The Spanish Confederation of Hotels and Tourist Accommodation (CEHAT) has issued a report in which it says that holiday rentals that are not within the law generate a black economy sum of almost 3,000 million euros.
This is a staggering amount of money, so staggering that it is hard to know what it actually refers to. Is CEHAT saying this is an annual sum? As always with these amounts that are thrown into the media fire, they are designed to stagger without substance being offered to support them or to explain them. Let's just accept, though, that there is a lot of black money associated with holiday rentals; it is undeniable.
This 3,000 million is from the "oferta alegal". The use of "alegal" is not unimportant as it doesn't mean the same as "ilegal". It means "not within the law" and can also mean "unregulated". The distinction is important because across Spain many holiday rentals are "alegal" in that there is no legislation in several regions of the country that expressly deals with this type of accommodation. There is one region, however, that does have legislation, and we are of course familiar with it: the Balearics tourism law.
The need for regions to have their own laws is one consequence of the reform of the national tenancy act. Madrid, by this reform, effectively abrogated any responsibility for holiday rentals, placing this responsibility with regional governments. It was a reform that had the support of the hoteliers (some might say that it was a reform drawn up by the hoteliers) as, in certain parts of Spain, the hotel lobby is all powerful, e.g. in the Balearics, and heavily influences regional legislation.
It was a reform, however, that was curious in one particular way. The national plan for tourism, published in June last year, identified "an increase in residential tourism" as a strength of Spain's tourism. Though the plan's document avoided reference to holiday rentals, concentrating instead on second homes and on family use of such homes (permissible under the tenancy act), this type of tourism is only an element of the catch-all term "residential tourism". Another element, and a very significant element, is the "oferta alegal" or "ilegal" where illegal can be used.
What was doubly curious was that, having identified this type of tourism as a "national" strength, a reform that does not directly come under the heading of tourism, that to do with the tenancy act, which is property legislation, went in the opposite direction. By handing responsibilities to regional government, not only was a national strength ignored but the potential for diverse and so confusing legislation was also heightened. To give one example, and a very different one to the Balearics, in Catalonia, where there is regulation, the offer of holiday rental places has soared. CEHAT says that, in Barcelona alone, it greatly outstrips the number of places in hotels or previously regulated types of accommodation, so bringing about conditions under which it is impossible for hoteliers to compete.
But what CEHAT doesn't say is that Catalonia introduced a tourist tax last year. The government there saw a need to harmonise this tax for different types of accommodation and also saw a revenue opportunity; it has regulated holiday rentals in order to bring in more money. And what CEHAT doesn't admit is that growing tourist demand cannot be met by hotel supply and will not be met by a new boom in hotel construction (there are due, for example, to be some new hotels built in Mallorca but only a few).
There has been, again according to CEHAT, a very significant rise in the "oferta alegal" over the past three years: a rise of 300%. We will have to take its word for it. There is little doubt that there has been a steep increase and there are good reasons why - demand, economic circumstances (of owners who need to supplement incomes), the emergence of P2P websites such as Airbnb. Alarmed by this, CEHAT sees the threat not just nationally but also internationally. At the meeting of the European Trade Association of Hotels, Restaurants and Cafés in Europe that takes place shortly in Athens, it hopes that "international best practice" can be established to guide regulation of accommodation that is outside the law.
CEHAT, as with the hotel federation in Mallorca, cries foul against the "oferta alegal", warning of the dangers it poses to the tourism industry and claiming unfair competition. It will keep on issuing these warnings and making these claims, while all the time not admitting that its aim is to eliminate competition; and competition, moreover, that is needed in order to satisfy demand.
Showing posts with label Illegal accommodation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Illegal accommodation. Show all posts
Friday, October 11, 2013
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Illegal Offer?: Blame it on the hotels
At the start of the 1970s and so just prior to the recessionary impact of the oil crisis, there were 691 hotels in the Balearics. There were other types of accommodation, but the actual classification of accommodation focussed solely on hotels. And by hotels, one meant hotels.
By the start of the following decade, the number of hotels had increased only marginally, but there was a new classification of accommodation that was registered alongside the "hotel". This was "tourist apartments", and these meant a type of accommodation that hadn't existed until the mid-1970s - the self-catering apartment hotel. By 1981, there were 709 hotels and 458 "apartamentos turísticos".
A further ten years on, this new category had grown to such an extent that the traditional "hotel" was now in second place when it came to the number of establishments offering the different forms of accommodation.
The rise of the tourist apartment can be put down to two key factors. The first of these was the oil crisis. This didn't stop Mallorca's tourism in its tracks but it had a negative impact from which it took several years for the island to recover. One consequence of the crisis was that some hotels were forced to close. Another was that there was a determination to re-build the tourism industry and also re-shape it. This meant a new wave of hotel building but also a diversification both in terms of countries from which tourists came and in the type of accommodation that was offered to them. The previous one-size-fits-all model of the standard hotel was outmoded, and so another important factor was at play - the desire on behalf of tourists to have greater choice of accommodation and also greater flexibility when it came to how their days were spent; they didn't want to be constrained by hotel times and schedules.
This new mix of accommodation appeared to suit everyone - tourists, the Balearics regional government and tourism ministry (both established in 1983), hoteliers and tour operators. However, what had not been foreseen was a consequence of the construction boom and permissiveness that had allowed the tourist apartments to come about. Private accommodation. In 1981, there were no statistics to show the level of the "non-regulated tourist offer". By 1991, there were. Between 1991 and the start of the current century, the number of tourists taking advantage of this non-regulated tourist offer rose far more dramatically than the number going to hotels or hotel tourist apartments. Figures for tourist stays show that the non-regulated offer equated to 10% of the hotel/tourist apartments total in 1991. By 2002, it amounted to almost a third.
Such a statistic, dramatic as it was, helps to explain why the hoteliers have been and still are so agitated when it comes to private accommodation (not all of which is now non-regulated). But the statistic only tells part of the story. There is another statistic. That for passenger numbers through the airports.
The oil crisis meant that there was a relatively small increase in passengers over the period 1971 to 1981. But from the start of the 1980s on, the number rocketed, more than doubling in twenty years. In effect, it was the non-regulated tourist offer which enabled passenger numbers to rise so significantly. It wasn't the hotels or even the tourist apartments.
Yet, much as though it may have come as a shock to the hoteliers to discover that there were all these tourists opting to stay in someone's private flat or house, it shouldn't have been a shock. It had been the hoteliers who, in the 1970s, had recognised the need for more flexible accommodation, which is primarily why the tourist apartments ever came about. It was they, the hoteliers, who helped fuel the demand for what now exists - an enormous unregulated/partially regulated sector of the tourism industry that the hoteliers don't like.
An irony of economic crisis, 21st-century-style, is that the response has been the opposite to the crisis in the 1970s. The hotel offer has gone into reverse and brought about the further growth of the all-inclusive. But the hotels know only too well, as do the tour operators, that the tourist market wants multiple solutions. Hence, there is the bizarre situation whereby tourist apartment establishments can also offer all-inclusive deals. The hotels want it all ways, which is fair enough given their investment levels, but there is a question that the hotels and the regional government cannot or will not answer. Where, oh where, can all the tourists stay? Because they cannot all stay in a hotel or a tourist apartment.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
By the start of the following decade, the number of hotels had increased only marginally, but there was a new classification of accommodation that was registered alongside the "hotel". This was "tourist apartments", and these meant a type of accommodation that hadn't existed until the mid-1970s - the self-catering apartment hotel. By 1981, there were 709 hotels and 458 "apartamentos turísticos".
A further ten years on, this new category had grown to such an extent that the traditional "hotel" was now in second place when it came to the number of establishments offering the different forms of accommodation.
The rise of the tourist apartment can be put down to two key factors. The first of these was the oil crisis. This didn't stop Mallorca's tourism in its tracks but it had a negative impact from which it took several years for the island to recover. One consequence of the crisis was that some hotels were forced to close. Another was that there was a determination to re-build the tourism industry and also re-shape it. This meant a new wave of hotel building but also a diversification both in terms of countries from which tourists came and in the type of accommodation that was offered to them. The previous one-size-fits-all model of the standard hotel was outmoded, and so another important factor was at play - the desire on behalf of tourists to have greater choice of accommodation and also greater flexibility when it came to how their days were spent; they didn't want to be constrained by hotel times and schedules.
This new mix of accommodation appeared to suit everyone - tourists, the Balearics regional government and tourism ministry (both established in 1983), hoteliers and tour operators. However, what had not been foreseen was a consequence of the construction boom and permissiveness that had allowed the tourist apartments to come about. Private accommodation. In 1981, there were no statistics to show the level of the "non-regulated tourist offer". By 1991, there were. Between 1991 and the start of the current century, the number of tourists taking advantage of this non-regulated tourist offer rose far more dramatically than the number going to hotels or hotel tourist apartments. Figures for tourist stays show that the non-regulated offer equated to 10% of the hotel/tourist apartments total in 1991. By 2002, it amounted to almost a third.
