I'm guessing you don't own a home or condo because your arguments all violate common sense. First, do you understand why owners don't like renters? Do you understand why short-term renters are worse than long term renters? Do you understand why owner-present is more desirable than owner-unpresent? Do you understand why a residential owner/renter would prefer not to have commercial activity next door? Do you understand why zoning exists? Do you understand why citizens are granted certain abilities to conduct business-like activities before triggering various business rules?
You're right, I don't own any real estate, and I do not plan to do so at any time in the foreseeable future. I don't like being tied down to any arbitrary segment of the Earth's crust, and I'll gladly pay more for the freedom to move somewhere more exciting at a few weeks' notice. (Yeah, so that's part of my motivation for defending AirBnB.)
The answer to the first four of your rhetorical questions all seem to involve some version of "I don't want my property to lose value". Since I have little sympathy for that kind of sentiment, it seems selfish to me for you to force (i.e. legally require) someone else to do this or that with his property just because it might negatively affect the value of your property. As long as your neighbor doesn't produce loud noises or obnoxious smells that cross into your property, you have no right to interfere with his use of his property. Would you also seek to ban African-American tenants from your neighborhood? Because, you know, the racial makeup of the neighborhood does have an impact on property values.
Note that I'm not saying everyone should bear with a hostel next door. If you want to live in an all-residential neighborhood, you are absolutely free to go and live in a place where everyone voluntarily agress to HOA rules against business-like activity. All I'm saying is that this should be voluntary, not a legal requirement, and there are already plenty of places in the U.S. where such voluntary agreements exist. If Manhattan doesn't happen to be one of those places, well, too bad.
As for the other two two questions, yes, I do understand the rationale for such policies, but I think that they have been corrupted to serve a narrow range of entrenched interests, and that they are badly in need of more flexible rethinking.
You're fighting a pretty losing argument here.