Versus – Trop d’AirBNB à Bruxelles ? – BX1
It was about time: a first televised debate where our sector can finally speak and no longer has to passively absorb the hotel narrative (very) lightly repackaged by political actors. It is obvious that in 25 minutes one cannot cover all aspects of such a complex and divisive topic, but this debate was an excellent first step. Let us hope it inspires other media outlets!
A few reactions to the statements made by the participants:
- Ms Maes, Alderman for Urban Planning in Brussels:
- “Running a business is illegal.” Brussels entrepreneurs will appreciate that… Perhaps it should be clarified that we are not talking here about trafficking in human beings, drugs, weapons, etc., but simply about an economic activity that generates added value for the capital of Europe and that only seeks to evolve within a proportionate, justified and non-discriminatory regulatory framework within the meaning of the EU Services Directive.
- “We love tourists, and what we love even more is diversity.” Diversity?! Certainly not in tourist accommodation: would only traditional hotels have the right to exist in Brussels?! The sharing economy is not and cannot be the only alternative for pragmatic, quantifiable reasons (we will return to this).
- “In the Pentagon, very specifically, in certain streets, 20 to 30% of units that should be housing are tourist accommodations — sometimes legal and sometimes illegal — and this has an impact on rent levels, and therefore on housing for Brussels residents…”
- “Very specifically” — indeed… Should the ordinance on tourist accommodation then be reconsidered, given that it applies indiscriminately across the 19 municipalities of the Brussels-Capital Region, as required by the Court of Justice of the European Union, namely a policy that is proportionate and justified “neighbourhood by neighbourhood” (see elsewhere on this site)?
- “This has an impact on rent levels.” This assertion is somewhat bold given the current state of scientific knowledge. No further argument is needed — the debate speaks for itself on this point (see also below).
- “Very specifically” — indeed… Should the ordinance on tourist accommodation then be reconsidered, given that it applies indiscriminately across the 19 municipalities of the Brussels-Capital Region, as required by the Court of Justice of the European Union, namely a policy that is proportionate and justified “neighbourhood by neighbourhood” (see elsewhere on this site)?
- “Running a business is illegal.” Brussels entrepreneurs will appreciate that… Perhaps it should be clarified that we are not talking here about trafficking in human beings, drugs, weapons, etc., but simply about an economic activity that generates added value for the capital of Europe and that only seeks to evolve within a proportionate, justified and non-discriminatory regulatory framework within the meaning of the EU Services Directive.
- Charlotte Casier, Geographer and Researcher at ULB:
- “1% at the scale of the Brussels Region may seem quite marginal, but in fact this supply is not evenly distributed across the territory.” We come back again to the need for a “neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood” approach! Attention: this should not be understood as meaning “tourist residences must be banned in the most tourist-intensive neighbourhoods” — on the contrary, if one applies common sense — but rather that appropriate regulation should be implemented “neighbourhood by neighbourhood” (including compensation mechanisms adapted to each area).
- “1% at the scale of the Brussels Region may seem quite marginal, but in fact this supply is not evenly distributed across the territory.” We come back again to the need for a “neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood” approach! Attention: this should not be understood as meaning “tourist residences must be banned in the most tourist-intensive neighbourhoods” — on the contrary, if one applies common sense — but rather that appropriate regulation should be implemented “neighbourhood by neighbourhood” (including compensation mechanisms adapted to each area).
- Ms Maes:
- “I do not want to have situations in central Brussels like those in central Amsterdam.” One may simply ask whether the situations are comparable. Amsterdam offers other attractions than Brussels. Public-order issues linked to parties in apartments and houses are a problem for which solutions exist (see below and elsewhere on this site) and should honestly be removed from the arguments of critics — it is no longer credible. It should also be noted that disproportionate political reactions to admittedly problematic situations can lead to strong legal pushback. See precisely the case of Amsterdam.
- “I do not want to have situations in central Brussels like those in central Amsterdam.” One may simply ask whether the situations are comparable. Amsterdam offers other attractions than Brussels. Public-order issues linked to parties in apartments and houses are a problem for which solutions exist (see below and elsewhere on this site) and should honestly be removed from the arguments of critics — it is no longer credible. It should also be noted that disproportionate political reactions to admittedly problematic situations can lead to strong legal pushback. See precisely the case of Amsterdam.
- Ms Casier:
- “The question seems simple, but the answer is complicated given the state of the data we have.”
“The housing market evolves due to many factors, and the supply of (non-hotel) tourist accommodation is one of them.”
“It is always very difficult to isolate one factor among others.”
“Given the data, we are not in a position to say that this type of phenomenon contributes to X% of rent increases.”
No further comment. - “Housing is adapted to extract greater profit.” Ms Casier enters a much more subjective domain here. It should simply be noted — without forgetting all the usual costs borne by property owners — that the income from professionally managed short-term rentals is the sum of property income and the labour income required to deliver a quality service (beware of the “rent gap” concept often found in the literature, which frequently overlooks this dimension). Evaluating the profitability of short-term rentals is beyond the scope of all single-criterion studies commissioned by public authorities, even if such an analysis could perhaps be interesting to conduct.
- “… and therefore Airbnb contributes to increasing rent levels in Brussels.” This is an empirical conclusion that will need to be validated based on everything that preceded in the debate.
- “The question seems simple, but the answer is complicated given the state of the data we have.”
