When the tourism industry troops off for its away days in London for the World Travel Market, an impression given is that the industry doesn't air its dirty linen. The impression is of course a false one. The hoteliers and tour operators are happy with the tourist tax? They most certainly are not, though they tend to confine their criticisms to places behind closed doors. At the last fair, however, they came out with the line about one million tourists being lost.
A big difference between, say, the London fair and the one held in Madrid is that the latter is, fairly obviously, a Spanish affair. Sure, there is a big international element, but Madrid provides way more of an assessment of Spanish issues than London, Berlin and others ever will do. As such, therefore, London is not truly representative, and by and large the whole of the industry prefers to keep it that way. A full-on public barney doesn't look good and only creates negative publicity.
London also doesn't have a pre-fair conference quite like Madrid has with the Exceltur forum. Organised on behalf of the tourism industry elite (which Exceltur represents), it offers a stage for what one might describe as full and frank discussions. The Spanish media is engrossed, but other media pay scant attention. It is only Madrid, after all, and they all speak Spanish, unless someone attempts to sneak in some Catalan.
This is to demean the importance of Fitur. Much though London or Berlin might consider themselves to be the centres of the European tourism universe, Madrid is the real centre. The UN's World Tourism Organisation is based in Madrid, the capital of the country that receives more tourists than any other on the planet with the exception of France. Despite the Catalonia effect, Spain leapt above the US last year. The Trump effect, the negative Trump effect, was a key reason why.
The Spanish tourism universe doesn't of course solely revolve around the Balearics, but given that the islands account for more than 15% of the annual foreign tourist total, then what happens in the Balearics matters. The islands are the tourism arguments in relatively large microcosm, and these Balearic arguments tend to be heard more loudly than those of any other region of Spain. They were being given full voice at the Exceltur conference. The foreign media and indeed foreign tourists are naturally familiar with some of these arguments, but if they aren't, then they most certainly would have been if they had been paying attention to Madrid.
President Armengol was basically subjected to a complete handbagging. It was led by two of Mallorca's leading hoteliers - the baron of Meliá, Gabriel Escarrer, and the baroness of Riu, Carmen Riu. They laid into her over the tourist tax and the holiday rentals legislation. With the latter, it was perhaps odd to hear that the government was being accused of not being restrictive enough, but the point was nevertheless emphasised, as if it needed to be: the hoteliers want tight regulation of the rentals sector.
On top of this, Armengol was reprimanded by José María González, the president of Europcar, who was supposedly moderating the session. His beef had to do with government interference in the hire-car sector, including the plan for electric vehicles. Then there was the president of the Baleària shipping company, Adolfo Utor. It was illogical, he said, to have a tourist tax which supposedly is going to reduce tourist numbers, while the government is at the same time looking for better subventions for travelling to the islands and also wanting there to be a cut to the tourist rate of IVA (VAT).
The impression of all this is far from being a false one. Most of the tourism industry, and not just the hoteliers, seems to finally be losing its patience and rag with the Balearic government. Such an impression wouldn't be conveyed at other fairs, but at Madrid it can be, as it is mainly one for a domestic audience. But a problem for the hoteliers, and not only those in Mallorca, as the issue applies widely in Spain, is that the more they go on the offensive over questions such as holiday rentals, the more they can be (and are) accused of just looking after their own greedy interests.
Yet they do have a substantial amount of support. It is curious support because much of it comes from an entirely different political and social perspective. While the national tourism minister, Álvaro Nadal (Partido Popular), can coincide with the hoteliers in blaming holiday rentals for tourism saturation, so left-wing governments and organisations level the same blame.
But the hoteliers would basically like an industry cast in a PP image. A further problem for them, however, is now being able to rely on the PP at elections. Rather than handbaggings, maybe there needs to be more glad-handing.
Showing posts with label Tourist tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tourist tax. Show all posts
Saturday, January 20, 2018
Monday, December 18, 2017
The Biel Barceló Legacy
Biel Barceló was in the grand tradition of Balearic tourism ministers. He resigned. Yet resignation after only two and a half years in office can still bring with it a legacy. It may not be a fully fulfilled legacy, but it can be legacy nonetheless. Carlos Delgado bequeathed the "ley Delgado", the 2012 tourism law that Barceló spent much of his period as minister attempting to alter. In the process, he will go down in the annals as the minister who introduced the second ecotax and who incurred the wrath of holiday rentals liberals. In Balearic tourism ministry terms, he achieved much, even if there will be many who would prefer that he had departed without having left any legacy at all.
Tourism was always going to be his job to have, once Més, PSOE and Podemos had struck their agreement for government in 2015. Onto tourism he grafted his pet topic of innovation and research, and thus formed a ministry in his own image, and that of Més. The opprobrium directed towards Barceló regarding rentals and the tax is not justifiable in personal terms. If one cares to look at the Més manifesto for 2015, one will discover that both were on the agenda, although both - it is probably fair to say - have developed in ways that hadn't necessarily been envisaged.
For a doubling of the tourist tax, one really has to blame Podemos and the gun it held to the government over the budget. Barceló had, in the months after the tax had been introduced, been distinctly equivocal on whether it would go up. There was no room for equivocation when the barrels of Podemos were pointed.
As for the rentals legislation, I maintain that this took a course that hadn't been foreseen. Més were committed to legislate, but this was because the Partido Popular had failed to do so. PSOE agreed with them. There had to be new regulations, and these would have been drafted in a different fashion had it not been for the sudden explosion caused by the perfect storm of Airbnb (and others) and the massive demand for the Balearics that stemmed from Mediterranean geopolitics. Contrary to what anyone might believe, Més would have adopted a more relaxed attitude to regulation, if only because the PP had been illiberal.
That the legislation has become a complete dog's breakfast doesn't reflect well on Barceló, but again he can't be singled out. Podemos caused their own havoc, and the involvement of the Council of Mallorca and its incomprehensible zoning has just added to it. Fundamentally, however, Barceló was right. Things had got totally out of hand. Order had to be established, and the Balearics have been no different to many other places where Airbnb has completely disrupted the residential market.
He got things wrong with a failure to make immediate and forceful condemnations of bouts of anti-tourism and with going on about saturation. Both failures merely fed a growing antagonism towards tourism, but a response - setting limits on the number of tourists - was hardly the radical proposal that has been portrayed. Limits have been on the table for years; even the PP (Delgado) alluded to the potential need.
A further response is the frankly laughable notion that tourists will opt to come to the Balearics at times other than the summer. The Better in Winter campaign suffers because of its very slogan, as it begs the alternative - worse in summer. But any gains that might be claimed because of this campaign are questionable. A lengthening of the season has occurred because of increased demand resulting from the geopolitics, because of the ever greater momentum in niche products such as cycling and hiking that owes virtually nothing to government policy, and simply because of a greatly improved economic climate.
The only body which can genuinely be held up as having made a difference is the Palma 365 Foundation, of which the government isn't a part. And it most certainly has benefited from good press. That famous article about Palma in The Sunday Times was by a journalist who is well known to the Mallorca Tourist Board, a private organisation that promotes the island; so not, therefore, the government.
That article just goes to highlight an area where Barceló failed, just as ministers have in the past. Communications are hopeless. There is still no coherent approach to social media. The website for explaining how the tourist tax is spent was and is an utter embarrassment, and when the tax was introduced, he insisted on references to small percentages to be added to the overall cost of the holiday rather than appealing to the tourist's heart.
Has he left a legacy? We may start to get an idea next year, as his period as minister may have been when the mass in mass tourism was put into reverse. He hands over to Bel Busquets, a secondary school teacher by profession.
Tourism was always going to be his job to have, once Més, PSOE and Podemos had struck their agreement for government in 2015. Onto tourism he grafted his pet topic of innovation and research, and thus formed a ministry in his own image, and that of Més. The opprobrium directed towards Barceló regarding rentals and the tax is not justifiable in personal terms. If one cares to look at the Més manifesto for 2015, one will discover that both were on the agenda, although both - it is probably fair to say - have developed in ways that hadn't necessarily been envisaged.
For a doubling of the tourist tax, one really has to blame Podemos and the gun it held to the government over the budget. Barceló had, in the months after the tax had been introduced, been distinctly equivocal on whether it would go up. There was no room for equivocation when the barrels of Podemos were pointed.
As for the rentals legislation, I maintain that this took a course that hadn't been foreseen. Més were committed to legislate, but this was because the Partido Popular had failed to do so. PSOE agreed with them. There had to be new regulations, and these would have been drafted in a different fashion had it not been for the sudden explosion caused by the perfect storm of Airbnb (and others) and the massive demand for the Balearics that stemmed from Mediterranean geopolitics. Contrary to what anyone might believe, Més would have adopted a more relaxed attitude to regulation, if only because the PP had been illiberal.
That the legislation has become a complete dog's breakfast doesn't reflect well on Barceló, but again he can't be singled out. Podemos caused their own havoc, and the involvement of the Council of Mallorca and its incomprehensible zoning has just added to it. Fundamentally, however, Barceló was right. Things had got totally out of hand. Order had to be established, and the Balearics have been no different to many other places where Airbnb has completely disrupted the residential market.
He got things wrong with a failure to make immediate and forceful condemnations of bouts of anti-tourism and with going on about saturation. Both failures merely fed a growing antagonism towards tourism, but a response - setting limits on the number of tourists - was hardly the radical proposal that has been portrayed. Limits have been on the table for years; even the PP (Delgado) alluded to the potential need.
A further response is the frankly laughable notion that tourists will opt to come to the Balearics at times other than the summer. The Better in Winter campaign suffers because of its very slogan, as it begs the alternative - worse in summer. But any gains that might be claimed because of this campaign are questionable. A lengthening of the season has occurred because of increased demand resulting from the geopolitics, because of the ever greater momentum in niche products such as cycling and hiking that owes virtually nothing to government policy, and simply because of a greatly improved economic climate.
The only body which can genuinely be held up as having made a difference is the Palma 365 Foundation, of which the government isn't a part. And it most certainly has benefited from good press. That famous article about Palma in The Sunday Times was by a journalist who is well known to the Mallorca Tourist Board, a private organisation that promotes the island; so not, therefore, the government.
That article just goes to highlight an area where Barceló failed, just as ministers have in the past. Communications are hopeless. There is still no coherent approach to social media. The website for explaining how the tourist tax is spent was and is an utter embarrassment, and when the tax was introduced, he insisted on references to small percentages to be added to the overall cost of the holiday rather than appealing to the tourist's heart.
Has he left a legacy? We may start to get an idea next year, as his period as minister may have been when the mass in mass tourism was put into reverse. He hands over to Bel Busquets, a secondary school teacher by profession.
Monday, October 23, 2017
Santa Margalida Livid About Tourist Tax
Joan Monjo, Santa Margalida's mayor, says that he has instructed a lawyer to prepare a report into a possible legal challenge to decisions made regarding the distribution of tourist tax revenue.