Such a statistic, dramatic as it was, helps to explain why the hoteliers have been and still are so agitated when it comes to private accommodation (not all of which is now non-regulated). But the statistic only tells part of the story. There is another statistic. That for passenger numbers through the airports.
The oil crisis meant that there was a relatively small increase in passengers over the period 1971 to 1981. But from the start of the 1980s on, the number rocketed, more than doubling in twenty years. In effect, it was the non-regulated tourist offer which enabled passenger numbers to rise so significantly. It wasn't the hotels or even the tourist apartments.
Yet, much as though it may have come as a shock to the hoteliers to discover that there were all these tourists opting to stay in someone's private flat or house, it shouldn't have been a shock. It had been the hoteliers who, in the 1970s, had recognised the need for more flexible accommodation, which is primarily why the tourist apartments ever came about. It was they, the hoteliers, who helped fuel the demand for what now exists - an enormous unregulated/partially regulated sector of the tourism industry that the hoteliers don't like.
An irony of economic crisis, 21st-century-style, is that the response has been the opposite to the crisis in the 1970s. The hotel offer has gone into reverse and brought about the further growth of the all-inclusive. But the hotels know only too well, as do the tour operators, that the tourist market wants multiple solutions. Hence, there is the bizarre situation whereby tourist apartment establishments can also offer all-inclusive deals. The hotels want it all ways, which is fair enough given their investment levels, but there is a question that the hotels and the regional government cannot or will not answer. Where, oh where, can all the tourists stay? Because they cannot all stay in a hotel or a tourist apartment.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Now Customer Satisfaction Gets Illegal
I despair. Some of you may also despair. After you've read the following. Are you sitting uncomfortably? Then he shall begin, he being Ramón Estalella, the secretary-general of the Spanish Confederation of Hotels and Tourist Accommodation.
"We are not against people being free to rent out their properties. The thing we ask, though, is that, as with the tourist offer, these owners comply with the rules of the game as they apply to legislation and taxation, etc. in order that the greatest transparency and guarantees are given." This rental of property should be "a legal, transparent and controlled economic activity that contributes to the public purse".
"One of the problems created by this unregulated provision is customer dissatisfaction. As the rental arrangement is between private individuals, if any problem arises, no form of protest can be made. The image of Spanish tourist accommodation, number one in Europe in terms of its quality-to-price ratio, can therefore be seen to be damaged. This lack of transparency creates problems for everyone."
Sr. Estalella has gone on to say that the majority of owners who rent out private accommodation form part of the black economy because they do not declare income and commit social security fraud. He has added that the lower prices of these owners' properties represent enormous competition to the legal offer; not because of customer satisfaction but because of price.
So, here we are yet again. The slight difference this time round is that it is a Spanish hoteliers representative who is getting the retaliation in early against the so-called illegal offer and not a Mallorcan hoteliers representative. Never fear, the Mallorcan hoteliers won't have their lost their voice and won't be short of the spade-loads of hyperbole that were being chucked around last summer. The economy was "broken", they said, because hotel occupancy in high summer was going to be so dismal, and this was all down to those nasty inhabitants of the black economy. It turned out to be rubbish; July's occupancy had never been so good (this century at any rate).
I suppose one can argue that Sr. Estalella has moved the now-so-predictable arguments on a touch by bringing in the customer satisfaction thing. He would appear to know that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction, despite the fact, as he points out, that it is difficult for dissatisfied guests to make their complaints known. Perhaps he stops tourists on the streets of resorts and interrogates them.
In his defence, it is of course far easier for a hotel guest to complain and to go onto Trip Advisor and slag off a hotel. If all illegal accommodation is lousy, then it would definitely do harm. But what percentage of it are we talking about? Would the complaints outweigh complaints about hotels? Can it be said, in all instances, that hotel guest complaints are acted upon satisfactorily and that guests' experiences of hotels don't also do harm?
The latest round of let's-all-have-a-go-at-the-illegal-offer game is being played out against a background of reform to the tenancy act. This reform, so the unthinkingly pro-hotelier media in Mallorca has been telling us, will be the thing to make the rotten non-tax-paying owners finally get their just desserts. Perhaps it will also mean that tax-paying owners who have, remarkably enough, been declaring and paying tax, despite having allegedly illegal accommodation, will get what's coming to them as well.
I despair of all this not just because of the same old, damn points being made by the hoteliers but also because of the total confusion that surrounds the issue of the so-called illegal accommodation. And now, because of reform to the tenancy act, the Balearics may well have to pass another bloody law. I thought they'd already done this, but Will Besga, lawyer of this Mallorcan parish, who is far better positioned to know about law than I am, suggests that this will indeed be needed. And once it's passed, if it's passed, everything will be clear. Or probably not.
Though it has been generally assumed that the illegal offer is more of an issue in the Balearics (and the Canaries) than in other parts of Spain, the fact that a Spanish hotelier group is pronouncing on the subject shows that it isn't. And a reason for it having become more of a whole-Spain issue is that anything that smacks of not being legal is fair game in these times of crisis and austerity. Fair enough. Now then, how many hotels do you reckon pay at least some of their employees' wages in black?
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
"We are not against people being free to rent out their properties. The thing we ask, though, is that, as with the tourist offer, these owners comply with the rules of the game as they apply to legislation and taxation, etc. in order that the greatest transparency and guarantees are given." This rental of property should be "a legal, transparent and controlled economic activity that contributes to the public purse".
"One of the problems created by this unregulated provision is customer dissatisfaction. As the rental arrangement is between private individuals, if any problem arises, no form of protest can be made. The image of Spanish tourist accommodation, number one in Europe in terms of its quality-to-price ratio, can therefore be seen to be damaged. This lack of transparency creates problems for everyone."
Sr. Estalella has gone on to say that the majority of owners who rent out private accommodation form part of the black economy because they do not declare income and commit social security fraud. He has added that the lower prices of these owners' properties represent enormous competition to the legal offer; not because of customer satisfaction but because of price.
So, here we are yet again. The slight difference this time round is that it is a Spanish hoteliers representative who is getting the retaliation in early against the so-called illegal offer and not a Mallorcan hoteliers representative. Never fear, the Mallorcan hoteliers won't have their lost their voice and won't be short of the spade-loads of hyperbole that were being chucked around last summer. The economy was "broken", they said, because hotel occupancy in high summer was going to be so dismal, and this was all down to those nasty inhabitants of the black economy. It turned out to be rubbish; July's occupancy had never been so good (this century at any rate).
I suppose one can argue that Sr. Estalella has moved the now-so-predictable arguments on a touch by bringing in the customer satisfaction thing. He would appear to know that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction, despite the fact, as he points out, that it is difficult for dissatisfied guests to make their complaints known. Perhaps he stops tourists on the streets of resorts and interrogates them.
In his defence, it is of course far easier for a hotel guest to complain and to go onto Trip Advisor and slag off a hotel. If all illegal accommodation is lousy, then it would definitely do harm. But what percentage of it are we talking about? Would the complaints outweigh complaints about hotels? Can it be said, in all instances, that hotel guest complaints are acted upon satisfactorily and that guests' experiences of hotels don't also do harm?
The latest round of let's-all-have-a-go-at-the-illegal-offer game is being played out against a background of reform to the tenancy act. This reform, so the unthinkingly pro-hotelier media in Mallorca has been telling us, will be the thing to make the rotten non-tax-paying owners finally get their just desserts. Perhaps it will also mean that tax-paying owners who have, remarkably enough, been declaring and paying tax, despite having allegedly illegal accommodation, will get what's coming to them as well.
I despair of all this not just because of the same old, damn points being made by the hoteliers but also because of the total confusion that surrounds the issue of the so-called illegal accommodation. And now, because of reform to the tenancy act, the Balearics may well have to pass another bloody law. I thought they'd already done this, but Will Besga, lawyer of this Mallorcan parish, who is far better positioned to know about law than I am, suggests that this will indeed be needed. And once it's passed, if it's passed, everything will be clear. Or probably not.
Though it has been generally assumed that the illegal offer is more of an issue in the Balearics (and the Canaries) than in other parts of Spain, the fact that a Spanish hotelier group is pronouncing on the subject shows that it isn't. And a reason for it having become more of a whole-Spain issue is that anything that smacks of not being legal is fair game in these times of crisis and austerity. Fair enough. Now then, how many hotels do you reckon pay at least some of their employees' wages in black?
