New rules for Airbnb accommodations in Brussels: “Often, it’s a party all the time” | RTL Info
Apparently, the Minister-President seems intent on appealing to his electorate ahead of an upcoming parliamentary debate on the draft new ordinance establishing the regulatory framework for tourist accommodation. In our view, by taking this position, the opinion of Brussels citizens is simply not being taken into account, due to a lack of objective information on the issue as a whole. It therefore seems appropriate to provide clarifications based on the Minister-President’s various statements:
- “There is already an ordinance in place”: yes — and in fact for nearly 10 years (8 May 2014) — which has led to the explosion of a largely underground market, to the detriment of everyone (citizens, tourists, the hotel sector, and the serviced residence sector). The new ordinance continues to implement a prohibition policy…
- “It is a phenomenon encountered in all cities and whose main effect is to drive residents out of historic city centres”: the primary purpose of non-hotel tourist accommodation is to host a tourist, whether leisure or business, not to drive residents away. It is possible to benefit from the positive effects of this new consumption model while managing potential negative impacts — which, moreover, still need to be demonstrated. This can be achieved through a policy of regulating supply, both private and professional, rather than through a prohibition policy that leads to the current underground market.
- “It is more profitable to rent via Airbnb than through a traditional lease”: offering tourist accommodation in a qualitative manner requires work, so one cannot compare the income from the two activities directly. It may generate more revenue, certainly, but one must consider labour income beyond property income, as well as the costs associated with the activity.
- “What we are aiming for is to protect housing”: decent and reasonably priced housing for Brussels residents must obviously be a government priority. The question is whether the short-term rental sector should become the scapegoat for decades of uncertain management of this issue. See article: Le Soir: “A link established between the presence of Airbnb and rising rental prices”. STR-Belgium reacts and calls for a nuanced and cross-sectoral debate.
- “Often, when you have Airbnbs in buildings, it’s constant partying”: this is first of all very reductive and shows a lack of respect for many travellers (including Brussels residents) who use the Airbnb platform (or others) and who are very respectful of the accommodation they rent abroad. It is also an outdated electoral argument, given that an obvious solution — already deployed by professional operators across Europe — exists: smart noise monitors and specialised service companies dedicated to maintaining public peace. Unfortunately, there is no trace of any such requirement in the draft new ordinance…?! Yet there is an opportunity to raise standards across the sector (certification, etc.).
- “For tourists, these accommodations must meet safety standards”: this is also a priority in our view. However, this objective cannot be achieved in an underground market. Moreover, the Minister-President overlooks a fundamental notion beyond tourist safety: protecting the tourist’s broader interests. By eliminating the supply of serviced residences, hotel room prices will inevitably be driven upward. This is not good for tourists — who may turn away from Brussels — nor for the Brussels economy and its retail and hospitality sectors, which could see visitor numbers decline.
- “We should not completely ‘reject’ collaborative rentals; it’s like Uber and others”: while certain analogies can be drawn, we are not talking about the same thing. If the difference in service between a taxi and an Uber is hardly perceptible to the consumer (transporting the customer from point A to point B), serviced residences offer completely different services compared with hotels (autonomy, independence, experience, etc.). The COVID crisis has also changed consumer expectations to such an extent that the evolution of demand in the serviced residence sector can neither be ignored nor simply categorised within the collaborative economy. See Eurostat figures comparing 2023 with previous years.
- And last but not least — “The hotel sector is an economic sector; it is logical that we protect it…”
Mr Minister-President, you cannot deny the Eurostat figures, you cannot deny the entire ecosystem of service companies revolving around our activity, and you cannot deny the negative impact that your prohibition policy will have on the hospitality sector. Mr Minister-President, the serviced residence sector is indeed an economic sector that contributes — and will continue to contribute — to ensuring Brussels’ economic attractiveness, in complementarity with hotels. - And what the Minister-President did not say: nothing about the ongoing procedure initiated by the European Commission against the Brussels-Capital Region (via the Member State Belgium), nor about how the Region intends to coordinate with the Federal level to implement the European Union’s regulatory policy (implementation in 2024–2025, effective deployment in 2026). Furthermore: what about the links between the process followed for the new ordinance and that of the PRAS revision (Share the City) planned for 2026?
In fine, a great deal of electoral positioning in this intervention, but unfortunately very little substance.