The committee which makes these decisions that are then ratified by the government's cabinet, announced spending plans earlier this week. There had been a total of 122 projects to be considered. This was whittled down to 62 plus eight ongoing from last year. A joint Santa Margalida-Muro project was not among the 62.
This project required 360,000 euros, equivalent to 0.73% of the 49 million euros for the 62 (the complete spend will be 64 million to include the eight projects from 2016). It was for an archaeological route on the Son Real finca. In August, Monjo supplied a good deal of detail about this project. It would connect two historically important sites - the Talayotic settlement of Son Serra de Muro and the neo-Romanesque church of Son Serra de Marina. It would embrace other sites of high heritage significance - the dolmen of Son Baulo, the Son Real necropolis, the old Arab farmhouse of Santa Eulària, the Sa Nineta talayot. There would be secondary elements, such as the Punta del Patró and the coastal towers that were built in the 1940s for submarine target practice.
In addition to the actual route, the money being asked for would have gone towards promotion in different forms, including geolocation and audio guides. Moreover, it would also act as a cycling route. Monjo said of it that it was a project which encompasses the restoration of heritage, cultural enrichment and a contribution to reducing tourism seasonality. On every point, it was a project that conformed fairly and squarely with "purposes" for spending tourist tax revenue, and bear in mind that the amount was not that significant.
The annual plan for the spending of the tourist tax was published in the summer. Like all government documents it is convoluted to say the least, but it sets out criteria for justifying interventions to be made with tax revenue. These were assigned maximum points values. Therefore projects would be evaluated according to how they met these criteria and to their meeting specifications for all the documentation which has to be presented by those seeking funding. Under "project character", for instance, the plan refers to the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of emblematic places with high cultural and environmental value. This makes specific reference to the fact that 2018 is European Year of Cultural Heritage.
Given all this, why has it been turned down, especially when one considers that the Son Real finca was the stellar project in terms of spending for the old ecotax? The finca, much of it, was acquired by a government with similar political constituent parts to the current administration - PSOE and the PSM Mallorcan Socialists who are the main part of what is now Més.
Monjo seems to be in little doubt as to why: the political make-up of the committee. He explains that the government calls for projects to be submitted, establishes the bases for funding (the annual plan) but then it is "the government and its ministries which take the money". He adds that it is a "perversion of the system" and also notes that the government is having a laugh at municipalities such as Santa Margalida which are where the bulk of tourist tax revenue is raised.
Is he right in his assessment? Well, I don't know that he's entirely wrong, or at least that's the impression one has about this spending committee. It is weighted towards the government, each island council has representation and Palma town hall has representation separate to all other town halls, which are themselves represented by their federation. The government, the island councils and Palma reflect each other in terms of their political components - PSOE, Més, Podemos (or variants thereof)
The committee, and one can't help but feel this, is something of a charade. It includes environmentalists GOB who vote against the spending plans because they believe all the money should go towards the environment. Business representation, such as through the Confederation of Balearic Business Associations, can appear almost irrelevant. It goes along with the projects because it knows it can't do anything else. The town halls have the same representation as GOB: two members, one of whom abstained when it came to the spending decisions.
Where Santa Margalida is concerned, it is politically opposed to the government. It is a coalition of El Pi (Monjo) and the Partido Popular. Monjo, never short of a few words, has not exactly endeared himself to the government, while the internal workings of Santa Margalida town hall are such that there are regular buttings of heads with Més, in the form of ex-mayor Toni Reus, an influential figure in the party. Indeed, Suma pel Canvi, which is the coalition opposition grouping which includes Més, says that the route would go past an agrotourism property in Muro, which is managed by a company of which Monjo is the sole administrator. Which may be the case, but what real difference does this make?
Is the decision to exclude the project all down to politics then? Monjo seems to think so. Because of the rejection, he says that the town hall will withdraw the money it spends on archaeological excavations. Once more, therefore, Son Real is a political football between the government and the town hall, the latter having felt over the years since it was acquired that it has never been managed satisfactorily. And in this regard the town hall is right.
The committee which makes these decisions that are then ratified by the government's cabinet, announced spending plans earlier this week. There had been a total of 122 projects to be considered. This was whittled down to 62 plus eight ongoing from last year. A joint Santa Margalida-Muro project was not among the 62.
This project required 360,000 euros, equivalent to 0.73% of the 49 million euros for the 62 (the complete spend will be 64 million to include the eight projects from 2016). It was for an archaeological route on the Son Real finca. In August, Monjo supplied a good deal of detail about this project. It would connect two historically important sites - the Talayotic settlement of Son Serra de Muro and the neo-Romanesque church of Son Serra de Marina. It would embrace other sites of high heritage significance - the dolmen of Son Baulo, the Son Real necropolis, the old Arab farmhouse of Santa Eulària, the Sa Nineta talayot. There would be secondary elements, such as the Punta del Patró and the coastal towers that were built in the 1940s for submarine target practice.
In addition to the actual route, the money being asked for would have gone towards promotion in different forms, including geolocation and audio guides. Moreover, it would also act as a cycling route. Monjo said of it that it was a project which encompasses the restoration of heritage, cultural enrichment and a contribution to reducing tourism seasonality. On every point, it was a project that conformed fairly and squarely with "purposes" for spending tourist tax revenue, and bear in mind that the amount was not that significant.
The annual plan for the spending of the tourist tax was published in the summer. Like all government documents it is convoluted to say the least, but it sets out criteria for justifying interventions to be made with tax revenue. These were assigned maximum points values. Therefore projects would be evaluated according to how they met these criteria and to their meeting specifications for all the documentation which has to be presented by those seeking funding. Under "project character", for instance, the plan refers to the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of emblematic places with high cultural and environmental value. This makes specific reference to the fact that 2018 is European Year of Cultural Heritage.
Given all this, why has it been turned down, especially when one considers that the Son Real finca was the stellar project in terms of spending for the old ecotax? The finca, much of it, was acquired by a government with similar political constituent parts to the current administration - PSOE and the PSM Mallorcan Socialists who are the main part of what is now Més.
Monjo seems to be in little doubt as to why: the political make-up of the committee. He explains that the government calls for projects to be submitted, establishes the bases for funding (the annual plan) but then it is "the government and its ministries which take the money". He adds that it is a "perversion of the system" and also notes that the government is having a laugh at municipalities such as Santa Margalida which are where the bulk of tourist tax revenue is raised.
Is he right in his assessment? Well, I don't know that he's entirely wrong, or at least that's the impression one has about this spending committee. It is weighted towards the government, each island council has representation and Palma town hall has representation separate to all other town halls, which are themselves represented by their federation. The government, the island councils and Palma reflect each other in terms of their political components - PSOE, Més, Podemos (or variants thereof)
The committee, and one can't help but feel this, is something of a charade. It includes environmentalists GOB who vote against the spending plans because they believe all the money should go towards the environment. Business representation, such as through the Confederation of Balearic Business Associations, can appear almost irrelevant. It goes along with the projects because it knows it can't do anything else. The town halls have the same representation as GOB: two members, one of whom abstained when it came to the spending decisions.
Where Santa Margalida is concerned, it is politically opposed to the government. It is a coalition of El Pi (Monjo) and the Partido Popular. Monjo, never short of a few words, has not exactly endeared himself to the government, while the internal workings of Santa Margalida town hall are such that there are regular buttings of heads with Més, in the form of ex-mayor Toni Reus, an influential figure in the party. Indeed, Suma pel Canvi, which is the coalition opposition grouping which includes Més, says that the route would go past an agrotourism property in Muro, which is managed by a company of which Monjo is the sole administrator. Which may be the case, but what real difference does this make?
Is the decision to exclude the project all down to politics then? Monjo seems to think so. Because of the rejection, he says that the town hall will withdraw the money it spends on archaeological excavations. Once more, therefore, Son Real is a political football between the government and the town hall, the latter having felt over the years since it was acquired that it has never been managed satisfactorily. And in this regard the town hall is right.
Sunday, October 22, 2017
Things Just Got Més-ier: Independence And Tourism
The Banbury Boy, Mick of the Council, has had his say about the slight to-do that has been cracking off in Catalonia. Mick hasn't demanded immediate legal independence, installation as the next member state of the European Union, participation at the next football Euros, and an agreement to devote all the money raised by the Christmas El Gordo lottery to shore up an economy about to do its best to become the new Extremadura (which Catalonia with a bit of help from the Balearics has been keeping afloat for decades). No, none of that (with the possible exception of the first); Mick has instead been concerning himself with the last two presidents of the Balearics.
Frankie Antich and J.R. Bauzá have themselves reasonably remunerated sinecures as members of the Senate. These are courtesy of the Balearic parliament. Whereas the citizens elect five Balearic senators, parliament, through its benevolence, secures former presidents nice little earners in Madrid. In the case of Antich there wasn't much of a fuss about this. With J.R. it was a way of managing to get rid of him. This didn't of course stop J.R. attempting to make a comeback. It was believed that he was exploiting his presence in Madrid to drum up support to march triumphantly into the Balearic PP leadership once more. Which he might have believed, but no one else in the PP in Madrid did.
His one-man PR campaign (PR for himself) is, it seems, more or less all he does in Madrid. While Antich, in between having a heart attack, at least attempts to justify himself by asking questions in the Senate, J.R. remains silent, all the time plotting his next failed comeback. Recently, because he clearly wasn't needed in Madrid, he was seen among the Palma crowds demonstrating their support for Spanish unity. And it is this, rather than any under-performance in a Senate style, which has attracted Mick's interest.
The president of the Council of Mallorca, which is rapidly becoming its own independent state within the loose alliance known as the autonomous community of the Balearics, is insisting that J.R. - and Frankie Antich - vote against Rajoy's Article 155 nuclear option. Both of them owe the fact that they are senators to that parliamentary grace and favouring. And as the Balearic parliament has extended the fraternal hand of support to Carles Puigdemont and his pals, then they should both say "no" to Rajoy and 155.
The chances of J.R. doing this are about as slim as him finally abandoning his ambitions for political renaissance. Antich, cloistered in the Madrid halls of power, has gone native and is tagging along behind Pedro Sánchez in having said he'll say "yes" to 155. It is here where things get a tad awkward. Mick will know full well that J.R. is a hopeless case, but he and Més are determined that Antich remembers that he's from the Balearics, the mini-me homeland of independence (in a Més fashion), and not a political creation of Madrid.
The other Frankie, Armengol, has been hoping to persuade the former Frankie to be as sweet and friendly as she is and bow to the Més command. She has thus been engaged in dialogue with Frankie A Mark I in seeking to arrive at a 155 consensus, one that he clearly doesn't believe in. Will her intervention do the trick for Mick? We will find out, but the whole business has revealed the extent to which Més appear to be labouring under an impression that they are the true power in the Balearic land, when everyone of course knows that it is Podemos.