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Saturday, September 08, 2012
Holiday Let Hysteria
(This article was asked for by "The Bulletin". It comes, as you will see, on the back of previous articles I have written on the holiday-let issue and following a meeting with some press by the hoteliers federation at which, so I am led to believe, some fairly odd things were said.)
The Majorcan hoteliers federation is hysterical. Not hysterical funny (though one could argue this to be the case) but hysterical uncontrolled. This uncontrolled hysteria stems from the lack of control of private accommodation for holiday rental and from the federation's propaganda war against the "oferta ilegal".
Let me be clear, I have no axe to grind with the federation, with any hotel chain or any hotel. I am full of admiration for the generally high standards of Majorca's hotel industry, for its innovation, for its contributions to the local economy and to employment, for the enhancement of Majorca's image through these standards and innovation and for the enhancement of Majorca's reputation overseas through the exporting of hotel know-how and ingenuity. I understand fully the investment that hotels need to make, the hoops they have to go through in terms of inspection and bureaucracy, the taxes they have to pay, the liabilities they have to assume.
I can accept that hotels are not the real villains of the piece when it comes to all-inclusive. Not all want to be all-inclusive but have had to bow to pressures that came initially from tour operators and now from a market that has grown used to requiring all-inclusive. I can accept that hotels are faced with an intolerable situation whereby their valuable real estate stands empty for much of the year, that their overall productivity is therefore diminished because of seasonality and that they have to maximise their returns in the summer season.
I have, therefore, sympathy as well as admiration and gratitude. Which is what makes my exasperation at the hoteliers' hysteria and crusade against the "oferta ilegal" that much greater, as it undoes all the goodwill that the hotels deserve and undermines all the good work that they undertake.
The week before last, I wrote a series of articles in which I took the hoteliers federation to task for what I consider to be misleading information and also took the local media to task for not querying the federation's information. On Friday this week, there was a further example of both, and the mere fact that the federation was once more ripping into the "oferta ilegal" led me to consider that it was becoming hysterical.
In "Ultima Hora" (sister newspaper of "The Bulletin"), a page was devoted to the federation's argument that economic crisis was fuelling further the supply of illegal accommodation because owners of second (holiday) homes were preferring to rent them out (illegally) rather than to stay in them. This conclusion, derived apparently from estate-agency sources and as a logical extension of increased passenger numbers passing through Palma airport, was used as further evidence of the unfair competition to the hotels and of owners avoiding paying tax. The report also stated, and I quote: "hotel occupancy has not benefited from this increase in the number of passengers in the airports".
However, and as I pointed out in those articles, July's occupancy was at a record level while August's was, at worst, about average. But occupancy figures are only part of the story; the full story is that tourists opt to stay in different types of accommodation and not only hotels.
What this report highlighted, yet again, was the fact that the level of tourism is such that it is way beyond the capabilities of the hotels to cater for it. And yet again, the obvious question was not being addressed. If Majorca (and the Balearics) want the number of tourists that the islands attract, where are they all meant to stay? They can't all stay in hotels because there are too few hotel places. This is a question I have asked on numerous occasions and one that writers of letters to this newspaper have also rightly asked.
The report also highlighted the narrative that surrounds the issue of the "oferta ilegal". A photo caption said: "Alcudia and Pollensa, the most affected zones". There is no loss in translation; affected implies a negative. The narrative, and one compounded by the local press, is that illegal is automatically wrong. Normally, I would agree, but illegal, in the case of holiday lets, is taken as a means of demonising not just of pointing out illegality. Moreover, its very use impedes querying. Illegal equals wrong equals must not question the hoteliers' point of view.
Key to tackling this illegality, so the report added, is a law on urban leases and key to its implementation in eradicating the "fraud" that is being committed is the collaboration of town halls. In fact, mayors have been brought on board by the regional government. The creation of a "mesa" (table) of mayors is intended, in part, to facilitate information gathering in the pursuit of illegal accommodation.
I wonder, however, what a mayor such as Pollensa's Tomeu Cifre makes of this. His town is the most affected zone; most affected by the crusade against private accommodation as holiday rental. And he tried unsuccessfully to get the government to shift on the issue when drafting the new tourism law. Cifre will know, as will mayors of other zones that are "most affected" (Alcúdia and Calvià), that businesses other than hotels have a great dependence upon tourism which is not hotel-based. When the overall level of all-inclusive occupancy on the island is around 30% or so (but much higher in certain resorts), this tourism is fundamental to local economies.
I understand that last week the president of the hoteliers federation met with members of the press and that the issue of the "oferta ilegal" came up. But why is it that the press insists, or seems to insist, on meeting only with the hoteliers? To take another of the "most affected" zones, Alcúdia, it was here that Acotur, the tourist businesses association, launched its campaign a few weeks ago against all-inclusives. Why not talk to Acotur and ask it what it thinks about the persecution of property owners who permit tourism that can compensate for loss of business as a consequence of all-inclusive? Why not talk to the association for holiday homes? Why not even talk to Jaime Martínez, the Balearics director-general of tourism? It was he who mainly drafted the new tourism law. Political figure he may be, but at least he should be able to give accurate information regarding the situation on holiday lets, unlike the hoteliers federation, as I understand that at that press meeting the federation was giving wrong information.
The hoteliers do have a case in opposing holiday lets. Not all private accommodation is of a high standard and some owners will, under any circumstance, try and avoid paying tax. But it's a Catch 22. Because the accommodation is deemed illegal and cannot be licensed, it cannot be inspected and it cannot be subject to tax, albeit there exists the truly absurd situation by which there are owners who declare and pay tax on property which is illegal. But the opposition takes no account of the reality, which is that to accommodate Majorca's tourists there has to be a substantial stock of property other than hotels. It is this key issue which is left up in the air, it is the key question which is never answered. Instead, there is the supply of wrong information, either deliberate or inadvertent, and the selectivity and manipulation of information. And this supply of information has now become hysterical.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
The Majorcan hoteliers federation is hysterical. Not hysterical funny (though one could argue this to be the case) but hysterical uncontrolled. This uncontrolled hysteria stems from the lack of control of private accommodation for holiday rental and from the federation's propaganda war against the "oferta ilegal".
Let me be clear, I have no axe to grind with the federation, with any hotel chain or any hotel. I am full of admiration for the generally high standards of Majorca's hotel industry, for its innovation, for its contributions to the local economy and to employment, for the enhancement of Majorca's image through these standards and innovation and for the enhancement of Majorca's reputation overseas through the exporting of hotel know-how and ingenuity. I understand fully the investment that hotels need to make, the hoops they have to go through in terms of inspection and bureaucracy, the taxes they have to pay, the liabilities they have to assume.
I can accept that hotels are not the real villains of the piece when it comes to all-inclusive. Not all want to be all-inclusive but have had to bow to pressures that came initially from tour operators and now from a market that has grown used to requiring all-inclusive. I can accept that hotels are faced with an intolerable situation whereby their valuable real estate stands empty for much of the year, that their overall productivity is therefore diminished because of seasonality and that they have to maximise their returns in the summer season.
I have, therefore, sympathy as well as admiration and gratitude. Which is what makes my exasperation at the hoteliers' hysteria and crusade against the "oferta ilegal" that much greater, as it undoes all the goodwill that the hotels deserve and undermines all the good work that they undertake.
The week before last, I wrote a series of articles in which I took the hoteliers federation to task for what I consider to be misleading information and also took the local media to task for not querying the federation's information. On Friday this week, there was a further example of both, and the mere fact that the federation was once more ripping into the "oferta ilegal" led me to consider that it was becoming hysterical.
In "Ultima Hora" (sister newspaper of "The Bulletin"), a page was devoted to the federation's argument that economic crisis was fuelling further the supply of illegal accommodation because owners of second (holiday) homes were preferring to rent them out (illegally) rather than to stay in them. This conclusion, derived apparently from estate-agency sources and as a logical extension of increased passenger numbers passing through Palma airport, was used as further evidence of the unfair competition to the hotels and of owners avoiding paying tax. The report also stated, and I quote: "hotel occupancy has not benefited from this increase in the number of passengers in the airports".
However, and as I pointed out in those articles, July's occupancy was at a record level while August's was, at worst, about average. But occupancy figures are only part of the story; the full story is that tourists opt to stay in different types of accommodation and not only hotels.
What this report highlighted, yet again, was the fact that the level of tourism is such that it is way beyond the capabilities of the hotels to cater for it. And yet again, the obvious question was not being addressed. If Majorca (and the Balearics) want the number of tourists that the islands attract, where are they all meant to stay? They can't all stay in hotels because there are too few hotel places. This is a question I have asked on numerous occasions and one that writers of letters to this newspaper have also rightly asked.