- Clémentine Barzin, MR Member of Parliament:
- “The ordinance is based on regulation that leads to underground activity.” Indeed — the famous Regional Land Use Plan (PRAS, 2001), acknowledged as obsolete by the Minister-President, who launched the Share The City project… Could we dare to hope that the Minister-President will use the projects and tools at his disposal, within his competencies, to make the Brussels tourism market innovative, competitive and sustainable?
- “We propose quotas that allow the city to regulate — or not — pressure in certain neighbourhoods.” Common sense — and the only solution.
- “The ordinance is based on regulation that leads to underground activity.” Indeed — the famous Regional Land Use Plan (PRAS, 2001), acknowledged as obsolete by the Minister-President, who launched the Share The City project… Could we dare to hope that the Minister-President will use the projects and tools at his disposal, within his competencies, to make the Brussels tourism market innovative, competitive and sustainable?
- Anaïs Maes:
- “Quotas, in principle, in theory, yes… but…” Much resistance to the idea, which is nevertheless the only solution. But what are the arguments? “Is it first come, first served?” One can understand some reluctance on Ms Maes’ part to grant authorisations retrospectively to operators whose premises were sealed… It is important to move beyond this and understand that quota mechanisms are notably framed by Article 12 of the EU Services Directive. Licence numbers are granted for a limited duration and are not automatically renewed. There will of course need to be an analysis of supply and demand to determine thresholds, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, followed by allocation rules and quota management. This solution is not simple, obviously, but complexity is not a valid argument for rejecting it. The decisive advantage of such a system must be emphasised, as already mentioned: making the Brussels tourism market innovative, competitive and sustainable!
- “Quotas, in principle, in theory, yes… but…” Much resistance to the idea, which is nevertheless the only solution. But what are the arguments? “Is it first come, first served?” One can understand some reluctance on Ms Maes’ part to grant authorisations retrospectively to operators whose premises were sealed… It is important to move beyond this and understand that quota mechanisms are notably framed by Article 12 of the EU Services Directive. Licence numbers are granted for a limited duration and are not automatically renewed. There will of course need to be an analysis of supply and demand to determine thresholds, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, followed by allocation rules and quota management. This solution is not simple, obviously, but complexity is not a valid argument for rejecting it. The decisive advantage of such a system must be emphasised, as already mentioned: making the Brussels tourism market innovative, competitive and sustainable!
- Anaïs Maes:
- “I am the voice of Brussels residents.” In what way and why? Are we once again returning to public-order concerns? Are there not (many) Brussels residents who use short-term booking platforms for city trips and holidays everywhere else?
- “We have very few complaints outside the Pentagon — take Ixelles or Saint-Gilles, where we have many single-unit hosts.” This confirms that the public-order argument was indeed back on the table. When an entire unit is rented, how is being a single-unit host or multi-unit operator decisive? Tourists do not choose based on this criterion, and hosts cannot know in advance how respectful guests will be towards neighbours (which is, in fact, the case most of the time)… On the contrary, it is the measures taken by the host — whoever they are — that determine the maintenance of public peace!
- “These platforms are not meant to support an entire commercial activity.” Why not? On what basis and with what argument can this be asserted?
- “The zoning where the hotel is located is not residential zoning — it is very clear, very simple.” This is precisely the core of the debate, and the ambiguity dates back to 2014. The zoning status of a serviced residence (defined under economic regulation — the tourist accommodation ordinance) is not defined under planning regulation, namely the PRAS acknowledged as obsolete by the Government. Yet economic regulation relies heavily on planning regulation. It is therefore urgent to align the two frameworks… cf. the Share the City project mentioned above — something that should have been done in 2014!
- “I am the voice of Brussels residents.” In what way and why? Are we once again returning to public-order concerns? Are there not (many) Brussels residents who use short-term booking platforms for city trips and holidays everywhere else?
- Clémentine Barzin:
- “The Government is suffocating an activity.” That could not be clearer — and one might ask: for whose benefit?
- We welcome the proposal to install smart noise monitors, which would only be a first step toward the certification of non-hotel tourist accommodation — something that some actors, supported by the Government, do not seem willing to implement… But why is there reluctance to establish a diversified, legal and competitive tourism offering in the interest of the Brussels-Capital Region?
- “The Government is suffocating an activity.” That could not be clearer — and one might ask: for whose benefit?
- Charlotte Casier:
- Ms Casier mentioned the case of New York. The hotel industry lobby there is very strong — see section 2 of our open letter to Brussels citizens on this topic, and notably the 2017 New York Times article.
- “All regulatory projects face a lack of data… the platform (Airbnb) refuses to communicate addresses.” This will be resolved with the European Commission’s regulatory project, which is fortunately coming into effect — with the added benefit of ensuring compliance with the EU Services Directive. Given the current (and proposed future) regulatory framework in Brussels, one can somewhat understand the commercial reluctance of certain booking platforms to share data without safeguards.
- Ms Casier mentioned the case of New York. The hotel industry lobby there is very strong — see section 2 of our open letter to Brussels citizens on this topic, and notably the 2017 New York Times article.
As for the conclusion of the debate, we will retain that it was indeed a good debate, one that should continue, and that solutions must be developed together. The comments above are not intended to inflame divisions between parties but rather to enrich the discussion in order to move toward an optimal solution in the interest of the Brussels-Capital Region, Brussels residents, entrepreneurs in the relevant sectors, and service users.