But Més are discovering that power grab comes at a cost, roughly valued at 80,000 euros in the case of the combined price for two contracts that the not-quite-yet-former director of the Balearic Tourism Agency sanctioned. Pere Muñoz is for some bizarre reason still acting director of the agency, and while he and Mrs. Doubtfire, the one-time minister for opacity, are the convenient fallpersons for the Més contracts mess, it now emerges that payment for at least one contract was allegedly being made even before it was signed.
Biel Barceló, meanwhile, rises above all this fuss and then comes out with the astonishing announcement that the agency is in any event going to be shut down. This is because Mick and the Council are about to take over all the promotion of tourism, i.e. cultural, gastronomic, natural tourism for the millions of tourists planning on coming to Mallorca in the winter.
So Pere would have been out of a job anyway. Can we conclude this? We probably can. Alternatively, he may have been switched to a new post as director for managing the spending of the tourist tax. Biel, in dismantling the agency, has hit upon a fabulous ruse for the use of public money. The agency will be turned into another agency - one to manage tourist tax revenue spending projects.
It will do what? Why in God's name is such an agency needed? Is it not the case that Biel decides how the revenue's going to be spent, then informs the rest of the committee before handing over large sums of tourist tax moolah to Palma town hall for it to get on and carry out the projects? What do you need an agency for? Aren't town halls (and others) competent enough at managing projects?
Erm, yes, maybe there is the need for an agency.
Frankie Antich and J.R. Bauzá have themselves reasonably remunerated sinecures as members of the Senate. These are courtesy of the Balearic parliament. Whereas the citizens elect five Balearic senators, parliament, through its benevolence, secures former presidents nice little earners in Madrid. In the case of Antich there wasn't much of a fuss about this. With J.R. it was a way of managing to get rid of him. This didn't of course stop J.R. attempting to make a comeback. It was believed that he was exploiting his presence in Madrid to drum up support to march triumphantly into the Balearic PP leadership once more. Which he might have believed, but no one else in the PP in Madrid did.
His one-man PR campaign (PR for himself) is, it seems, more or less all he does in Madrid. While Antich, in between having a heart attack, at least attempts to justify himself by asking questions in the Senate, J.R. remains silent, all the time plotting his next failed comeback. Recently, because he clearly wasn't needed in Madrid, he was seen among the Palma crowds demonstrating their support for Spanish unity. And it is this, rather than any under-performance in a Senate style, which has attracted Mick's interest.
The president of the Council of Mallorca, which is rapidly becoming its own independent state within the loose alliance known as the autonomous community of the Balearics, is insisting that J.R. - and Frankie Antich - vote against Rajoy's Article 155 nuclear option. Both of them owe the fact that they are senators to that parliamentary grace and favouring. And as the Balearic parliament has extended the fraternal hand of support to Carles Puigdemont and his pals, then they should both say "no" to Rajoy and 155.
The chances of J.R. doing this are about as slim as him finally abandoning his ambitions for political renaissance. Antich, cloistered in the Madrid halls of power, has gone native and is tagging along behind Pedro Sánchez in having said he'll say "yes" to 155. It is here where things get a tad awkward. Mick will know full well that J.R. is a hopeless case, but he and Més are determined that Antich remembers that he's from the Balearics, the mini-me homeland of independence (in a Més fashion), and not a political creation of Madrid.
The other Frankie, Armengol, has been hoping to persuade the former Frankie to be as sweet and friendly as she is and bow to the Més command. She has thus been engaged in dialogue with Frankie A Mark I in seeking to arrive at a 155 consensus, one that he clearly doesn't believe in. Will her intervention do the trick for Mick? We will find out, but the whole business has revealed the extent to which Més appear to be labouring under an impression that they are the true power in the Balearic land, when everyone of course knows that it is Podemos.
But Més are discovering that power grab comes at a cost, roughly valued at 80,000 euros in the case of the combined price for two contracts that the not-quite-yet-former director of the Balearic Tourism Agency sanctioned. Pere Muñoz is for some bizarre reason still acting director of the agency, and while he and Mrs. Doubtfire, the one-time minister for opacity, are the convenient fallpersons for the Més contracts mess, it now emerges that payment for at least one contract was allegedly being made even before it was signed.
Biel Barceló, meanwhile, rises above all this fuss and then comes out with the astonishing announcement that the agency is in any event going to be shut down. This is because Mick and the Council are about to take over all the promotion of tourism, i.e. cultural, gastronomic, natural tourism for the millions of tourists planning on coming to Mallorca in the winter.
So Pere would have been out of a job anyway. Can we conclude this? We probably can. Alternatively, he may have been switched to a new post as director for managing the spending of the tourist tax. Biel, in dismantling the agency, has hit upon a fabulous ruse for the use of public money. The agency will be turned into another agency - one to manage tourist tax revenue spending projects.
It will do what? Why in God's name is such an agency needed? Is it not the case that Biel decides how the revenue's going to be spent, then informs the rest of the committee before handing over large sums of tourist tax moolah to Palma town hall for it to get on and carry out the projects? What do you need an agency for? Aren't town halls (and others) competent enough at managing projects?
Erm, yes, maybe there is the need for an agency.
Wednesday, October 04, 2017
The Wages Of Biel Barceló
Mallorca's hoteliers are mightily generous. They've agreed a 17% pay increase over four years. An agreement? More a case of the unions snapping their hands off before there was any chance to backtrack. The unions couldn't believe the offer. They'd been wanting 10%.
The agreement came out of the blue. The negotiations, we had understood, weren't due to start until after the season had finished. It was a surprise when the agreement was announced and an even bigger surprise when the size of the pay increase was known. The president of the Menorca hoteliers summed things up. It had all been done so quickly that it was a done deal by the time the other islands were told about it. Their hoteliers aren't bound by the agreement but they're not left with much wriggle room now that Mallorca has set the bar so high.
The surprise was compounded by the knowledge that there was a separate group of hoteliers which had been agitating for something modest. These were the smaller chains, the ones without pockets as deep as the like of Iberostar and Meliá. The smaller hotel chains are also less in the political firing-line than the large groups.
The agreement, with Inma Benito - now at Iberostar - leading the way for the Mallorca federation, looks increasingly as though it was a deliberate political manoeuvre. The government can suddenly be friends again. Moreover, Iberostar won't be troubled by any potential industrial unrest next year. Nor will the other hoteliers. It was the last thing, and I stress the last thing, that could have been contemplated. With everything else of a tourism nature that is flying around, strikes in hotels would have been the final straw.
Having signed on the dotted line with the unions, one headache for the tourism industry is removed, albeit that not all hoteliers are happy with the agreement and that the rest of the hospitality sector, such as the restaurants which are party to the same collective bargaining arrangement, have refused to sign. They had said that they couldn't accept the 10% let alone 17%.
Eliminating headaches is a way of defining this agreement. There are enough as it is, and the season for the travel fairs is almost upon the industry and the government. In London in November there can at least be assurance that there won't be strikes in hotels. There's going to need to be a heck of a lot more assurance.
One of those who will be attempting to give this assurance is Biel Barceló. As far as he is concerned, the wage agreement is a sign of the confidence that the hotel sector has in the future of the tourism industry in the Balearics. (The hoteliers in the other islands might like to note that he said the Balearics rather than just Mallorca.) Here's a message he can take to London. Look at the confidence; it's worth 17%.
Although the word from the Balearic government has been about trying to smooth the influx of tourists, it is understood that the tourism industry - tour operators, for example - was nevertheless surprised if not alarmed by what was being said last week about reducing numbers in the summer. Barceló has a lot of explaining to do when he gets to London, and the omens for his explanations aren't that positive.
He was explaining in The Bulletin at the weekend and he had my jaw dropping lower and lower. Only five or six complaints about the tourist tax? Only two thousand people might be deterred from coming because of a doubling of the rate? So it isn't a tax for dissuading tourists, when he has said in the past, inter alia, that the tax is a tool for regulating the flow of tourists? There won't be a doubling between October and April. Isn't October part of the main season? Hasn't the actual application of a winter rate still to be decided? The tourist tax is the lowest in Europe. Catalonia, anyone? Croatia, anybody else? Tax revenue of 74 million euros has been invested in the tourist industry. Where did that figure come from? And which tourist industry is this exactly? One that includes water systems in and around Maria and Llubi? Well, he is also the president of the committee which decides how the tourist tax is spent.
Then there was the killer. "It's not a question of having fewer people during the summer." If this isn't the question, then what is it? At the Night of Tourism last Wednesday, Barceló said: "We need to improve demand and increase quality, spending per tourist and the satisfaction of visitors." In order to be more sustainable, we have to "decrease in summer and move tourists to the winter".
Yes, the hoteliers have provided a good message (though what it means for prices is another matter), but as to the others - who can tell.
The agreement came out of the blue. The negotiations, we had understood, weren't due to start until after the season had finished. It was a surprise when the agreement was announced and an even bigger surprise when the size of the pay increase was known. The president of the Menorca hoteliers summed things up. It had all been done so quickly that it was a done deal by the time the other islands were told about it. Their hoteliers aren't bound by the agreement but they're not left with much wriggle room now that Mallorca has set the bar so high.
The surprise was compounded by the knowledge that there was a separate group of hoteliers which had been agitating for something modest. These were the smaller chains, the ones without pockets as deep as the like of Iberostar and Meliá. The smaller hotel chains are also less in the political firing-line than the large groups.
The agreement, with Inma Benito - now at Iberostar - leading the way for the Mallorca federation, looks increasingly as though it was a deliberate political manoeuvre. The government can suddenly be friends again. Moreover, Iberostar won't be troubled by any potential industrial unrest next year. Nor will the other hoteliers. It was the last thing, and I stress the last thing, that could have been contemplated. With everything else of a tourism nature that is flying around, strikes in hotels would have been the final straw.
Having signed on the dotted line with the unions, one headache for the tourism industry is removed, albeit that not all hoteliers are happy with the agreement and that the rest of the hospitality sector, such as the restaurants which are party to the same collective bargaining arrangement, have refused to sign. They had said that they couldn't accept the 10% let alone 17%.
Eliminating headaches is a way of defining this agreement. There are enough as it is, and the season for the travel fairs is almost upon the industry and the government. In London in November there can at least be assurance that there won't be strikes in hotels. There's going to need to be a heck of a lot more assurance.
One of those who will be attempting to give this assurance is Biel Barceló. As far as he is concerned, the wage agreement is a sign of the confidence that the hotel sector has in the future of the tourism industry in the Balearics. (The hoteliers in the other islands might like to note that he said the Balearics rather than just Mallorca.) Here's a message he can take to London. Look at the confidence; it's worth 17%.
