(Re)watch the parliamentary “debates” of Monday 15 January 2024 (to be viewed starting at 33’ due to a technical recording issue)
While opposition members of parliament (Mr Geoffroy Coomans de Brachène – MR, Mr Matthias Vanden Borre – N-VA and Mr Christophe De Beukelaer – Les Engagés) raised numerous observations and questions with energy and relevance to Minister-President Rudi Vervoort, the members of STR-Belgium — present either physically or remotely — were astonished to witness what can only be described as a show, if not a circus, in which none of these questions were substantively addressed. Apparently, this is often the case (we commend the courage and perseverance of the opposition members); for us, it was a first, and it is absolutely staggering to see how matters of general interest for Brussels residents are treated in this way. Fortunately, there was no admission fee to attend this spectacle, because beyond our time, we already pay — as Brussels citizens — the salaries of our parliamentarians, ministers and their (large) cabinets so that they (in principle) perform their duties properly! We would have expected at least a minimum level of seriousness rather than completely inappropriate humour or mere posturing, given that the topic at stake has a major impact on citizens and numerous economic stakeholders across different Brussels sectors.
While Minister-President Rudi Vervoort bears the primary responsibility in this matter — all the more so given his competences in tourism and territorial development (he holds all the solutions in his hands yet seems to see only problems — we will return to this) — the other majority parties (DéFI, Ecolo) are equally responsible for this democratic failure, at the very least for not conditioning their approval of the ordinance on substantive and documented answers to the fundamental questions that were raised. Apparently, signing a blank cheque poses no issue… We can only hope they will change their position before 26 January, when the draft ordinance will be voted on in plenary session in Parliament.
For a proper understanding of the issue, we strongly encourage majority parliamentarians to consult the following documents on our website, in particular:
- our one-page summary (FR-NL-EN) detailing the obstacles to registering tourist accommodation in the Brussels-Capital Region (18 December 2023)
- our open letter to Brussels citizens (FR-NL-EN) of 11 December 2023
- our open letter to the Minister-President of 12 October 2023
Without revisiting all elements of our argumentation, which are extensively covered elsewhere on our website, we highlight several key points from the parliamentary session of Monday:
“The draft ordinance has been subject to very broad consultation with the different stakeholders in the sector” (33’45’’).
During a recent political networking event at the Brussels Horeca Federation, the president of the Brussels PS, Ahmed Laaouej, stated: “social dialogue can never be done enough.” The current Minister-President apparently does not share that conviction — or perhaps STR-Belgium does not belong to the right category (of actors and/or sector)? Given how our sector has been treated by the Minister-President’s cabinet since 2020, we had no expectation that opposition requests to hear the sector would succeed. But, somewhat naively, we at least hoped that substantive material would be provided by the Minister-President during this session. That will apparently have to wait a little longer…
“The unanimous finding of the impact of this activity on housing in Brussels” (35’16’’).
This hypothesis — the starting point of the Minister-President’s argumentation and later supported by the majority parties — seems to be treated as established and indisputable. To support it, reference is made, for example, to a recent VUB study without highlighting the academic reservations in its conclusions, or to general figures from the Rent Observatory. Yet rent increases may be driven by multiple factors, including (non-exhaustively):
1/ high interest rates pushing residents toward the rental market
2/ inflation and energy costs
3/ the presence of international institutions and companies in Brussels (a tremendous asset)
4/ vacant or abandoned housing
The sector does not claim there is necessarily no impact from its activity on the housing market; it simply requests that any impact be justified and scientifically quantified in order to implement a proportionate ordinance and appropriate tools such as workable quota and compensation mechanisms, neighbourhood by neighbourhood. Such a systemic impact analysis, although complex, is certainly within the capabilities of our universities if commissioned accordingly. This is the fundamental starting point of the disagreement between the two sides.
