Why Airbnb is making the housing crisis worse

Why Airbnb is making the housing crisis worse (ln24.be)

Why Airbnb is making the housing crisis worse – La Libre

This report has the merit of launching a debate on the topics of tourist accommodation and housing. Unfortunately, it does not escape the demagogic temptation to pit the two topics against each other, and in this regard, it calls for numerous comments:

1. The report introduces the debate in a sensationalist manner, focusing on the housing crisis and the unrealistic rise in rents, driven by inflation and changes in demand. One could immediately respond: remove the 4,800 non-hotel tourist accommodations (which some people dream of doing) and what excuse will you find to justify your ineffective housing creation policies? We refer you to our analysis of housing and households waiting for social housing in our “Statements” slider. Stop the political demagoguery!
2. The housing crisis is an issue in all European cities and cities around the world. The examples of Paris and Barcelona are also cited. We refer to the analysis of the number of registered tourist residences between Barcelona and Brussels in our “Statements” slider. Apparently, Barcelona has found a much better balance between tourists and residents.
3. “Airbnb is exacerbating the housing crisis and getting rich.” That’s one way of looking at it. As a reminder, Airbnb is not the only player. Booking.com and Expedia also have significant market shares in the sector. But beyond these considerations, these players also actively contribute to the tourism market by offering citizens of the world a widely acclaimed alternative. The “demand” side cannot be ignored—see our slider.
4. “Renting on Airbnb could earn me twice as much as a traditional rental.” It should be noted here that we are comparing apples and oranges: income from a short-term rental must in fact be viewed as two components: property income and labor income. Even if no services are offered by default in a tourist residence, preparing the accommodation before the next tenant arrives (cleaning, laundry), managing reservations, and welcoming tourists are tasks that generate part of the income but also incur costs. For operators who operate “legally” (which is practically impossible in Brussels), they still have to pay income tax and tourist tax… In short, it is obvious that rental income is inversely proportional to the duration, but caution should be exercised when making comparisons…
5. It would be interesting for researcher Hugo Périlleux to explain how he calculated that 20 to 30% of housing in the city center would be “replaced” by non-hotel tourist accommodation. Also, how does he take into account the fact that certain neighborhoods are less suitable for residential housing: who wants to live on the Grand-Place or in noisy areas with a high density of restaurants and bars? Or that commercial buildings are uninhabited on the upper floors? A balance must be found, without falling into overtourism, of course, but also without going to the other extreme and sacrificing tourism, which generates considerable income for the city! This is a complex debate that requires nuance and objectivity. We refer you to the post by the Mayor of Brussels, Philippe Close, in our slider.
6. According to (at the time of reporting) the Deputy Mayor for Urban Planning, Ms. Persoons, housing protection is a sufficient argument for prohibiting the rental of tourist residences throughout the year in Brussels. We refer to our “Statements” slider and in particular the example given by the Council of State in Amsterdam or the Court of Justice of the European Union: an authorization (or prohibition) regime must be justified and proportionate! We also refer to the introduction to our “Carte Blanche”:

1. a. Prohibiting economic activity in tourist residences is not an option (it would be illegal).

1. b. Tourist residences fulfill undeniable roles and services, so it would be unrealistic to imagine that this “phenomenon” would disappear.

1. c. It is preferable to regulate an activity than to prohibit it in a roundabout or disguised manner through numerous regulatory standards that add up (which encourages clandestine, undeclared activity, to the detriment of all).

7. According to the journalist, “this black market thrives because it is supported by Airbnb.” Let’s be realistic and honest: under the current circumstances, Airbnb has every interest in not disclosing too much data in the Brussels-Capital Region. This raises the question of why Airbnb shares this same information in other European cities. Are the regulations in force there more proportionate? To ask the question is to answer it. The European Commission’s proposed regulation should help to establish proportionate rules in the cities and regions of the European Union Member States. Please refer to our Regulatory Framework section.

8. Last but not least, researcher Hugo Périlleux’s conclusion is thought-provoking: “The European Union’s internal competition rules prevent the regulation of Airbnb.” In fact, the opposite is true, and STR-Belgium fully supports the European Commission’s initiative (see regulatory framework section), which aims to regulate the tourist accommodation sector and to prevent local politicians—for electoral purposes and/or under the influence of various lobbies—from implementing disproportionate rules that ultimately penalize an entire ecosystem under the pretext that these rules serve to achieve other objectives that are neither quantified nor demonstrated, and sometimes not even acknowledged.

STR-Belgium thanks journalist Emanuel Descours for initiating the debate and is available for a televised debate on the subject with all stakeholders.