Although the word from the Balearic government has been about trying to smooth the influx of tourists, it is understood that the tourism industry - tour operators, for example - was nevertheless surprised if not alarmed by what was being said last week about reducing numbers in the summer. Barceló has a lot of explaining to do when he gets to London, and the omens for his explanations aren't that positive.
He was explaining in The Bulletin at the weekend and he had my jaw dropping lower and lower. Only five or six complaints about the tourist tax? Only two thousand people might be deterred from coming because of a doubling of the rate? So it isn't a tax for dissuading tourists, when he has said in the past, inter alia, that the tax is a tool for regulating the flow of tourists? There won't be a doubling between October and April. Isn't October part of the main season? Hasn't the actual application of a winter rate still to be decided? The tourist tax is the lowest in Europe. Catalonia, anyone? Croatia, anybody else? Tax revenue of 74 million euros has been invested in the tourist industry. Where did that figure come from? And which tourist industry is this exactly? One that includes water systems in and around Maria and Llubi? Well, he is also the president of the committee which decides how the tourist tax is spent.
Then there was the killer. "It's not a question of having fewer people during the summer." If this isn't the question, then what is it? At the Night of Tourism last Wednesday, Barceló said: "We need to improve demand and increase quality, spending per tourist and the satisfaction of visitors." In order to be more sustainable, we have to "decrease in summer and move tourists to the winter".
Yes, the hoteliers have provided a good message (though what it means for prices is another matter), but as to the others - who can tell.
Friday, September 15, 2017
The Curious Advocacy Of Tourist Wealth
How much should the tourist tax be per night? The maximum rate in the Balearics as from next year will be four euros. This is for four-star superior and five-star accommodation. These are the hotels where the rich go, though defining richness isn't easy. There are "well-off" folk who travel five star, but they're not in the rich class.
The Netherlands is a country with a reputation for pragmatism and tolerance. Its capital Amsterdam reflects this, its famous red light district as much as anything. For many tourists, so it is said, the red light district is where they go. If they spend money, then they spend it there. The city's restaurants, it is noted, don't benefit to the extent that they should, which is surprising given the volume of rental accommodation. Though the city is addressing this by restricting the number of days that properties can be available for rental.
Amsterdam, as with other European cities, attracts an enormous number of tourists. Like those other cities (and also with resorts) there are tourists who are valuable to the local economy, those who are less valuable and those who aren't of any value. The latter category can in fact create a negative balance. Their contribution, such as it may be, is less than an approximated cost of having them use services. In addition, they add to a perception or to the fact of overcrowding without giving something or giving enough in return.
There is talk in Amsterdam of increasing the tourist tax. A figure of ten euros per night is being discussed. And it is being referred to as a deterrent tax, though deterrence would owe a lot to how long a tourist stays. Two or three nights? Thirty euros? Would it be that much of a deterrence? Resorts are different. Tourists stay longer in resorts than they do in cities.
Dutch tolerance, where tourists are concerned, seems to have been stretched to the limits. Which is why this tolerance is evaporating. A tourist tax rate of ten euros, deterrent or not, would be discriminatory; it would discriminate on the grounds of personal wealth.
There are parts of Europe, Switzerland is a good example, where tourism is expensive with or without any taxes. If you ever look at price comparisons for hotels, you will often find that Switzerland is, generally speaking, more expensive than other countries. The Swiss have never encouraged a low-contributing style of tourism. Historically it has always been a country for the wealthy visitor.
Switzerland has some relevance to Mallorca. When the founding fathers of tourism at the turn of the twentieth century were seeking to shape their new industry, Switzerland was a model that they were able to consider, as was the French Riviera. Here were places where tourism genuinely existed and they were the preserves of the wealthy of Europe (and the USA).
The Assemblea 23-S, the grouping that will stage the "massification" demonstration, has alluded to those days. They were ones, once tourism started to develop in Mallorca, when only the rich could afford to travel. Only the rich had time on their hands. The rich didn't have to worry about the non-existence of paid holidays. Accordingly, Mallorca built hotels that were for this wealthy class. Yes, there were pensions but by and large, and into the 1950s, the tourism infrastructure was designed for the wealthy European who didn't travel in enormous numbers.
There seems to be a desire, here in Mallorca, in Amsterdam and elsewhere to turn the clock back. That tourism of the rich was in a sense the legacy of the Grand Tour, when only aristocratic young men (less so women) broadened their cultural horizons and paid good money for doing so.
This desire is not solely the preserve of the left but predominantly it is. In this respect it a curious philosophy. The tourism agitators in Mallorca seek to defend (with legitimacy) the earnings and conditions of the working class, though how defensible this would be, were tourism-sector employment to decline, isn't too clear. The island's working class is defended, but what about the working class from elsewhere? There is an absence of brotherhood in the demands of the Mallorcan left. There is also a total forgetfulness. The British working class first came to Mallorca thanks to the British Workers Travel Association, which was linked to the Labour Party. The Holiday Pay Act of 1948 was to help.
Vladimir Raitz, the founder of Horizon, considered tourism in socialist terms. A holiday for the ordinary man, woman and family. A holiday to open up experience of other cultures. A holiday to assist in the pursuit of post-war peace and tolerance.
Those were times when ideals as much as business were important. Times obviously change and they do so in curious ways. A left-wing advocacy of the rich. How odd.
The Netherlands is a country with a reputation for pragmatism and tolerance. Its capital Amsterdam reflects this, its famous red light district as much as anything. For many tourists, so it is said, the red light district is where they go. If they spend money, then they spend it there. The city's restaurants, it is noted, don't benefit to the extent that they should, which is surprising given the volume of rental accommodation. Though the city is addressing this by restricting the number of days that properties can be available for rental.
Amsterdam, as with other European cities, attracts an enormous number of tourists. Like those other cities (and also with resorts) there are tourists who are valuable to the local economy, those who are less valuable and those who aren't of any value. The latter category can in fact create a negative balance. Their contribution, such as it may be, is less than an approximated cost of having them use services. In addition, they add to a perception or to the fact of overcrowding without giving something or giving enough in return.
There is talk in Amsterdam of increasing the tourist tax. A figure of ten euros per night is being discussed. And it is being referred to as a deterrent tax, though deterrence would owe a lot to how long a tourist stays. Two or three nights? Thirty euros? Would it be that much of a deterrence? Resorts are different. Tourists stay longer in resorts than they do in cities.
Dutch tolerance, where tourists are concerned, seems to have been stretched to the limits. Which is why this tolerance is evaporating. A tourist tax rate of ten euros, deterrent or not, would be discriminatory; it would discriminate on the grounds of personal wealth.
There are parts of Europe, Switzerland is a good example, where tourism is expensive with or without any taxes. If you ever look at price comparisons for hotels, you will often find that Switzerland is, generally speaking, more expensive than other countries. The Swiss have never encouraged a low-contributing style of tourism. Historically it has always been a country for the wealthy visitor.
Switzerland has some relevance to Mallorca. When the founding fathers of tourism at the turn of the twentieth century were seeking to shape their new industry, Switzerland was a model that they were able to consider, as was the French Riviera. Here were places where tourism genuinely existed and they were the preserves of the wealthy of Europe (and the USA).
The Assemblea 23-S, the grouping that will stage the "massification" demonstration, has alluded to those days. They were ones, once tourism started to develop in Mallorca, when only the rich could afford to travel. Only the rich had time on their hands. The rich didn't have to worry about the non-existence of paid holidays. Accordingly, Mallorca built hotels that were for this wealthy class. Yes, there were pensions but by and large, and into the 1950s, the tourism infrastructure was designed for the wealthy European who didn't travel in enormous numbers.
There seems to be a desire, here in Mallorca, in Amsterdam and elsewhere to turn the clock back. That tourism of the rich was in a sense the legacy of the Grand Tour, when only aristocratic young men (less so women) broadened their cultural horizons and paid good money for doing so.
This desire is not solely the preserve of the left but predominantly it is. In this respect it a curious philosophy. The tourism agitators in Mallorca seek to defend (with legitimacy) the earnings and conditions of the working class, though how defensible this would be, were tourism-sector employment to decline, isn't too clear. The island's working class is defended, but what about the working class from elsewhere? There is an absence of brotherhood in the demands of the Mallorcan left. There is also a total forgetfulness. The British working class first came to Mallorca thanks to the British Workers Travel Association, which was linked to the Labour Party. The Holiday Pay Act of 1948 was to help.
Vladimir Raitz, the founder of Horizon, considered tourism in socialist terms. A holiday for the ordinary man, woman and family. A holiday to open up experience of other cultures. A holiday to assist in the pursuit of post-war peace and tolerance.
Those were times when ideals as much as business were important. Times obviously change and they do so in curious ways. A left-wing advocacy of the rich. How odd.
Wednesday, September 06, 2017
Twisted Knickers: Rentals And Tourist Tax
Knickers in a twist. Are yours? It could only happen in Mallorca. Holiday rentals legislation and tourist tax, that is. Oddly enough, it can appear that it can indeed only happen in Mallorca. Why? The island's success, that's why. It has held the tourist leadership for so long, it has become so ingrained into holidaymaking culture, it has attracted international media attention like no other destination for many a long year. It could only happen in Mallorca.
Are knickers in a twist elsewhere? Regarding rentals and tourist tax? Locally there may well be. Apartment owners (and speculators) have discovered that there are rules and that there are regulations. Talk in bars or in the local press is of concern with taxes. But the outside world knows little of such matters. Elsewhere, as in other tourist destinations, isn't Mallorca. These destinations compute but not to anything like the extent that Mallorca computes. What happens in Mallorca most certainly doesn't stay in Mallorca. It never has done. It fills column inches for the foreign press. Elsewhere doesn't. There isn't the same interest as with Mallorca. The island sells itself and it sells papers. Elsewhere doesn't sell itself and doesn't sell papers.
Here's an interesting little scheme for you. You'll have heard of Croatia. You can't not have heard of Croatia in the past, what, less than a week since the Balearic tourist tax announcement. Everyone's going to Croatia next year. It's just so the new Mallorca. It isn't because, given its lower capacity, not everyone will be able to fit into a hotel. It will be more the new Mallorca because the demand for (and supply of) holiday rentals will therefore shoot up, just like Mallorca's demand and supply have shot up. That's where the little scheme comes in, and it isn't like Mallorca.
Do you know that if you, as a holidaymaker, rent a property that isn't registered with the tourist board in Croatia, you could be liable to a fine of the equivalent of around 400 euros? You didn't know? You now do. Why the fine? Because of the law. Isn't legislation, aren't regulations such a damn nuisance? Don't governments know anything about tourism? Like the Balearic government doesn't know anything. Well, the Balearic government and indeed the Spanish government do not have laws which mean that a holiday rentals' guest in Croatia follows the same rules as hotels. The owner has to register you with the police. Croatia wants to know who's in the country.
