Common arguments against limiting Short-term rentals

"...Idaho law prevents municipalities from regulating short-term rentals..."

Sandpoint Idaho has limited the number of non-owner occupied short-term rentals in city residential zones to 35. They have not been challenged.

Secondly, it's true there is some debate on how much Idaho municipalities can regulate short-term rentals. Who could settle this debate? A Judge!

The City of Ketchum talks about the prospect of regulating short-term rentals as "risky" and likely to face legal challenges. Can anyone explain the downside of taking this issue to court? Shouldn't the City be eager to find out the limits of this law? Currently, the City is agreeing with short-term rental investors' interpretation of the law and unwilling to stand up for locals getting displaced by STRs.

Idaho law states: A county or city may implement such reasonable regulations as it deems necessary to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare in order to protect the integrity of residential neighborhoods in which short-term rentals or vacation rentals operate.

"...If you limit short-term rentals, many condos will sit empty. The owners want to stay there for 2 months a year, so these wouldn't be converted to long-term rentals."

I disagree. If vacation homes that used to generate $50k in revenue a year now only lose money through HOA dues, property taxes and possibly a mortgage, wouldn't many owners make the decision to liquidate and then visit Sun Valley like a king from the proceeds?

If some owners are wealthy enough not to care then maybe they would take the loss, but if they are really that wealthy, are they even going through the hassle of short-term renting their place at all?