Airbnb is putting $250 million into affordable housing. Brian Chesky, the company’s chief executive, said he has lived in the crosshairs of the number one political issue in most major cities in America and cannot keep staring at the problem without offering solutions. This altruistic endevor is an interesting political strategy that is worth studying for every real estate company currently on a regulator’s list.

Airbnb’s first investment is $6.4 million toward roughly 200 affordable units in a larger complex on a 20-acre former Home Depot and car dealership site in Austin’s St. John neighborhood. The city bought the land more than a decade ago and it has sat empty since. Chito Vela, an Austin city council member whose district includes the project, said financing got wobbly once interest rates rose and rents fell. Airbnb’s checks will reportedly cover about 10 percent of a project’s capital and that the $250 million should translate into $5 billion over a decade. One of the key components to the deal is that residents of the affordable units will not be allowed to list them on Airbnb.

Airbnb built in a provision that guarantees the investment produces no supply for its own platform. Shaun Donovan, the former secretary of Housing and Urban Development now serving as chief executive of Enterprise Community Partners, described the gap-filling role this kind of capital plays, noting that every rate increase subtracts market-rate capital from a deal and creates holes somebody has to fill. Airbnb is filling holes in deals it gets nothing out of operationally but it does buy it self some much needed political goodwill.

The relevant comparison is the industry’s current legal docket. RealPage settled with the Department of Justice over algorithmic pricing after six of the largest operators in the country were added as co-defendants. Greystar has faced fair housing complaints across multiple states. The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act includes a first-of-its-kind cap preventing institutional investors from acquiring single-family homes beyond 350-unit portfolios. New York banned landlord-paid broker fees. San Francisco gave tenants collective bargaining rights. Cities and states are legislating against specific business models, and the companies on the receiving end have mostly responded with lawyers and lobbyists.

Airbnb approach might be worth copying. The company reported $2.5 billion in net income on $12.2 billion in revenue last year. A $250 million commitment is roughly ten percent of one year’s profit, spread across an unspecified number of years. Compared to the cost of fighting short-term rental bans city by city, or the revenue lost when a major market restricts listings entirely, it is a reasonable hedge. It also buys something litigation cannot, which is a reason for a housing committee chair to take the call.

The initiative goes past writing checks. Airbnb is funding advocacy on zoning, permitting, and building codes, building an open-source data set tracking housing policy, and running a $5 million competition for technology that simplifies homebuilding. Those are the parts an institutional owner or a PropTech company could copy most directly.

Whether regulators actually reward any of this is untested. Chesky’s own argument, that Airbnb units are a fraction of housing stock and that bans have not lowered home prices, is the kind of claim a city council has heard before and discounted. It is true that the housing crisis will not be solved with money alone. Airbnb’s $250 million against a shortage estimated somewhere between two million and ten million units is not going to change the supply picture. But every little bit counts and this money shows that Airbnb is at least taking the problem seriously. Other companies facing similar scrutiny should look closely at what Airbnb is attempting to do because it might be the only way turn the tide against futher regulations that would punish the real estate industry without solving the main issue of the housing crisis: supply constraints.