The Croatian owner can be hit with a fine for not registering the guest on top of the fine for not having registered the property as a business and for not therefore having gone along with the scheme of classification of properties (akin to the hotel star rating). The fines aren't as huge as they now are in Mallorca, but the principle is exactly the same. Knickers in a twist in Croatia?
There is a tourist tax in Croatia as well. It isn't as high as Mallorca, but there is a tax nevertheless. Just as the Greek islands, everyone's other darlings for next year, will have a tourist tax of up to four euros per room per night. Fancy anywhere else? Malta, for instance? It has something known as the Environmental Contribution. Sounds familiar? Sort of, yes. Again it isn't at the same rate as Mallorca (and of course the rest of the Balearics), but there is still a tax. In Bulgaria the tax might be up to eight euros per person per stay. In French resorts, the old cap of 1.50 euros per night that could be charged went up two years ago. No one ever mentions the French tax, yet it has existed for years, which is the same in Germany. Turkey doesn't have a tourist tax but does have a charge for an entry visa. The cost for a family of four is roughly what it will cost from next year for a family of four (two kids under-16 who are exempt) for a week at a Mallorca five-star hotel.
There is only one other region of Spain where there is a tourist tax - Catalonia. Its tax was introduced in late 2011, and its star-rating system for private accommodation is much the same as Croatia's. In Valencia - Benidorm and all - there are holiday rentals rules that are not dissimilar to those in the Balearics. But not even Benidorm makes its way so determinedly into the media pages. And nor does Portugal, with requirements for inclusion of holiday rental licence registration numbers in website adverts that are identical to those in Mallorca and the Balearics.
You see, it can only happen in Mallorca. All those twisted knickers, that is. Yes, the tourist tax is generally higher than elsewhere (not all cities, though), but other governments might just fancy a little increase and you'll probably never hear about it.
Are knickers in a twist elsewhere? Regarding rentals and tourist tax? Locally there may well be. Apartment owners (and speculators) have discovered that there are rules and that there are regulations. Talk in bars or in the local press is of concern with taxes. But the outside world knows little of such matters. Elsewhere, as in other tourist destinations, isn't Mallorca. These destinations compute but not to anything like the extent that Mallorca computes. What happens in Mallorca most certainly doesn't stay in Mallorca. It never has done. It fills column inches for the foreign press. Elsewhere doesn't. There isn't the same interest as with Mallorca. The island sells itself and it sells papers. Elsewhere doesn't sell itself and doesn't sell papers.
Here's an interesting little scheme for you. You'll have heard of Croatia. You can't not have heard of Croatia in the past, what, less than a week since the Balearic tourist tax announcement. Everyone's going to Croatia next year. It's just so the new Mallorca. It isn't because, given its lower capacity, not everyone will be able to fit into a hotel. It will be more the new Mallorca because the demand for (and supply of) holiday rentals will therefore shoot up, just like Mallorca's demand and supply have shot up. That's where the little scheme comes in, and it isn't like Mallorca.
Do you know that if you, as a holidaymaker, rent a property that isn't registered with the tourist board in Croatia, you could be liable to a fine of the equivalent of around 400 euros? You didn't know? You now do. Why the fine? Because of the law. Isn't legislation, aren't regulations such a damn nuisance? Don't governments know anything about tourism? Like the Balearic government doesn't know anything. Well, the Balearic government and indeed the Spanish government do not have laws which mean that a holiday rentals' guest in Croatia follows the same rules as hotels. The owner has to register you with the police. Croatia wants to know who's in the country.
The Croatian owner can be hit with a fine for not registering the guest on top of the fine for not having registered the property as a business and for not therefore having gone along with the scheme of classification of properties (akin to the hotel star rating). The fines aren't as huge as they now are in Mallorca, but the principle is exactly the same. Knickers in a twist in Croatia?
There is a tourist tax in Croatia as well. It isn't as high as Mallorca, but there is a tax nevertheless. Just as the Greek islands, everyone's other darlings for next year, will have a tourist tax of up to four euros per room per night. Fancy anywhere else? Malta, for instance? It has something known as the Environmental Contribution. Sounds familiar? Sort of, yes. Again it isn't at the same rate as Mallorca (and of course the rest of the Balearics), but there is still a tax. In Bulgaria the tax might be up to eight euros per person per stay. In French resorts, the old cap of 1.50 euros per night that could be charged went up two years ago. No one ever mentions the French tax, yet it has existed for years, which is the same in Germany. Turkey doesn't have a tourist tax but does have a charge for an entry visa. The cost for a family of four is roughly what it will cost from next year for a family of four (two kids under-16 who are exempt) for a week at a Mallorca five-star hotel.
There is only one other region of Spain where there is a tourist tax - Catalonia. Its tax was introduced in late 2011, and its star-rating system for private accommodation is much the same as Croatia's. In Valencia - Benidorm and all - there are holiday rentals rules that are not dissimilar to those in the Balearics. But not even Benidorm makes its way so determinedly into the media pages. And nor does Portugal, with requirements for inclusion of holiday rental licence registration numbers in website adverts that are identical to those in Mallorca and the Balearics.
You see, it can only happen in Mallorca. All those twisted knickers, that is. Yes, the tourist tax is generally higher than elsewhere (not all cities, though), but other governments might just fancy a little increase and you'll probably never hear about it.
Tuesday, September 05, 2017
Son Real And EcoTax Mark II
There's another idea for spending tourist tax revenue. It's Son Real. Son Real, some of you might be thinking. Wasn't that bought with the old ecotax money? You would be right. It was. In fact the Son Real finca was the star purchase of that old ecotax, so much so that before the then government had even received any revenue from the first season of the tax's operation (2002), it had definitively agreed to pay the owners 12 million euros for what in fact was slightly less than half of the whole estate. Some will argue that the ecotax was dreamt up in order to buy Son Real.
So, Son Real is raising its ugly head again. Not, it should be stressed, that there is anything ugly with the finca. The ugliness applies to what have been fifteen years of mainly gross incompetence and mismanagement, with the regional government firmly to blame.
It is Santa Margalida town hall which is putting Son Real back on the tourist tax (aka ecotax) map. And what a map it is. There's an enormous one that the mayor, Joan Monjo, can point to in identifying where tax revenue would be spent, two sub-fincas totalling 137 hectares in size. The 2002 ecotax money secured 395 hectares for the government; the whole of the Son Real estate is 856 hectares.
Why does the town hall want these additional hectares to be acquired? Essentially, or so it would seem, so that there can be even more protection of Son Real than there already is by having it declared a nature park. It would therefore become another nature park on the bay of Alcudia, quite close to the one that already exists - Albufera, most of which falls within the neighbouring municipality of Muro.
As things stand, there can't be any development on Son Real as it is classified as an area of special natural interest. There was, some years ago, a proposal for a golf course. You can imagine that that went down like a lead balloon in environmentalist and indeed other circles. The proposal was dropped and will never be revived, which might be to the disappointment of the owner of one of the sub-fincas that Joan Monjo has his eye on. This is the smaller one of the two, a mere 37 hectares. It apparently belongs to a Lebanese businessman, who had acquired the land with the idea of developing it. The businessman, says Monjo, got himself a whole load of pine forest that cannot be developed.
If there is already protection, then what real difference would there be by having Son Real declared a nature park? The mayor argues that there would be specific plans for its management and its organisation. This may well be the case, but aren't there already management plans?
Monjo does have a point about the management. It has improved, but as an example of the mismanagement, one can go back to a time some five years ago when bikes that were meant to be for hire weren't available, the museum was regularly closed and when it was open, the audiovisual kit wasn't working. The management was a shambles. The town hall even took it upon itself to do maintenance.
But being a nature park doesn't seem to guarantee good management. The environmentalists GOB have consistently pointed to deficiencies at Albufera. Only recently, when the environment ministry announced it was recruiting new agents for its Ibanat agency, GOB made the point again about deficient management and surveillance of the Albufera park.
Son Real does deserve a great deal better. The past fifteen years have been testimony to no small amount of ineptitude. It is a finca, because of the necropolis for example, that is of great cultural interest as well as being of environmental importance. A nature park, in theory, isn't a bad idea. Buying the finca in the first place wasn't a bad idea. It was just that it was bought, almost as some sort of vanity scheme, and then allowed to be mismanaged.
The cynic in me almost wonders whether having a nature park in Santa Margalida is because the rival neighbours, Muro, have got one of their own. The two town halls are frequently at loggerheads because of plans for the new sewage plant, though in fact where Son Real is concerned, they are in agreement in wanting a separate project to be paid for with tourist tax revenue: a more modest one worth 360,000 euros for an archaeological route.
How much would be needed to acquire the additional 137 hectares? Given the purchase in 2002 and with an upward adjustment, probably around five million euros. And what would be the cost for managing it as a nature park? Will there be tourist tax funding? The current government knows about the controversies of the old ecotax. Son Real was symptomatic.
So, Son Real is raising its ugly head again. Not, it should be stressed, that there is anything ugly with the finca. The ugliness applies to what have been fifteen years of mainly gross incompetence and mismanagement, with the regional government firmly to blame.
It is Santa Margalida town hall which is putting Son Real back on the tourist tax (aka ecotax) map. And what a map it is. There's an enormous one that the mayor, Joan Monjo, can point to in identifying where tax revenue would be spent, two sub-fincas totalling 137 hectares in size. The 2002 ecotax money secured 395 hectares for the government; the whole of the Son Real estate is 856 hectares.
Why does the town hall want these additional hectares to be acquired? Essentially, or so it would seem, so that there can be even more protection of Son Real than there already is by having it declared a nature park. It would therefore become another nature park on the bay of Alcudia, quite close to the one that already exists - Albufera, most of which falls within the neighbouring municipality of Muro.
As things stand, there can't be any development on Son Real as it is classified as an area of special natural interest. There was, some years ago, a proposal for a golf course. You can imagine that that went down like a lead balloon in environmentalist and indeed other circles. The proposal was dropped and will never be revived, which might be to the disappointment of the owner of one of the sub-fincas that Joan Monjo has his eye on. This is the smaller one of the two, a mere 37 hectares. It apparently belongs to a Lebanese businessman, who had acquired the land with the idea of developing it. The businessman, says Monjo, got himself a whole load of pine forest that cannot be developed.
If there is already protection, then what real difference would there be by having Son Real declared a nature park? The mayor argues that there would be specific plans for its management and its organisation. This may well be the case, but aren't there already management plans?
Monjo does have a point about the management. It has improved, but as an example of the mismanagement, one can go back to a time some five years ago when bikes that were meant to be for hire weren't available, the museum was regularly closed and when it was open, the audiovisual kit wasn't working. The management was a shambles. The town hall even took it upon itself to do maintenance.