The report also highlighted the narrative that surrounds the issue of the "oferta ilegal". A photo caption said: "Alcudia and Pollensa, the most affected zones". There is no loss in translation; affected implies a negative. The narrative, and one compounded by the local press, is that illegal is automatically wrong. Normally, I would agree, but illegal, in the case of holiday lets, is taken as a means of demonising not just of pointing out illegality. Moreover, its very use impedes querying. Illegal equals wrong equals must not question the hoteliers' point of view.
Key to tackling this illegality, so the report added, is a law on urban leases and key to its implementation in eradicating the "fraud" that is being committed is the collaboration of town halls. In fact, mayors have been brought on board by the regional government. The creation of a "mesa" (table) of mayors is intended, in part, to facilitate information gathering in the pursuit of illegal accommodation.
I wonder, however, what a mayor such as Pollensa's Tomeu Cifre makes of this. His town is the most affected zone; most affected by the crusade against private accommodation as holiday rental. And he tried unsuccessfully to get the government to shift on the issue when drafting the new tourism law. Cifre will know, as will mayors of other zones that are "most affected" (Alcúdia and Calvià), that businesses other than hotels have a great dependence upon tourism which is not hotel-based. When the overall level of all-inclusive occupancy on the island is around 30% or so (but much higher in certain resorts), this tourism is fundamental to local economies.
I understand that last week the president of the hoteliers federation met with members of the press and that the issue of the "oferta ilegal" came up. But why is it that the press insists, or seems to insist, on meeting only with the hoteliers? To take another of the "most affected" zones, Alcúdia, it was here that Acotur, the tourist businesses association, launched its campaign a few weeks ago against all-inclusives. Why not talk to Acotur and ask it what it thinks about the persecution of property owners who permit tourism that can compensate for loss of business as a consequence of all-inclusive? Why not talk to the association for holiday homes? Why not even talk to Jaime Martínez, the Balearics director-general of tourism? It was he who mainly drafted the new tourism law. Political figure he may be, but at least he should be able to give accurate information regarding the situation on holiday lets, unlike the hoteliers federation, as I understand that at that press meeting the federation was giving wrong information.
The hoteliers do have a case in opposing holiday lets. Not all private accommodation is of a high standard and some owners will, under any circumstance, try and avoid paying tax. But it's a Catch 22. Because the accommodation is deemed illegal and cannot be licensed, it cannot be inspected and it cannot be subject to tax, albeit there exists the truly absurd situation by which there are owners who declare and pay tax on property which is illegal. But the opposition takes no account of the reality, which is that to accommodate Majorca's tourists there has to be a substantial stock of property other than hotels. It is this key issue which is left up in the air, it is the key question which is never answered. Instead, there is the supply of wrong information, either deliberate or inadvertent, and the selectivity and manipulation of information. And this supply of information has now become hysterical.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Friday, September 07, 2012
MALLORCA TODAY - Rise in illegal accommodation this summer
The Mallorcan hoteliers federation is keeping up its propaganda war about illegal tourist accommodation. It now says that economic crisis has led owners with second homes have been renting out rather than staying in these homes this summer. The hoteliers insist that this has affected occupancy, even though July's occupancy was higher than usual and August's will be around the norm.
See more: Ultima Hora
See more: Ultima Hora
Thursday, August 30, 2012
The Dumbing Silence Of A Strange Season
Stranger and stranger. As "Ultima Hora" put it: "the logical extrapolation from the flow of visitors to the island has been (increased) hotel occupancy rates". Passenger traffic at Palma's Son Sant Joan airport was at a record level in July. Just under 3.5 million passengers does not mean 3.5 million people arriving to have a holiday, but it is still a significant movement of human traffic (and I feel I need to correct a letter to "The Bulletin" which suggested that the number was 22.7 million; this was the figure for the whole of the AENA airport network in July).
Increased passenger numbers will logically lead to increased occupancy and, as I have pointed out, July had exceptionally high levels of hotel occupancy. August's occupancy levels are likely to be lower than July's, though around the average (as I have also pointed out).
Confronted with record airport numbers, record occupancy levels (in July) and the most profitable high season since 2007, what has the Mallorcan hoteliers federation been telling us? That there is a broken economy. Doesn't sound like it, but not to worry; spin can keep spinning. The season, the federation now says, has been "strange", though it is not anything like as strange as the bizarre doublespeak that emanates from the hoteliers and the dumbness of the local press.
This is the final part of a tetralogy of articles, themes of which have been the hotels' manipulation of information, press incuriosity in challenging such information and the absence of genuine debate as to issues which do not accord with the vision of tourism that the hotels (and regional government) would prefer. One knows already of course how record levels of airport passengers are explained away. Not by surprisingly high July occupancy figures (because these would not chime with the notion of a broken economy) but by all the very naughty tourists who are booking into apartments they shouldn't be booking into.
While there is an absence of genuine debate, it is wrong to assume that there aren't some organisations knocking around who take issue with the hotel-centric philosophy of tourism. The problem they have, however, is that their views get lost or ignored or that these views become subordinate to self-interest.
In Menorca and Ibiza/Formentera there are associations for "viviendas vacacionales", i.e. holiday homes. The Menorcan association, via the small to medium-sized business association on the island, lobbied for an amendment to the tourism law which would have liberalised holiday lets. They wanted any accommodation to be made available, legally, for holiday let purposes, which is the direction that Catalonia is moving in. Menorcan businesses, and not only the association for holiday homes, had pleaded for this liberalisation because of the particular savaging Menorca has experienced at the hands of the devil's work of tourism - all-inclusives and ever more pronounced seasonality.
What happened? Well, nothing of course. No one took any notice and apart from the reporting of the business association's lobby for an amendment, little more was said in the local (Mallorcan) press. The Menorcans were distinctly miffed by there having been no recognition of their plight in the new tourism law.
In Ibiza and Formentera a similar association for holiday homes wasn't so miffed. Indeed, it "applauded" the new law. It was "sympathetic" to the same demand that the Menorcans had been making, but it supported a law that has established a framework whereby owners of holiday homes (villas and houses and not apartments) can become businesses. So here was an association which adopted a sort of I'm all right Jack approach on behalf of owners who could let their properties in any event, hence the whiff of self-interest at the expense of apartment owners.
In Mallorca there are two associations for holiday homes, both headquartered in Pollensa, a town with a massive reliance on the rental of private accommodation to tourists. Back in January they had been making their fears regarding the new law known, but once again they were no more than just reported. The town's mayor took up their cause but could get no movement from the government.
The point is that, and notwithstanding the somewhat self-serving attitude in Ibiza, there are organisations out there who have a different view to the dominant hotel-centric philosophy. But when are their voices ever heard? Really heard, as in their being brought into a genuine debate.
They aren't heard and they probably never will be. Not, that is, while the media is as compliant as it is in swallowing the constant arguments released by the all-powerful hoteliers. The whole debate, not that there really is one, just gets stranger and stranger.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Increased passenger numbers will logically lead to increased occupancy and, as I have pointed out, July had exceptionally high levels of hotel occupancy. August's occupancy levels are likely to be lower than July's, though around the average (as I have also pointed out).
Confronted with record airport numbers, record occupancy levels (in July) and the most profitable high season since 2007, what has the Mallorcan hoteliers federation been telling us? That there is a broken economy. Doesn't sound like it, but not to worry; spin can keep spinning. The season, the federation now says, has been "strange", though it is not anything like as strange as the bizarre doublespeak that emanates from the hoteliers and the dumbness of the local press.
This is the final part of a tetralogy of articles, themes of which have been the hotels' manipulation of information, press incuriosity in challenging such information and the absence of genuine debate as to issues which do not accord with the vision of tourism that the hotels (and regional government) would prefer. One knows already of course how record levels of airport passengers are explained away. Not by surprisingly high July occupancy figures (because these would not chime with the notion of a broken economy) but by all the very naughty tourists who are booking into apartments they shouldn't be booking into.
While there is an absence of genuine debate, it is wrong to assume that there aren't some organisations knocking around who take issue with the hotel-centric philosophy of tourism. The problem they have, however, is that their views get lost or ignored or that these views become subordinate to self-interest.
In Menorca and Ibiza/Formentera there are associations for "viviendas vacacionales", i.e. holiday homes. The Menorcan association, via the small to medium-sized business association on the island, lobbied for an amendment to the tourism law which would have liberalised holiday lets. They wanted any accommodation to be made available, legally, for holiday let purposes, which is the direction that Catalonia is moving in. Menorcan businesses, and not only the association for holiday homes, had pleaded for this liberalisation because of the particular savaging Menorca has experienced at the hands of the devil's work of tourism - all-inclusives and ever more pronounced seasonality.
