Any tourists will bring tax revenues into the city by eating at restaurants, visiting museums and events and generally purchasing goods and services.
"not on a budget" can have more space, visit more often, and consequently spend more money.
If any place in the world operated purely under this assumption, then you would never have urban centers like New York to begin with. Consider that if the demand for hotels was so high that there was no longer enough rooms for tourists that more hotels would be built.
Some places rely on selling overpriced services and items to tourists and rely on tourists coming in and just throwing money around. So making legislation to accommodate certain visitors, but discourage others, kind of makes sense.
It really makes sense for hotel firms, who are likely the ones behind the vast lobbying efforts that helped to implement this law in the first place. They are the ones who stand to garner the extra revenues to be had from tourists who no longer have the option to AirBnB and must instead pay for high priced hotels.
The only way in which this should improve New York's revenues as a government entity is through the room taxes assessed on hotels as opposed to AirBnB-style operations.
This problem, however, could have been remedied without outright outlawing of the practice which seems to infringe on the rights of many property owners who AirBnB in a reasonable fashion (i.e. not purpose built illegal hotels).