But being a nature park doesn't seem to guarantee good management. The environmentalists GOB have consistently pointed to deficiencies at Albufera. Only recently, when the environment ministry announced it was recruiting new agents for its Ibanat agency, GOB made the point again about deficient management and surveillance of the Albufera park.
Son Real does deserve a great deal better. The past fifteen years have been testimony to no small amount of ineptitude. It is a finca, because of the necropolis for example, that is of great cultural interest as well as being of environmental importance. A nature park, in theory, isn't a bad idea. Buying the finca in the first place wasn't a bad idea. It was just that it was bought, almost as some sort of vanity scheme, and then allowed to be mismanaged.
The cynic in me almost wonders whether having a nature park in Santa Margalida is because the rival neighbours, Muro, have got one of their own. The two town halls are frequently at loggerheads because of plans for the new sewage plant, though in fact where Son Real is concerned, they are in agreement in wanting a separate project to be paid for with tourist tax revenue: a more modest one worth 360,000 euros for an archaeological route.
How much would be needed to acquire the additional 137 hectares? Given the purchase in 2002 and with an upward adjustment, probably around five million euros. And what would be the cost for managing it as a nature park? Will there be tourist tax funding? The current government knows about the controversies of the old ecotax. Son Real was symptomatic.
Sunday, August 27, 2017
The Transparency Illusion
What should the ecotax revenue be spent on? Don't all answer tourism because that would be too simple. In terms of tourism, the best one might say is that the spend is tourism-related. There is no provision for full-on, direct tourism spending, such as with a massive ad campaign. This doesn't fall under the various "purposes" included in the law for the sustainable tourism tax (to give it its actual title). What with all the negativity flying around at present, however, any other government might think it worthwhile forgetting the law and splashing all the anticipated 60 million euros of revenue on such a campaign. Not this government, though.
Even if the government were minded to splash the cash on a huge ad promotional drive, it couldn't of course do so. And that's because of the law. Those purposes are set in legal stone. Or are they? Where the town halls are concerned, there should be some modification in order that they are guaranteed a percentage of the tax bounty. They were mightily miffed not to have received any direct funding from last year's loot. They have made their bids for this year's revenue. The committee that decides, headed by the tourism minister, will draw its conclusions later in the year. Palma, for example, wants the old Torres del Temple to be given a makeover. Alcudia would like its ballsed-up water recycling project reactivated. Tourism? In a related way, yes. The water was intended for hotels' loos and gardens.
But what does one make of a government project to be funded from tax revenue for treating occupational disorders? Around 900,000 euros, it is being said, will go towards treatment for back pain and other ailments suffered by hotel chambermaids. Tourism? Well, in a related way, yes. Hotels are for tourists, as Alcudia town hall recognises. Chambermaids work in hotels.
Where the Palma project is concerned, if falls squarely under the third "purpose" in the legislation: recuperation and rehabilitation of historical and cultural heritage. The Alcudia water recycling scheme is probably served by the first purpose, that of, inter alia, modernisation of the environment. Though to be honest, there would seem to be a bit of a stretching of the definition. When it comes to the chambermaids, the purposes are even more wooly. The only possible qualification is purpose five: the improvement of training and quality of employment.
This, however, would really represent a definitional stretching. Treatment for occupational disorders was not what was meant by quality of employment.
I'm all in favour of the chambermaids getting their treatment. It may be that the project isn't ultimately approved, in which case it will in any event be paid for by the health and employment ministries. But the very fact of the project having been raised begs more questions about the transparency surrounding the spending of the tourist tax revenue. The town halls argued that there was a severe lack of transparency when the projects were decided last time. Is there to be more? And it might be noted that the chambermaids have become something of a political cause célèbre for the government: treated badly by those devils the hoteliers, who haven't done anything for treating or preventing their occupational disorders. Something like this, anyway.
This is a government that has set great store by transparency. It even made it a ministerial responsibility. The relevant minister, Ruth Mateu, lost her job because of a transparency failure - the contracts awarded to Jaume Garau by ministries run by her party, Més. The responsibility for transparency now lies with the department for the presidency.
Either before Mateu resigned (or was sacked) or just after, it would seem that the transparency directorate intervened in a request to see documentation related to the contracts for operating the new airport to resort bus services. The request had been sent to the transport ministry by one of the taxi drivers' associations. The transparency people apparently thought better of letting the association seeing the documentation.
This apparent blocking of information has emerged along with the news that the companies operating the bus services will not incur financial losses. In other words, if the bus routes don't reach their budgeted turnover targets, there will be government compensation for the companies. And it seems that this provision was in the documentation that the transparency directorate blocked.
The association is outraged, so are other taxi driver groups and now also certain business organisations. It was always stated that the bus companies would assume all risk for the services. It would now appear that they do not. There is more than a whiff of scandal, and there hasn't been any comment yet from the government.
If the taxi drivers' association's version of events proves to be accurate, then the government's transparency will be revealed as a sham. And this will be before we get to decisions about the ecotax revenue.
Even if the government were minded to splash the cash on a huge ad promotional drive, it couldn't of course do so. And that's because of the law. Those purposes are set in legal stone. Or are they? Where the town halls are concerned, there should be some modification in order that they are guaranteed a percentage of the tax bounty. They were mightily miffed not to have received any direct funding from last year's loot. They have made their bids for this year's revenue. The committee that decides, headed by the tourism minister, will draw its conclusions later in the year. Palma, for example, wants the old Torres del Temple to be given a makeover. Alcudia would like its ballsed-up water recycling project reactivated. Tourism? In a related way, yes. The water was intended for hotels' loos and gardens.
But what does one make of a government project to be funded from tax revenue for treating occupational disorders? Around 900,000 euros, it is being said, will go towards treatment for back pain and other ailments suffered by hotel chambermaids. Tourism? Well, in a related way, yes. Hotels are for tourists, as Alcudia town hall recognises. Chambermaids work in hotels.
Where the Palma project is concerned, if falls squarely under the third "purpose" in the legislation: recuperation and rehabilitation of historical and cultural heritage. The Alcudia water recycling scheme is probably served by the first purpose, that of, inter alia, modernisation of the environment. Though to be honest, there would seem to be a bit of a stretching of the definition. When it comes to the chambermaids, the purposes are even more wooly. The only possible qualification is purpose five: the improvement of training and quality of employment.
This, however, would really represent a definitional stretching. Treatment for occupational disorders was not what was meant by quality of employment.
I'm all in favour of the chambermaids getting their treatment. It may be that the project isn't ultimately approved, in which case it will in any event be paid for by the health and employment ministries. But the very fact of the project having been raised begs more questions about the transparency surrounding the spending of the tourist tax revenue. The town halls argued that there was a severe lack of transparency when the projects were decided last time. Is there to be more? And it might be noted that the chambermaids have become something of a political cause célèbre for the government: treated badly by those devils the hoteliers, who haven't done anything for treating or preventing their occupational disorders. Something like this, anyway.
This is a government that has set great store by transparency. It even made it a ministerial responsibility. The relevant minister, Ruth Mateu, lost her job because of a transparency failure - the contracts awarded to Jaume Garau by ministries run by her party, Més. The responsibility for transparency now lies with the department for the presidency.
Either before Mateu resigned (or was sacked) or just after, it would seem that the transparency directorate intervened in a request to see documentation related to the contracts for operating the new airport to resort bus services. The request had been sent to the transport ministry by one of the taxi drivers' associations. The transparency people apparently thought better of letting the association seeing the documentation.
This apparent blocking of information has emerged along with the news that the companies operating the bus services will not incur financial losses. In other words, if the bus routes don't reach their budgeted turnover targets, there will be government compensation for the companies. And it seems that this provision was in the documentation that the transparency directorate blocked.
The association is outraged, so are other taxi driver groups and now also certain business organisations. It was always stated that the bus companies would assume all risk for the services. It would now appear that they do not. There is more than a whiff of scandal, and there hasn't been any comment yet from the government.
If the taxi drivers' association's version of events proves to be accurate, then the government's transparency will be revealed as a sham. And this will be before we get to decisions about the ecotax revenue.
Friday, July 28, 2017
The Annual Excursions' Lament
In the early 1930s, the Fomento del Turismo (Mallorca Tourist Board) organised island coach excursions which left its central Palma building at a quarter past nine in the morning. For eleven pesetas, tourists could choose from a small selection of excursions: one to Valldemossa, Miramar, Deya, Soller and Puerto Soller; another to the Caves of Drach (with concert) and the Caves of Ham; or there was Pollensa, Puerto Pollensa and Formentor. For an extra two pesetas, there was a trip to the Caves of Arta and Cala Ratjada.
One can only imagine the somewhat perilous nature of excursions using coaches of their time on mountain roads. At least they were more comfortable than stage coaches; once upon a time, they were all there were. Another positive would have been the absence of traffic. No hacking along twisty, narrow roads only to be confronted by a pelaton of cyclists and a queue of hire cars. The primitive coach operators, one presumes, derived profit from these excursions. They certainly wouldn't have had to contend with town hall bylaws on parking. There wasn't a trip to Sa Calobra, but nowadays the operators have to reserve parking in advance or incur a whopping charge, courtesy of Escorca town hall.
The nature of excursions has of course changed. The Tramuntana mountains, for instance, give rise to the island tour, one that combines coach with boat, tram and train in taking in Sa Calobra and Soller. Essentially, though, some of the excursions are much as they were in the 1930s. Some forty years later, the ladies of Coronation Street went to Valldemossa, though it required Hilda to remember the name of the place when Emily was writing a postcard to send back home. The current-day Valldemossa trip has run into similar issues as with Sa Calobra: saturation by coach, saturation by tourist. How very different things are in this regard from the 1930s.
The range of excursions available today includes these old faithfuls. And rightly so. Nevertheless, the Balearic association of travel agents suggests that new life needs to be bred into excursions. Innovation is required. The sale of excursions (by travel agents) has apparently slumped by 50% since 2011.
One hears this lament on a regular basis. A year ago, the association said that there had been a 40% decline over four years: 800,000 lost customers. Only one in three of all tourists was booking an excursion. This said, the association indicated that certain excursions were still holding up. They included the Caves of Drach, the island tour and Valldemossa: the old faithfuls.
A year on, and the percentage has risen by ten points: there's simple maths for you. Now, though, the emphasis has shifted towards a need for excursion innovation, while familiar reasons for the decline in the sale of excursions are still being cited: lower tourist spending power and the proliferation of hire cars.
Innovation may indeed be a factor, though one can point to certain operators who are innovative not just in their products but also in their selling, with a strong emphasis on social media. As with any business, innovation should be a given, but sadly it would seem as if it isn't.
There are of course the other factors. For some years, all-inclusives have been the principal target of the agents and of the attractions' association. The number of all-inclusive places, which rose during the crisis, has dented business. But this number is now falling as hotels and tour operators themselves adopt new products. All-inclusive remains a factor, but does it explain what the travel agents say is the unexpectedly high fall in demand this year? Some agents are reporting falls in sales of 20%.