What happened? Well, nothing of course. No one took any notice and apart from the reporting of the business association's lobby for an amendment, little more was said in the local (Mallorcan) press. The Menorcans were distinctly miffed by there having been no recognition of their plight in the new tourism law.
In Ibiza and Formentera a similar association for holiday homes wasn't so miffed. Indeed, it "applauded" the new law. It was "sympathetic" to the same demand that the Menorcans had been making, but it supported a law that has established a framework whereby owners of holiday homes (villas and houses and not apartments) can become businesses. So here was an association which adopted a sort of I'm all right Jack approach on behalf of owners who could let their properties in any event, hence the whiff of self-interest at the expense of apartment owners.
In Mallorca there are two associations for holiday homes, both headquartered in Pollensa, a town with a massive reliance on the rental of private accommodation to tourists. Back in January they had been making their fears regarding the new law known, but once again they were no more than just reported. The town's mayor took up their cause but could get no movement from the government.
The point is that, and notwithstanding the somewhat self-serving attitude in Ibiza, there are organisations out there who have a different view to the dominant hotel-centric philosophy. But when are their voices ever heard? Really heard, as in their being brought into a genuine debate.
They aren't heard and they probably never will be. Not, that is, while the media is as compliant as it is in swallowing the constant arguments released by the all-powerful hoteliers. The whole debate, not that there really is one, just gets stranger and stranger.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Strangling Debate: Illegal accommodation
In 2004, a debate about illegal accommodation was broadcast on Mallorca's Canal 4. Those participating in the debate were the secretary-general of the Spanish travel agencies association, the secretary-general of the Mesa del Turismo (a body now comprising some thirty businesses in the tourism sector), the regional government's director-general of tourism regulation, and the presidents of both the Mallorcan and the Ibizan hoteliers federations.
The debate was organised by the tourism magazine "Hosteltur" and was subsequently reported on in the magazine. It is the only meaningful example I can find (or easily find, at any rate) of a discussion about the so-called "ofterta ilegal" in the local Spanish media. Though the report that is now available is only short, what is clear is that all parties to this debate seemed to favour one side of the argument. It doesn't sound like it was much of a debate.
The history of effective legislation in the Balearics against illegal accommodation goes back to 1998. The Partido Popular government of Jaume Matas introduced what was described then as the most comprehensive legislation in Spain. The most complete and the most perfect, said one of the debate's participants. Between 1998 and the debate that took place in 2004 and also since 2004, little has changed in legislative terms, except for provisions in 2007 which required rental property to be registered as either for holiday or long-term residential purposes and which expressly excluded private apartments from being registered for holiday rental. The 2012 law is really no more than a confirmation, with some bells and whistles, of the 1998 legislation.
What also hasn't changed since 2004 is the lack of balance and the lack of logic that constitute the debate. As now, the focus was very much on the hoteliers' arguments regarding unfair competition from holiday lets, and the debate also considered the problems caused by the property boom that Mallorca had been experiencing. This had led to the purchase of apartments (and other accommodation) which were being rented out illegally. What had also happened, alongside the property boom, was a marked increase in the number of tourists coming to Mallorca and the Balearics; between 1991 and 2001, the number of tourists arriving annually in the Balearics rose by 3.7 million.
In the same period, the number of hotels and regulated tourist apartments in the Balearics increased by just over 100 establishments, representing a rise in the number of places of 12,000. What is interesting is that while the number of hotels increased, the number of regulated tourist apartments decreased. At the same time, however, the level of tourist stays in unregulated accommodation rose by a factor of almost 400%; in 2001, it stood at roughly a quarter of that in regulated hotels and apartments.
Though the number of hotels increased during 1991 and 2001, the building of new hotels effectively came to an end by the middle of the 1990s. Since then, there has been little new hotel building; as an example, in Alcúdia only one new hotel has been built this century.
The 2004 debate, therefore, implied that the hotel sector had been disadvantaged by restrictions on new building, while it was more explicit in attributing the dramatic rise in illegal accommodation to the property boom. What was peculiar about the debate was that the dramatic rise in tourism, brought about by both the increase in hotels and private accommodation in the 1990s, didn't seem to be something to celebrate.
Some of the unregulated accommodation did become regulated. Josep Aloy, who was the director-general of tourism regulation, spoke in 2004 of the need to ensure that everything was done to ensure that accommodation was legalised, but his words gave the game away with regard to what sort of accommodation should be regularised: "it should not be about banning anyone from renting his house to tourists". House, not apartment. The upshot of this was the 2007 registration.
The debate about illegal accommodation, where there is one - and it isn't in the Spanish media - hasn't moved on from 2004. It is still concerned with unfair competition faced by hotels and it is still deprived of the presence of any voice which might present a meaningful counter argument. In 2004, the participants were all singing from a similar hymn sheet. Presented with this conformity of view, it is perhaps unsurprising that the local media follows this conformity in neglecting to consider the alternative view.
I hadn't intended putting together a series of articles, but this is what has happened as it becomes clearer the extent to which one side of the debate is strangled by the monopoly on opinion created by the hoteliers.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
The debate was organised by the tourism magazine "Hosteltur" and was subsequently reported on in the magazine. It is the only meaningful example I can find (or easily find, at any rate) of a discussion about the so-called "ofterta ilegal" in the local Spanish media. Though the report that is now available is only short, what is clear is that all parties to this debate seemed to favour one side of the argument. It doesn't sound like it was much of a debate.
The history of effective legislation in the Balearics against illegal accommodation goes back to 1998. The Partido Popular government of Jaume Matas introduced what was described then as the most comprehensive legislation in Spain. The most complete and the most perfect, said one of the debate's participants. Between 1998 and the debate that took place in 2004 and also since 2004, little has changed in legislative terms, except for provisions in 2007 which required rental property to be registered as either for holiday or long-term residential purposes and which expressly excluded private apartments from being registered for holiday rental. The 2012 law is really no more than a confirmation, with some bells and whistles, of the 1998 legislation.
What also hasn't changed since 2004 is the lack of balance and the lack of logic that constitute the debate. As now, the focus was very much on the hoteliers' arguments regarding unfair competition from holiday lets, and the debate also considered the problems caused by the property boom that Mallorca had been experiencing. This had led to the purchase of apartments (and other accommodation) which were being rented out illegally. What had also happened, alongside the property boom, was a marked increase in the number of tourists coming to Mallorca and the Balearics; between 1991 and 2001, the number of tourists arriving annually in the Balearics rose by 3.7 million.
In the same period, the number of hotels and regulated tourist apartments in the Balearics increased by just over 100 establishments, representing a rise in the number of places of 12,000. What is interesting is that while the number of hotels increased, the number of regulated tourist apartments decreased. At the same time, however, the level of tourist stays in unregulated accommodation rose by a factor of almost 400%; in 2001, it stood at roughly a quarter of that in regulated hotels and apartments.
Though the number of hotels increased during 1991 and 2001, the building of new hotels effectively came to an end by the middle of the 1990s. Since then, there has been little new hotel building; as an example, in Alcúdia only one new hotel has been built this century.
The 2004 debate, therefore, implied that the hotel sector had been disadvantaged by restrictions on new building, while it was more explicit in attributing the dramatic rise in illegal accommodation to the property boom. What was peculiar about the debate was that the dramatic rise in tourism, brought about by both the increase in hotels and private accommodation in the 1990s, didn't seem to be something to celebrate.
Some of the unregulated accommodation did become regulated. Josep Aloy, who was the director-general of tourism regulation, spoke in 2004 of the need to ensure that everything was done to ensure that accommodation was legalised, but his words gave the game away with regard to what sort of accommodation should be regularised: "it should not be about banning anyone from renting his house to tourists". House, not apartment. The upshot of this was the 2007 registration.
The debate about illegal accommodation, where there is one - and it isn't in the Spanish media - hasn't moved on from 2004. It is still concerned with unfair competition faced by hotels and it is still deprived of the presence of any voice which might present a meaningful counter argument. In 2004, the participants were all singing from a similar hymn sheet. Presented with this conformity of view, it is perhaps unsurprising that the local media follows this conformity in neglecting to consider the alternative view.
I hadn't intended putting together a series of articles, but this is what has happened as it becomes clearer the extent to which one side of the debate is strangled by the monopoly on opinion created by the hoteliers.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Conversion At Fault: Changing hotels
The hoteliers' federation has been meeting with Mallorca's leading banks. There are no prizes for guessing what the federation is after.
The regional government's new tourism act, welcome though much of it is, has some serious fault lines running through it. And these fault lines are such that they end up coming together to make an even wider fault line. The new law has an absence of joined-up thinking, but unintentional joins can still be made which really shouldn't be there, and wouldn't be if the government had displayed a bit more common sense.
