply, recovery of unused properties, greater contractual certainty in long-term leases, and income interventions. Focusing solely on short-term rentals risks being more of a political shortcut than a concrete solution. The hotel sector is historically well organised and present in institutional discussions. It is legitimate for it to defend its interests. The question is whether the resulting regulatory framework is truly balanced. For example, in Tuscany, significant limitations were proposed for private short-term rentals, citing housing emergency and overtourism. At the same time, the regional tourism code allows hotels to increase their capacity by up to 40% through the use of apartments. This creates a distortion. If overtourism is structural, it should apply to everyone. If housing emergency is the priority, it should affect the entire hospitality supply consistently. Instead, private owners are restricted while hotel operators are allowed expansion. Organisations such as Federalberghi legitimately engage in advocacy. That is part of democracy. But it is equally legitimate to point out when rules appear to favour one model over another. Regulatory fairness means proportional treatment, not restricting one sector to protect another. More widespread than many would admit. The short-term rental boom attracted numerous improvised operators lacking training, structure, regulatory knowledge and awareness of civil and fiscal responsibilities. Managing a short-term rental is not simply “posting an ad.” It requires:

• knowledge of national, regional and municipal regulations
• management of safety and mandatory communications
• consistent quality standards
• professional pricing
• seven-day availability for guests and condominiums
• economic and reputational responsibility

Improvisation is not only an economic issue, but a reputational one. Every superficial management case becomes an argument against the entire sector. However, the sector has grown associatively. Representation bodies have emerged, promoting best practices and regulatory awareness. Property Managers Italia was the first national association and has worked on training, best practice sharing and institutional dialogue, helping raise standards across the sector. The market is now undergoing natural selection: more rules, more checks, greater complexity. In the medium term, structured operators with clear processes will remain. That is necessary if property management is to be recognised as a true profession. Yes, concretely. We regularly organise webinars with experts on regulation, taxation and digital tools. Continuous updating is essential. We have also developed a code of conduct covering:

• respect for condominiums
• guest management
• safety and transparency

If we want to be recognised as professionals, we must behave as professionals. The difference lies in structure and responsibility. An owner rents their own property and assumes the asset risk. A professional property manager manages on behalf of third parties continuously, with processes, staff, insurance coverage, regulatory expertise and defined responsibilities. An occasional operator works sporadically, often without structured organisation or full awareness of obligations. The issue is not who can do it, but at what level of professionalism it is done. Yes, but it has never been simple. It requires:

• the right property location
• professional management
• dynamic pricing
• cost and review control

The market is more selective today. Less favourable taxation on multiple properties, increased obligations and stronger competition have reduced space for improvised operators, not for structured ones. Those managing professionally still achieve attractive returns, often exceeding long-term rentals while carrying lower default risk. The real brake is regulatory uncertainty. Frequent changes and fragmentation discourage long-term investment. Real estate requires stability. The sector remains profitable, but it needs regulatory clarity and continuity. Major brand cities like Florence and Venice always had high demand due to international recognition and the need for alternatives to traditional hotels. Today, interesting opportunities are emerging in smaller towns. Many minor centres lack hotels due to insufficient scale, yet have unused housing stock. Short-term rentals activate that supply without major structural investment. This revitalises towns, distributes tourist flows more evenly and promotes lesser-known territories. It is not just about returns. It is also intelligent territorial development when managed properly. It depends on management. In major historic centres, saturation risk exists if supply grows without quality or rules. But it is localised, not national. The market is self-regulating:

• competition increases
• mediocre properties lose performance
• well-managed properties remain

Long-term sustainability depends on:

• quality
• balance with residential use
• stable and proportionate rules

I do not see a general bubble. I see a maturing, more selective market. More mature and selective. Structured operators with clear processes and technological tools will remain. Improvisation will decline. Three likely evolutions:

• greater professionalisation
• integration with traditional hospitality
• growth in smaller territories

Stability will determine the pace. But the model is now structural and will not disappear. Dialogue exists but is not yet structured. It often opens when politically sensitive, then closes. There is insufficient stable technical engagement. Decisions are sometimes ideological rather than data-driven. Short-term rental is legally and economically a real estate contract, not a hotel. Applying hospitality regulations risks reducing flexibility and even harming residential supply. Partially. We are recognised interlocutors, which is progress. But often involvement comes after frameworks are defined. Rules shaped by media pressure risk misalignment with operational reality. We need less ideology and more data-driven policymaking. First: stability. Rules can be strict, but they cannot change constantly. Real estate investment requires medium- to long-term certainty. Second: simplification. Currently we have fragmented obligations:

• statistical reporting to ISTAT
• tourist tax reporting to municipalities
• Alloggiati Web reporting to the Interior Ministry
• DAC7 and fiscal obligations to the Revenue Agency

Often similar data is sent to different bodies, increasing costs without improving oversight. We need:

• clear and unified national rules
• reduced bureaucracy and greater digital integration between authorities

Without regulatory stability, capital remains on hold.