An excursion, as with mostly all tourist spending, is a discretionary purchase. Holidaymakers' budgets will determine the purchase (or not). Add new costs to this budget and there is a further element in guiding the purchasing process. Is it fanciful, therefore, to suggest that the tourist tax is influencing the sale of excursions?
Lamenting lower tourist spending power flies in the face of what the Egatur surveys of spending suggest is the case: spending is going up. But who really believes this? The statistics are, by the very nature of how they are arrived at, not an accurate reflection of in-resort realities. And these realities include the cost of the holiday itself, which has gone up and which - as one can already see with prices being quoted for 2018 - will be going up further. It's not that there is a "cheap" form of tourism; it's that holidaymakers have forked out so much before they even get here.
Expect, therefore, to hear more lamenting from the travel agents next year. Oh how they must wish things were like the 1930s, when the only tourists were wealthy and unconcerned by prices. Eleven pesetas, with hindsight, sounds very cheap.
*The video is a short one (sixty seconds) of Valldemossa in 1930.
Thursday, July 13, 2017
The Podemos Influence On Tourism Policy
Podemos have been threatening to scupper the government's holiday rentals' legislation. They have engaged in brinkmanship grandstanding in the past, as with the tourist tax law, and so have earned the criticism of the Partido Popular for "crying wolf" because they don't see their threats through. Things are unlikely to be any different this time.
The reasons for this latest bout of messing with the PSOE (PSIB) and Més government are twofold. Podemos insist that the government doesn't appreciate the scale of the problems with finding residential accommodation and that the legislation doesn't do anything to bring down the cost of renting or indeed purchasing. Nor does the law guarantee a right to housing. The second reason is that Podemos are demanding that the law includes a declaration of a housing emergency in Palma and Ibiza. This would entail the total prohibition of holiday rentals.
From a legislative point of view, Podemos are blurring two strands - one has to do with holiday rentals, the other with housing. There are two separate pieces of legislation going before the Balearic parliament. In essence, what Podemos would like is a unified bill, but this won't happen, much though - and Podemos would be right in this regard - the two strands are clearly linked. The government, meantime, justifiably argues that there would be encroachment into powers of town halls and island councils. Were there to be, then the legislation could end up becoming mired in the courts. It might do anyway, but for other reasons.
In fact, both Palma town hall and the Council of Ibiza have indicated they will use provisions in the new bill to severely restrict rentals. A specific declaration regarding emergency housing wouldn't therefore be necessary.
Previous experience suggests that when push comes to shove and votes are finally cast, Podemos will allow the legislation to go through. Although Podemos have been engaged in their usual last-minute attempts at horse-trading, the bill will surely be approved. Different alterations to the legislation should enable this. One is to increase the fine on websites like Airbnb for publicising unlicensed properties to 400,000 euros. Another is to give owners the chance of offsetting fines of up to 40,000 euros by providing so-called social rental.
The approval on Tuesday, assuming it does indeed go through, will be three days before PSOE (PSIB) convene for their congress. As mentioned in a previous article, this congress will be crucial for the party in mapping out its strategy leading up to the 2019 election. Central to this strategy will be issues related to tourism.
For Francina Armengol to secure a second term as president, a new "pact" will have to be arrived at. This is a cold fact for PSOE, as it is never in a position to get close to a majority: the Partido Popular is far too strong for this to ever happen. The congress will therefore have to take into account what the relationship with other parties might look like, with the Podemos relationship key to Armengol's ability to continue as president.
The PP could return with a majority, as it has in the past, but this is by no means certain. For all the at-times chaotic appearance of the current government, it has nevertheless presided over a period of improved economic conditions. The PP will attack it on jobs and on pay, but the electorate are unlikely to be convinced that the PP would do any better. In this respect, Armengol will be hoping that next year's wage negotiations and settlement for the hotel and hospitality sector bring about improved terms. Just as important, as mentioned before, will be any agreement on a special economic regime for the Balearics. A good one, and the PP will find it that much tougher to win.
The nature of the current pact or of a future one will, nevertheless, be an ingredient for the electorate to consider. When it comes to tourism policy, the tourist tax won't -as it stands - be a factor. In 2003, when the PP came back to power, it was an issue, as the electorate were concerned by an impact on tourism. Circumstances are quite different now. A Podemos demand for a doubling in the rate of the tax - a stipulation made for the party approving next year's budget - might be something for the public to baulk at. Or it might not be, given the "saturation" narrative.
Podemos do have the power to influence policy, and this can be seen in what the congress will consider in respect of limits on the number of tourists. PSOE, it is understood, is to change its tune. The congress will consider a limit on summer tourism numbers. A "battery" of proposals are to be presented in order to achieve a limit. The tourist tax is likely to be one of them. A doubling, and Podemos will take the credit.
The reasons for this latest bout of messing with the PSOE (PSIB) and Més government are twofold. Podemos insist that the government doesn't appreciate the scale of the problems with finding residential accommodation and that the legislation doesn't do anything to bring down the cost of renting or indeed purchasing. Nor does the law guarantee a right to housing. The second reason is that Podemos are demanding that the law includes a declaration of a housing emergency in Palma and Ibiza. This would entail the total prohibition of holiday rentals.
From a legislative point of view, Podemos are blurring two strands - one has to do with holiday rentals, the other with housing. There are two separate pieces of legislation going before the Balearic parliament. In essence, what Podemos would like is a unified bill, but this won't happen, much though - and Podemos would be right in this regard - the two strands are clearly linked. The government, meantime, justifiably argues that there would be encroachment into powers of town halls and island councils. Were there to be, then the legislation could end up becoming mired in the courts. It might do anyway, but for other reasons.
In fact, both Palma town hall and the Council of Ibiza have indicated they will use provisions in the new bill to severely restrict rentals. A specific declaration regarding emergency housing wouldn't therefore be necessary.
Previous experience suggests that when push comes to shove and votes are finally cast, Podemos will allow the legislation to go through. Although Podemos have been engaged in their usual last-minute attempts at horse-trading, the bill will surely be approved. Different alterations to the legislation should enable this. One is to increase the fine on websites like Airbnb for publicising unlicensed properties to 400,000 euros. Another is to give owners the chance of offsetting fines of up to 40,000 euros by providing so-called social rental.
The approval on Tuesday, assuming it does indeed go through, will be three days before PSOE (PSIB) convene for their congress. As mentioned in a previous article, this congress will be crucial for the party in mapping out its strategy leading up to the 2019 election. Central to this strategy will be issues related to tourism.
For Francina Armengol to secure a second term as president, a new "pact" will have to be arrived at. This is a cold fact for PSOE, as it is never in a position to get close to a majority: the Partido Popular is far too strong for this to ever happen. The congress will therefore have to take into account what the relationship with other parties might look like, with the Podemos relationship key to Armengol's ability to continue as president.
The PP could return with a majority, as it has in the past, but this is by no means certain. For all the at-times chaotic appearance of the current government, it has nevertheless presided over a period of improved economic conditions. The PP will attack it on jobs and on pay, but the electorate are unlikely to be convinced that the PP would do any better. In this respect, Armengol will be hoping that next year's wage negotiations and settlement for the hotel and hospitality sector bring about improved terms. Just as important, as mentioned before, will be any agreement on a special economic regime for the Balearics. A good one, and the PP will find it that much tougher to win.
The nature of the current pact or of a future one will, nevertheless, be an ingredient for the electorate to consider. When it comes to tourism policy, the tourist tax won't -as it stands - be a factor. In 2003, when the PP came back to power, it was an issue, as the electorate were concerned by an impact on tourism. Circumstances are quite different now. A Podemos demand for a doubling in the rate of the tax - a stipulation made for the party approving next year's budget - might be something for the public to baulk at. Or it might not be, given the "saturation" narrative.
Podemos do have the power to influence policy, and this can be seen in what the congress will consider in respect of limits on the number of tourists. PSOE, it is understood, is to change its tune. The congress will consider a limit on summer tourism numbers. A "battery" of proposals are to be presented in order to achieve a limit. The tourist tax is likely to be one of them. A doubling, and Podemos will take the credit.
Saturday, April 22, 2017
Madrid In A Muddle Over Holiday Rentals
The secretary-of-state for tourism's visit to Mallorca during the week allowed the industry to get some things off its chest. None of them were particularly new. Politicians and senior officials were there as well. In the case of tourism minister Biel Barceló, he could afford to give Matilde Asián only a few minutes of his time; he had a television interview to get to. It was presumably time enough for her to tell him that Madrid isn't minded to pump more cash into the Playa de Palma reform because of what seemingly went missing several years ago. Even so, Asián, because of the national ministry's policy of modernising old resorts, appeared to also suggest that Playa de Palma will be looked upon favourably: at some point and in some way.
Asián's visit served only to spread confusion. Her boss, Álvaro Nadal, has made much of the resort modernisation. There may be legitimate issues about previous funding, but what is to be done about Playa de Palma? It isn't just one of Mallorca's main resorts, it is one of Spain's. Perhaps in future Madrid needs to take full control of any project. That way it will know that the money's being used wisely.
But Madrid wouldn't do this. While it might provide investment, a project such as Playa de Palma is a regional affair. The Balearics, as with other regional communities, has tourism responsibilities. It is therefore for the regional government to sort things out, as is the case with holiday rentals.
The past week has given the impression of left and right hands being unaware of what both are doing, of some ignorance of legislation and of messages being mixed. With holiday rentals, a fundamental issue for the Balearic government is a reform of the Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos, the tenancy act. The government has forwarded to Madrid, as has the Mallorca Hoteliers Federation, its wish for there to be a minimum rental of four weeks. With this, it hopes to overcome the loophole that the act currently offers.
Asián seemed to suggest that she hadn't been asked about reform, said that there was no plan to reform the act (which is what Nadal has also said), but then added that she would look into it so long as someone tells her to look into it and on the grounds that everything can be made better. So what is Madrid's position? The national government, i.e. Asián, has also intimated that it is considering nationwide legislation for holiday rentals. This would represent a U-turn, as Madrid devolved responsibilities to the regions. It was perfectly entitled to, given what the statutes for regional government permit, but it appeared at the time to have washed its hands of the rentals' matter. The ensuing mess is at least partly Madrid's fault.
Despite what it might say about treating rentals of under four weeks as touristic, the Balearic government will encounter problems with effectively enforcing its rentals' legislation unless the tenancy act is reformed. And this obstacle exists in all other regions where there are issues with rentals and where the hoteliers and legislators have been banging their heads against a wall in despair of Madrid taking any real notice.