The federation has gone to the banks with cap in hand to ask for finance for 52 change-of-use projects that have so far been identified by its member hoteliers; one shouldn't dismiss the possibility that this number will rise. The banks are said to have taken the request on board and are supportive of such initiatives in the tourism sector.
The banks would probably say this anyway, but when it comes to handing over the cheques, how supportive might they still be? As the different projects haven't been identified, one can't say for sure which hotel groups would need bank finance, but one could make a good guess; they probably wouldn't include the larger chains which are well capitalised and would already have plenty of lines open for credit or investment were they to need them.
Predominantly, they will be the smaller hotel groups (the federation has said as much) and it is their difficulties in raising finance for hotel conversion that exposes one of the law's fault lines. The act makes provision for conversion, but conversion will be awkward because of the lack of credit in the banking system. These smaller hotel groups are not necessarily blessed with holding huge assets by way of collateral, which wouldn't be the case with the larger chains. Consequently, the banks will need some convincing.
An option for conversion is that to residential use. This would mean the loss of a hotel, but for the smaller hotel chain it might be a loss worth bearing if it were able to realise value from its asset. The main problem with this, and so therefore a further fault line, is the state of the property market. Sales are down and values of property are down, quite markedly in some instances. Conversion of hotels to apartments of a minimum size of 90 square metres would simply add to a supply for which there isn't the demand and for which there is unlikely to be the demand in the foreseeable future.
So, what do the banks do? Take a risk and potentially end up with more debt on their books because the converted properties can't be sold? Hotel conversion could well lead to a type of property bubble, but without the rise in values, while at the same time making it even harder for other owners to shift property because of an increase in supply, engineered by a tourism law and not a property law. The attractiveness of conversion as a solution to hotel obsolescence becomes less attractive when the realities of the marketplace kick in.
The government has issued the tourism bill in English, German and Russian, hoping that by doing so investors from overseas will be attracted, and one thing they may be attracted to is a hotel that can be converted into real estate for sale. Foreign investors might mean a hotel group not having to avail itself of bank finance for the conversion, but the investor would be confronted by the same problem of supply and demand.
The further fault line in the law, and this is where the fault lines come together, is that to do with illegal accommodation. Why would someone want to buy an apartment in a tourist area? Would they want to live in it? Some would, but many would not. I imagine you can see where this is heading, but if not, then the government has created an inherent obstacle with one aspect its own law to facilitating and making a success of another aspect. The threat of legal action over privately owned apartments being made available for holiday purposes undermines the aims of modernisation and conversion. It doesn't make sense.
One wonders if the smaller hotel chains are going to wise up to the problem, though one can probably imagine that they already have and were well aware of the issue prior to the law being approved. The law has been called a law for the hotels. Increasingly, it is looking like a law for the large hotel groups. Because they don't have the same problems.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
The regional government's new tourism act, welcome though much of it is, has some serious fault lines running through it. And these fault lines are such that they end up coming together to make an even wider fault line. The new law has an absence of joined-up thinking, but unintentional joins can still be made which really shouldn't be there, and wouldn't be if the government had displayed a bit more common sense.
The federation has gone to the banks with cap in hand to ask for finance for 52 change-of-use projects that have so far been identified by its member hoteliers; one shouldn't dismiss the possibility that this number will rise. The banks are said to have taken the request on board and are supportive of such initiatives in the tourism sector.
The banks would probably say this anyway, but when it comes to handing over the cheques, how supportive might they still be? As the different projects haven't been identified, one can't say for sure which hotel groups would need bank finance, but one could make a good guess; they probably wouldn't include the larger chains which are well capitalised and would already have plenty of lines open for credit or investment were they to need them.
Predominantly, they will be the smaller hotel groups (the federation has said as much) and it is their difficulties in raising finance for hotel conversion that exposes one of the law's fault lines. The act makes provision for conversion, but conversion will be awkward because of the lack of credit in the banking system. These smaller hotel groups are not necessarily blessed with holding huge assets by way of collateral, which wouldn't be the case with the larger chains. Consequently, the banks will need some convincing.
An option for conversion is that to residential use. This would mean the loss of a hotel, but for the smaller hotel chain it might be a loss worth bearing if it were able to realise value from its asset. The main problem with this, and so therefore a further fault line, is the state of the property market. Sales are down and values of property are down, quite markedly in some instances. Conversion of hotels to apartments of a minimum size of 90 square metres would simply add to a supply for which there isn't the demand and for which there is unlikely to be the demand in the foreseeable future.
So, what do the banks do? Take a risk and potentially end up with more debt on their books because the converted properties can't be sold? Hotel conversion could well lead to a type of property bubble, but without the rise in values, while at the same time making it even harder for other owners to shift property because of an increase in supply, engineered by a tourism law and not a property law. The attractiveness of conversion as a solution to hotel obsolescence becomes less attractive when the realities of the marketplace kick in.
The government has issued the tourism bill in English, German and Russian, hoping that by doing so investors from overseas will be attracted, and one thing they may be attracted to is a hotel that can be converted into real estate for sale. Foreign investors might mean a hotel group not having to avail itself of bank finance for the conversion, but the investor would be confronted by the same problem of supply and demand.
The further fault line in the law, and this is where the fault lines come together, is that to do with illegal accommodation. Why would someone want to buy an apartment in a tourist area? Would they want to live in it? Some would, but many would not. I imagine you can see where this is heading, but if not, then the government has created an inherent obstacle with one aspect its own law to facilitating and making a success of another aspect. The threat of legal action over privately owned apartments being made available for holiday purposes undermines the aims of modernisation and conversion. It doesn't make sense.
One wonders if the smaller hotel chains are going to wise up to the problem, though one can probably imagine that they already have and were well aware of the issue prior to the law being approved. The law has been called a law for the hotels. Increasingly, it is looking like a law for the large hotel groups. Because they don't have the same problems.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Thursday, August 09, 2012
Exasperated.com
I had thought to go off on one, to launch into a diatribe, to sound off, to engage in a rant. But then I thought better of it. I could have gone off on one by announcing the fact, because this is how going off on one is. It requires a topping or tailing - "I'm having a rant" or "rant over". Why does anyone do this? If it is a rant, then is it not obvious?
The reason lies, at least I suspect it lies, in a conspiratorial alliance with the reader. Rant announcement equals pay attention, or the promise of revelatory riches, even if there are none, or an expectation of empathetic appreciation of the ranter's subject matter by an unseen, reading interlocutor whose part in the ranter's conspiracy is heightened by the tricks of involvement as set out in the bible according to Littlejohn - the "you couldn't make it up" clichéd standby of the ranter that brooks no suggestion that actually, yes, you could make it up or that the subject matter is in fact of no consequence to the reader or is totally opposite to the reader's views. Which would make the conspiratorial alliance fall flat on the page.
What I had been thinking that I would go off on was what I had earlier in the day indeed gone off on, at the end of a drink (non-alcoholic) with some people from a well-known attraction (and no, I'm not mentioning which one). What this involved was a declaration of exasperation. Not so much with the subject but with the illogic, exaggeration and disregard for an alternative perspective.
The subject was the Mallorca hoteliers' federation thing about 40% of tourists arriving at Palma airport who head off to stay in illegal accommodation (or, more diplomatically, accommodation which is not registered by the tourism ministry). It was exasperation because - and I even used the words "until I'm blue in the face", which I would never do in the written form but now have - nowhere is there any clue as to where all the tourists who arrive at the airport are in fact meant to stay. I have said it before. On more than one occasion. The illogic of the hoteliers' argument is plain to see; at least it is to me. There are way more tourists at the height of summer than there are hotel (registered) places. If you want the figures, I refer you honourable ladies and gentlemen to articles I have written before; I'm not going to repeat myself.
Further illogic lies with the hoteliers' justification for the government's stance against this illegal offer (by which they mean the stance they have told the government, Delgado in particular, that it must adopt). For the president of the federation to say that some illegal accommodation is not up to scratch and so therefore would give a poor image of Mallorca is illogical because it recognises a reason for regulating and monitoring accommodation which is illegal in any event. By the same token, it suggests inadvertently that some accommodation is up to scratch. The argumentation is, therefore, flawed.
Having gone off on this, I thought afterwards, why did I? The subject is of no personal interest to me in that I do not have accommodation that I am making available either legally or illegally. Why should I care?
The discussion had touched on some other issues, one of which was marketing. It was putting this together with the hoteliers' propaganda (and the 40% is surely an exaggerated headliner) that made me conclude that what I do care about is misrepresentation, is stupidity, is mediocrity, is myopia, is the unchallenged dogma that springs from groupthink.
Blimey, where the hell do I start with this lot?