The electoral logic therefore appears to be: “Dear Brussels citizens, we will restrict the serviced accommodation sector, and thanks to that we will (help) solve your housing problems.” Yet what promise are majority parties making to the 26% of Brussels residents living in inadequate housing, the 29% living in overcrowded housing, or the 40% lowest-income households with access to only 10% of the rental market, when short-term rentals represent at most 1.5% of the housing stock in the Brussels-Capital Region?
“The return from renting tourist accommodation in a city like Brussels is far higher than from traditional renting” (36’10’’).
Once again, apples and oranges are being compared — property income mixed with labour income. Operating tourist accommodation generates numerous costs that are often overlooked (cleaning, laundry, taxes, platform commissions, logistics, etc.). STR-Belgium can clarify this for members of parliament.
“This phenomenon leads to certain more profitable neighbourhoods being deserted by residents and replaced by tourists” (36’22’’).
Is this not a dramatic portrayal of tourism’s impact in Brussels, exaggerated for electoral purposes when compared with Eurostat figures and the housing crisis data cited by the Minister-President? Moreover, quota and compensation mechanisms adapted to neighbourhoods — within a revised land-use plan (Share the City) — could precisely ensure social cohesion.
Public-order disturbances:
This is perhaps the most puzzling point. Such issues are caused by a minority of service users. Why did the majority not seize the opportunity to solve public-order concerns once and for all? The Minister-President seems not to understand that the proposal concerns plug-and-play smart noise monitors connected to service companies — solutions proven internationally and even mandated in cities such as Seville — rather than environmental monitoring devices. Yet the proposal was dismissed as “extremely complicated.” This is a missed opportunity… intentionally? The absence of justification is unacceptable in a democracy.
The Minister-President and majority MPs also appear to ignore the spectrum of actors, ranging from fully illegal operators to those meeting all requirements except urban-planning certification. The professional market is often portrayed as consisting of large multi-owners, which does not reflect reality, including the role of property managers acting on behalf of individual owners.
Further unanswered issues include how Brussels’ image and consumer interests will be protected if the supply of a highly demanded accommodation segment is destroyed while demand continues to grow (Eurostat Q3 2023), potentially driving hotel prices sharply upward.
Why are we defending our interests — and those of Brussels residents?
Because the sector contributes to Brussels’ economic dynamism, as opposition MPs rightly explained:
- it is strongly supported by citizens worldwide (Eurostat data)
- it complements traditional hotels and attracts certain tourist segments
- it generates direct and indirect employment across multiple sectors
In short, short-term rentals contribute to a competitive, innovative and sustainable tourism market in Brussels.
When the Minister-President claims (34’52’’) that the Government has achieved a “delicate and complex balance,” you will understand that — at this stage — we have absolutely no reason to be convinced. We invite Brussels citizens to look for a single moment in the session where either the Minister-President or his majority partners openly acknowledge the added value of the serviced accommodation sector.
There remain many unanswered questions, including quota mechanisms, the 120-day rule, definitions of accommodation categories, enforcement resources, and implementing decrees.
Conclusion:
This parliamentary session (one can hardly call it a debate) was extremely revealing for STR-Belgium:
- The Minister-President shows limited knowledge of the serviced accommodation sector and, in any case, appears to disregard it entirely for unclear reasons.
- More fundamentally, democracy is seriously at risk if decisions of such importance can be taken without substantiated and documented justification. Parliamentarians have a critical responsibility to exercise their role in the interest of all citizens and SMEs of the Brussels-Capital Region across all sectors, as well as service users from Belgium, Europe and beyond.
If majority parliamentarians — notably the Ecolo and DéFI groups — fail to fulfil their role before the plenary vote on Friday 26 January, this session will nevertheless constitute an additional element in the case that STR-Belgium will continue to pursue on multiple fronts, with determination, until a justified, proportionate and non-discriminatory ordinance is achieved.
In any event, a systemic impact study must be delivered prior to any implementation of the ordinance by the (future?) Brussels Government. This cornerstone is essential and the only guarantee of democracy in our Region. Finally, the sector now has zero confidence in the Minister-President’s ability to resolve the clandestine short-term rental market situation in Brussels and retains more…