Frankly, I'm disinclined to start with any of it, because to do so would amount to going off on one. I could embellish the above, I could give chapter and verse, I could dissect the minutiae of the inadequacies of much that passes for tourism marketing in Mallorca, of what passes for an understanding of who tourists are (which isn't a great deal), of what is a blind adherence to tourism product that misses the point entirely, which is that the great unwashed majority of tourists want only to spend a couple of hours in a plane, get shipped to a resort, get extraordinarily red and get extraordinarily pissed.
I could do all this, but I have done it many times. Therefore, I'm thinking of changing the name of this blog to exasperated.com. But then I would need to be constantly exasperated, and I'm not; only when I go off on one.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
The reason lies, at least I suspect it lies, in a conspiratorial alliance with the reader. Rant announcement equals pay attention, or the promise of revelatory riches, even if there are none, or an expectation of empathetic appreciation of the ranter's subject matter by an unseen, reading interlocutor whose part in the ranter's conspiracy is heightened by the tricks of involvement as set out in the bible according to Littlejohn - the "you couldn't make it up" clichéd standby of the ranter that brooks no suggestion that actually, yes, you could make it up or that the subject matter is in fact of no consequence to the reader or is totally opposite to the reader's views. Which would make the conspiratorial alliance fall flat on the page.
What I had been thinking that I would go off on was what I had earlier in the day indeed gone off on, at the end of a drink (non-alcoholic) with some people from a well-known attraction (and no, I'm not mentioning which one). What this involved was a declaration of exasperation. Not so much with the subject but with the illogic, exaggeration and disregard for an alternative perspective.
The subject was the Mallorca hoteliers' federation thing about 40% of tourists arriving at Palma airport who head off to stay in illegal accommodation (or, more diplomatically, accommodation which is not registered by the tourism ministry). It was exasperation because - and I even used the words "until I'm blue in the face", which I would never do in the written form but now have - nowhere is there any clue as to where all the tourists who arrive at the airport are in fact meant to stay. I have said it before. On more than one occasion. The illogic of the hoteliers' argument is plain to see; at least it is to me. There are way more tourists at the height of summer than there are hotel (registered) places. If you want the figures, I refer you honourable ladies and gentlemen to articles I have written before; I'm not going to repeat myself.
Further illogic lies with the hoteliers' justification for the government's stance against this illegal offer (by which they mean the stance they have told the government, Delgado in particular, that it must adopt). For the president of the federation to say that some illegal accommodation is not up to scratch and so therefore would give a poor image of Mallorca is illogical because it recognises a reason for regulating and monitoring accommodation which is illegal in any event. By the same token, it suggests inadvertently that some accommodation is up to scratch. The argumentation is, therefore, flawed.
Having gone off on this, I thought afterwards, why did I? The subject is of no personal interest to me in that I do not have accommodation that I am making available either legally or illegally. Why should I care?
The discussion had touched on some other issues, one of which was marketing. It was putting this together with the hoteliers' propaganda (and the 40% is surely an exaggerated headliner) that made me conclude that what I do care about is misrepresentation, is stupidity, is mediocrity, is myopia, is the unchallenged dogma that springs from groupthink.
Blimey, where the hell do I start with this lot?
Frankly, I'm disinclined to start with any of it, because to do so would amount to going off on one. I could embellish the above, I could give chapter and verse, I could dissect the minutiae of the inadequacies of much that passes for tourism marketing in Mallorca, of what passes for an understanding of who tourists are (which isn't a great deal), of what is a blind adherence to tourism product that misses the point entirely, which is that the great unwashed majority of tourists want only to spend a couple of hours in a plane, get shipped to a resort, get extraordinarily red and get extraordinarily pissed.
I could do all this, but I have done it many times. Therefore, I'm thinking of changing the name of this blog to exasperated.com. But then I would need to be constantly exasperated, and I'm not; only when I go off on one.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
MALLORCA TODAY - 40% of tourists stay in illegal accommodation
According to the Mallorcan hotel federation, 40% of tourists who arrive at Palma airport stay in accommodation that is not regulated by the Balearics tourism ministry - in illegal accommodation in other words.
This news is all designed presumably to add weight to the government's clampdown on illegal accommodation. Though the percentage is probably being exaggerated, it isn't surprising. What the hotels don't say, and yet what I have shown, is that at peak times especially there is a significant shortfall in terms of hotel accommodation relative to the number of tourists.
See more: Ultima Hora
This news is all designed presumably to add weight to the government's clampdown on illegal accommodation. Though the percentage is probably being exaggerated, it isn't surprising. What the hotels don't say, and yet what I have shown, is that at peak times especially there is a significant shortfall in terms of hotel accommodation relative to the number of tourists.
See more: Ultima Hora
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Finally Speaking Out: Holiday lets
The Menorcan federation of small to medium-sized businesses has asked that the Council of Menorca incorporates into the new Balearics tourism law the possibility that any property on the island that has a certificate of occupancy be made available for tourism rental.
This request comes at a time when the tourism law is going through its parliamentary process. It is a bit late in the day to now be making the request, but perhaps it is a case of better late than never. How, though, the Council of Menorca can incorporate such a measure is a good question. The period of consultation for the new law has finished, though amendments are still being made. The Council of Menorca would nevertheless have to exert an enormous amount of pressure on the Balearic Government for an amendment of this sort to be either considered, let alone adopted. The chances of it being so are virtually zero, you would have thought. Perhaps the federation is hoping that the island council might unilaterally declare such accommodation legal, which it wouldn't unless it wanted a legal battle royal with the government.
The Menorcan business federation's executive committee met earlier this month and agreed to send a letter to the president of the Council stressing that permission for the rental of private accommodation was urgently needed and essential. Its arguments in favour of holiday lets will strike you as being very familiar, as they have been made ad nauseam, so I don't intend repeating them.
Why is the Menorcan federation only now though making its request to the Council of Menorca? I'm guessing, but it may well have been stung by the not untypical and traditional early-season moans and anxieties. Businesses find there is less business and so hit out at whatever they can, usually the all-inclusives, and demand that something be done. Whatever the reason for the federation's belated request, at least it has raised its voice. Which is more than can be said for pretty much any other organisation you care to think of, including the small to medium-sized business federation in Mallorca.
The timidity, fear even you feel, shown when it comes to the holiday-let issue serves to emphasise how cowed various sectors of Balearics business, professions as well as government are by the hotel sector. This is the impression they give, at any rate. No one dares to speak up for private accommodation and no one seems willing to ask the obvious question.
I have made this point before, but I will make it again, as I would dearly love to know, as I am sure would many others, what answer tourism minister Delgado (or any other member of the government or hotel industry representative) would have to it.
On 10 August last year, the Balearics registered the highest number of people on the islands at one time: 1,890,426. The total, regular population of the islands is 1,113,114. The total number of hotel places in the Balearics (and this is a liberal estimate) is in the region of 370,000. Even allowing for temporary workers, cruise passengers and others, this meant that at the height of summer, there was a population of some 400,000 people who were not staying in hotels. So - and this is the obvious question - where were they staying? They couldn't all have been with friends.
Of course, there are plenty of legal holiday lets (the villas and other houses), but these can't explain all of the shortfall. There isn't, as far as I am aware, an accurate answer, but there is a hint of an answer in the monthly figures issued by national government. Extrapolating from these and on the basis of an average length of stay of 6.8 days (a figure from the ImagineTourism consultancy), there were, on 10 August last year, at least 100,000 people staying in rented or "other" type of accommodation (excluding their own or family properties or with friends); significantly more in fact, as this extrapolation has its own shortfall.
I would challenge the government to refute this number and challenge it also to explain where it believes all the islands' tourists should be staying. I would also challenge the hotel industry to explain how this can be unfair competition (one of its usual arguments) when it isn't in a position to meet total demand. And one further challenge to government. Try stop talking about "illegal accommodation", try stop implying criminality when few owners wish to act illegally, and try instead talking about making the illegal legal.
Menorca's business federation may have been late in speaking out, but at least it has had the courage to do so. It's about time others did as well.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
This request comes at a time when the tourism law is going through its parliamentary process. It is a bit late in the day to now be making the request, but perhaps it is a case of better late than never. How, though, the Council of Menorca can incorporate such a measure is a good question. The period of consultation for the new law has finished, though amendments are still being made. The Council of Menorca would nevertheless have to exert an enormous amount of pressure on the Balearic Government for an amendment of this sort to be either considered, let alone adopted. The chances of it being so are virtually zero, you would have thought. Perhaps the federation is hoping that the island council might unilaterally declare such accommodation legal, which it wouldn't unless it wanted a legal battle royal with the government.
The Menorcan business federation's executive committee met earlier this month and agreed to send a letter to the president of the Council stressing that permission for the rental of private accommodation was urgently needed and essential. Its arguments in favour of holiday lets will strike you as being very familiar, as they have been made ad nauseam, so I don't intend repeating them.
Why is the Menorcan federation only now though making its request to the Council of Menorca? I'm guessing, but it may well have been stung by the not untypical and traditional early-season moans and anxieties. Businesses find there is less business and so hit out at whatever they can, usually the all-inclusives, and demand that something be done. Whatever the reason for the federation's belated request, at least it has raised its voice. Which is more than can be said for pretty much any other organisation you care to think of, including the small to medium-sized business federation in Mallorca.
The timidity, fear even you feel, shown when it comes to the holiday-let issue serves to emphasise how cowed various sectors of Balearics business, professions as well as government are by the hotel sector. This is the impression they give, at any rate. No one dares to speak up for private accommodation and no one seems willing to ask the obvious question.
I have made this point before, but I will make it again, as I would dearly love to know, as I am sure would many others, what answer tourism minister Delgado (or any other member of the government or hotel industry representative) would have to it.
On 10 August last year, the Balearics registered the highest number of people on the islands at one time: 1,890,426. The total, regular population of the islands is 1,113,114. The total number of hotel places in the Balearics (and this is a liberal estimate) is in the region of 370,000. Even allowing for temporary workers, cruise passengers and others, this meant that at the height of summer, there was a population of some 400,000 people who were not staying in hotels. So - and this is the obvious question - where were they staying? They couldn't all have been with friends.
Of course, there are plenty of legal holiday lets (the villas and other houses), but these can't explain all of the shortfall. There isn't, as far as I am aware, an accurate answer, but there is a hint of an answer in the monthly figures issued by national government. Extrapolating from these and on the basis of an average length of stay of 6.8 days (a figure from the ImagineTourism consultancy), there were, on 10 August last year, at least 100,000 people staying in rented or "other" type of accommodation (excluding their own or family properties or with friends); significantly more in fact, as this extrapolation has its own shortfall.
I would challenge the government to refute this number and challenge it also to explain where it believes all the islands' tourists should be staying. I would also challenge the hotel industry to explain how this can be unfair competition (one of its usual arguments) when it isn't in a position to meet total demand. And one further challenge to government. Try stop talking about "illegal accommodation", try stop implying criminality when few owners wish to act illegally, and try instead talking about making the illegal legal.
Menorca's business federation may have been late in speaking out, but at least it has had the courage to do so. It's about time others did as well.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Thursday, May 03, 2012
Overtaken By The Fear: Holiday lets
Some people are just too helpful in cyberland. Along comes a request, one which asks for advice on renting an apartment as a holiday let, and the help flows in. The help cannot be faulted. It is informative, and the information can be trusted, especially when a respondent displays his or her credentials as an owner of an apartment for rent as a holiday let. Another respondent says that such apartments can be found on a map, and intimates where this map and therefore properties can be located. Great. This is really helpful. Thanks very much. Oh, and by the way, the one who made the request was from the Balearics tourism ministry.
I've made this last bit up. But you never know in cyberland, do you. I read the help being offered with my jaw firmly dropped. Admission as to private apartment being rented out as a holiday let and a map to help find it. Are you kidding!? Would it not be simpler to just put a flashing neon sign outside the apartment in the shape of a finger pointing at the apartment and which says "tourism ministry, we're here"?
The Balearic Government, in case you hadn't noticed, doesn't much care for private apartments being rented out as holiday lets. So little does it care for them that, in strictly legal terms, they don't exist. They haven't been airbrushed out of existence, as they have never been formally identified as existing under tourism law. By not mentioning them, they are therefore excluded from the categories of tourism accommodation which do exist in law.
The government has been saying, as it has said in the past, that it intends to be rigorous in identifying this illegal holiday accommodation. And this rigour is being reserved in particular for the internet and even more particularly for English websites.
But will the government be as rigorous as it has said that it will be? Does it in fact need to be? Create enough publicity about illegal holiday lets and there will be those, including myself, who help to spread this publicity more widely. It's a brilliant strategy: put the fear of God into property owners, and you get rid of the problem of holiday lets without lifting a finger.
Well, possibly. Or possibly the government will in fact be as rigorous as it has suggested it will be but hasn't necessarily been in the past. This said, it takes a fair old amount of resources to keep tabs on all the property that is knocking around which is being rented out without official clearance. Something else you might have noticed is that the government is boracic and that one ministry to have its budget heavily slashed is the tourism ministry which polices accommodation.
It could all be that the government's announcements about rigour are PR aimed at its friends from the hotel sector. It says it's going to do this and that, but in the end it doesn't. The trouble is that there is always the worry that it keeps to its word. Plus there is an additional worry, as also alluded to by government, of other ministries joining in with the rigour, namely the Hacienda which enjoys the benefit of the cunning collection of copies of electricity bills.
There is, despite all the publicity, a widely held view that the government's announcements are all bluster and that there is no possible way that it can check on all the hundreds, thousands of apartments. This may be the case, and it may also be the case that what rigour there is, is confined to parts of Mallorca and not to others. By which I mean? Well, let's consider somewhere like Pollensa. Mayor Cifre has made clear to the government that Pollensa relies heavily on holiday rentals, and not just those that are regulated.
I am willing to wager that, if the government does apply its rigour, Puerto Pollensa will escape its attentions. The damage that just one publicised case of action against an illegal let in the resort would cause would potentially be disastrous. Cifre knows this and the government will know this, as it will know that the mayor is a member of its party. Everyone knows, moreover, that the hotel lobby in Pollensa isn't as strong as elsewhere. There aren't the hotels of other resorts, and the hotels seem quite content to co-exist with the holiday-let market.
I would also be willing to wager that there would be apartments in Mallorca which would escape the rigour because of who owns them. How many apartments, do you imagine, belong to politicians, their families or friends, or those from executive or shareholding ranks of the hotel industry?
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
I've made this last bit up. But you never know in cyberland, do you. I read the help being offered with my jaw firmly dropped. Admission as to private apartment being rented out as a holiday let and a map to help find it. Are you kidding!? Would it not be simpler to just put a flashing neon sign outside the apartment in the shape of a finger pointing at the apartment and which says "tourism ministry, we're here"?
The Balearic Government, in case you hadn't noticed, doesn't much care for private apartments being rented out as holiday lets. So little does it care for them that, in strictly legal terms, they don't exist. They haven't been airbrushed out of existence, as they have never been formally identified as existing under tourism law. By not mentioning them, they are therefore excluded from the categories of tourism accommodation which do exist in law.
The government has been saying, as it has said in the past, that it intends to be rigorous in identifying this illegal holiday accommodation. And this rigour is being reserved in particular for the internet and even more particularly for English websites.
But will the government be as rigorous as it has said that it will be? Does it in fact need to be? Create enough publicity about illegal holiday lets and there will be those, including myself, who help to spread this publicity more widely. It's a brilliant strategy: put the fear of God into property owners, and you get rid of the problem of holiday lets without lifting a finger.
Well, possibly. Or possibly the government will in fact be as rigorous as it has suggested it will be but hasn't necessarily been in the past. This said, it takes a fair old amount of resources to keep tabs on all the property that is knocking around which is being rented out without official clearance. Something else you might have noticed is that the government is boracic and that one ministry to have its budget heavily slashed is the tourism ministry which polices accommodation.
It could all be that the government's announcements about rigour are PR aimed at its friends from the hotel sector. It says it's going to do this and that, but in the end it doesn't. The trouble is that there is always the worry that it keeps to its word. Plus there is an additional worry, as also alluded to by government, of other ministries joining in with the rigour, namely the Hacienda which enjoys the benefit of the cunning collection of copies of electricity bills.
There is, despite all the publicity, a widely held view that the government's announcements are all bluster and that there is no possible way that it can check on all the hundreds, thousands of apartments. This may be the case, and it may also be the case that what rigour there is, is confined to parts of Mallorca and not to others. By which I mean? Well, let's consider somewhere like Pollensa. Mayor Cifre has made clear to the government that Pollensa relies heavily on holiday rentals, and not just those that are regulated.
I am willing to wager that, if the government does apply its rigour, Puerto Pollensa will escape its attentions. The damage that just one publicised case of action against an illegal let in the resort would cause would potentially be disastrous. Cifre knows this and the government will know this, as it will know that the mayor is a member of its party. Everyone knows, moreover, that the hotel lobby in Pollensa isn't as strong as elsewhere. There aren't the hotels of other resorts, and the hotels seem quite content to co-exist with the holiday-let market.
I would also be willing to wager that there would be apartments in Mallorca which would escape the rigour because of who owns them. How many apartments, do you imagine, belong to politicians, their families or friends, or those from executive or shareholding ranks of the hotel industry?
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