To cap it all, there is the European Union to take into account. It has working parties considering holiday rentals, including therefore the role of websites such as Airbnb. And what might Brussels come up with? Who can say. Madrid can't, or appears to be unable to. Things will probably have to wait until the EU speaks, which will probably provoke ever more confusion.
While Asián was here, she also had something to say about the tourist tax. She is opposed to it, as of course is her party. That was hardly a surprise, but there was a surprise when she said that she found it surprising that residents in the Balearics have to pay the tax if they stay in tourist accommodation. She was surprised? Was she unaware that the reason for this is because Brussels had decreed it?
Asián's visit served only to spread confusion. Her boss, Álvaro Nadal, has made much of the resort modernisation. There may be legitimate issues about previous funding, but what is to be done about Playa de Palma? It isn't just one of Mallorca's main resorts, it is one of Spain's. Perhaps in future Madrid needs to take full control of any project. That way it will know that the money's being used wisely.
But Madrid wouldn't do this. While it might provide investment, a project such as Playa de Palma is a regional affair. The Balearics, as with other regional communities, has tourism responsibilities. It is therefore for the regional government to sort things out, as is the case with holiday rentals.
The past week has given the impression of left and right hands being unaware of what both are doing, of some ignorance of legislation and of messages being mixed. With holiday rentals, a fundamental issue for the Balearic government is a reform of the Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos, the tenancy act. The government has forwarded to Madrid, as has the Mallorca Hoteliers Federation, its wish for there to be a minimum rental of four weeks. With this, it hopes to overcome the loophole that the act currently offers.
Asián seemed to suggest that she hadn't been asked about reform, said that there was no plan to reform the act (which is what Nadal has also said), but then added that she would look into it so long as someone tells her to look into it and on the grounds that everything can be made better. So what is Madrid's position? The national government, i.e. Asián, has also intimated that it is considering nationwide legislation for holiday rentals. This would represent a U-turn, as Madrid devolved responsibilities to the regions. It was perfectly entitled to, given what the statutes for regional government permit, but it appeared at the time to have washed its hands of the rentals' matter. The ensuing mess is at least partly Madrid's fault.
Despite what it might say about treating rentals of under four weeks as touristic, the Balearic government will encounter problems with effectively enforcing its rentals' legislation unless the tenancy act is reformed. And this obstacle exists in all other regions where there are issues with rentals and where the hoteliers and legislators have been banging their heads against a wall in despair of Madrid taking any real notice.
To cap it all, there is the European Union to take into account. It has working parties considering holiday rentals, including therefore the role of websites such as Airbnb. And what might Brussels come up with? Who can say. Madrid can't, or appears to be unable to. Things will probably have to wait until the EU speaks, which will probably provoke ever more confusion.
While Asián was here, she also had something to say about the tourist tax. She is opposed to it, as of course is her party. That was hardly a surprise, but there was a surprise when she said that she found it surprising that residents in the Balearics have to pay the tax if they stay in tourist accommodation. She was surprised? Was she unaware that the reason for this is because Brussels had decreed it?
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
The Non-Ecotax
While I've been away - which I haven't been as I've been chained to a desk for the purposes of a book in the manner that rowers of ships across the Mediterranean were once shackled in ancient times - we had this business of the tourist tax not being an environmental tax. Quelle surprise, as they don't say here.
The admission by the government that the tax is for general revenue-raising purposes was made in a submission to the Balearic High Court; it is considering the legality of the tax because of the appeal by the Mallorca Hoteliers Federation for judicial review. Strangely enough, this fessing up seemed to pass without a great deal of comment: in the established media, if not on social media.
The point with the tax is that of course it is for general revenue purposes. It can't be anything else. It is itemised in the government's budget as a revenue; the same government which bangs on endlessly about the insufficient level of financing from Madrid. The government has the power to establish specific taxes if it needs to improve its income. The tourist tax is one means of doing so. Therefore, it is a general tax.
The difference lies with the revenue raised being ring-fenced for the various purposes that the law on the sustainable tourism tax set out. In this sense, it isn't a general tax, but the goalpost-shifting which has occurred (or did with last year's revenue) has meant that the revenue has leapt over the fence. It has gone on water, the provision of which is a fundamental demand made of any government. Industry relies on water. The citizens' health and sanitation are at risk without water. And so are the citizens' swimming pools.
I maintained, well before the brain fade brainchild notion of a tax was ever mooted, that if there is to be a tourist tax, then it should be used for resources - water being a key one. In this regard, the diversion of funds to water projects seemed fair. However, I am with both GOB and Podemos in believing that such projects were not among the purposes.
There again, one can make the case for pretty much anything being purposeful in terms of "sustainable tourism". Investment, for example, in renewable energies through the tourist tax would be equally justifiable. Tourists need energy, as they also need water. There could be investment in boosting subsidies for seasonal accommodation for doctors and police. Tourists need doctors and police, who currently realise that they can't afford accommodation in the Balearics, if indeed they can find any. But these "purposes" would be tangential, as is the case with the water projects, to what the tax is intended for.
The government made a rod for its own back by insisting that there be the range of purposes that there are. Flexible is how one might describe them. Or, as I have previously defined it, a camel of a tax, the use of which is determined by a camel of a committee (all 32 of them). The environmental purpose is in fact only one. The government is therefore right in saying that the tax is not environmental. It's only partially so.
At least with the old and unlamented ecotax the then government provided none of the current fuzziness. So dedicated was the ecotax to the environment that the government, among other things, handed over some 14 million euros in acquiring - in the name of the citizens (and presumably also tourists) - the Son Real finca. And the different governments have been regretting it ever since, if the general mismanagement of the finca is any gauge of post-acquisition governmental interest.
A further point to make is that Catalina Cladera, whose sole interest as finance minister is to have as much disposable tax revenue as she can lay her hands on, said in advance of the tax's introduction last year that it wasn't an ecotax. In stating this, she was not wishing the tax to carry the stigma of the old ecotax but she was also being accurate. In fact, the environmental purpose for which the tax is supposed to be used was boosted from the original draft of the legislation. That was because the government bowed to the pressures of GOB and the more fervent econationalists within its own ranks, i.e. David Abril of Més.
Still, does any of this make much difference to those who pay the tax? Most tourists won't have any idea what the purposes are. The assumption will be that it is a tax like other taxes, therefore one for general revenue. And the government, in the form of the tourism director-general Pilar Carbonell, says there have only been four complaints. What does she expect? Are there forms on hotel reception desks for registering complaints, especially about revenue not being used for the environment?
The admission by the government that the tax is for general revenue-raising purposes was made in a submission to the Balearic High Court; it is considering the legality of the tax because of the appeal by the Mallorca Hoteliers Federation for judicial review. Strangely enough, this fessing up seemed to pass without a great deal of comment: in the established media, if not on social media.
The point with the tax is that of course it is for general revenue purposes. It can't be anything else. It is itemised in the government's budget as a revenue; the same government which bangs on endlessly about the insufficient level of financing from Madrid. The government has the power to establish specific taxes if it needs to improve its income. The tourist tax is one means of doing so. Therefore, it is a general tax.
The difference lies with the revenue raised being ring-fenced for the various purposes that the law on the sustainable tourism tax set out. In this sense, it isn't a general tax, but the goalpost-shifting which has occurred (or did with last year's revenue) has meant that the revenue has leapt over the fence. It has gone on water, the provision of which is a fundamental demand made of any government. Industry relies on water. The citizens' health and sanitation are at risk without water. And so are the citizens' swimming pools.
I maintained, well before the brain fade brainchild notion of a tax was ever mooted, that if there is to be a tourist tax, then it should be used for resources - water being a key one. In this regard, the diversion of funds to water projects seemed fair. However, I am with both GOB and Podemos in believing that such projects were not among the purposes.
There again, one can make the case for pretty much anything being purposeful in terms of "sustainable tourism". Investment, for example, in renewable energies through the tourist tax would be equally justifiable. Tourists need energy, as they also need water. There could be investment in boosting subsidies for seasonal accommodation for doctors and police. Tourists need doctors and police, who currently realise that they can't afford accommodation in the Balearics, if indeed they can find any. But these "purposes" would be tangential, as is the case with the water projects, to what the tax is intended for.
The government made a rod for its own back by insisting that there be the range of purposes that there are. Flexible is how one might describe them. Or, as I have previously defined it, a camel of a tax, the use of which is determined by a camel of a committee (all 32 of them). The environmental purpose is in fact only one. The government is therefore right in saying that the tax is not environmental. It's only partially so.
At least with the old and unlamented ecotax the then government provided none of the current fuzziness. So dedicated was the ecotax to the environment that the government, among other things, handed over some 14 million euros in acquiring - in the name of the citizens (and presumably also tourists) - the Son Real finca. And the different governments have been regretting it ever since, if the general mismanagement of the finca is any gauge of post-acquisition governmental interest.
A further point to make is that Catalina Cladera, whose sole interest as finance minister is to have as much disposable tax revenue as she can lay her hands on, said in advance of the tax's introduction last year that it wasn't an ecotax. In stating this, she was not wishing the tax to carry the stigma of the old ecotax but she was also being accurate. In fact, the environmental purpose for which the tax is supposed to be used was boosted from the original draft of the legislation. That was because the government bowed to the pressures of GOB and the more fervent econationalists within its own ranks, i.e. David Abril of Més.
Still, does any of this make much difference to those who pay the tax? Most tourists won't have any idea what the purposes are. The assumption will be that it is a tax like other taxes, therefore one for general revenue. And the government, in the form of the tourism director-general Pilar Carbonell, says there have only been four complaints. What does she expect? Are there forms on hotel reception desks for registering complaints, especially about revenue not being used for the environment?
Saturday, March 04, 2017
Appealing Against The Tourist Tax
It may have been forgotten that the Mallorca Hoteliers Federation successfully lodged an appeal for there to be judicial review of the tourist tax; it was some months ago that this was done, after all.
It was unclear what grounds the federation felt it had for demanding a review, in particular given the fact that it had done so in 2001 in respect of the old ecotax and failed. Well, these grounds are now clearer. They include what the federation maintains is "disguised discrimination" against tourists. By these they are referring to the fact that tourists who come to the Balearics pay a tax because of the impact they have on the environment. Residents of the Balearics, who also have to pay the tax, do not pay the tax for the same reason because they are already here.
The federation adds that there is further discrimination because under two per cent of overnight stays in accommodation are those of residents. The tax is therefore directed at the travelling tourist.
The argument, one has to think, seems a bit thin; doesn't a tourist tax presuppose a travelling tourist? But the hoteliers believe that this disguised discrimination is sufficient to have the tax scrapped because it goes against European rules. The federation also takes the environmental angle in arguing that the tax discriminates against accommodation by not being applied to non-hotel tourist activities, such as restaurants. Moreover, the method of estimation for its payment places the burden not on tourists but on the accommodation, e.g. hotels.
The federation's case is, it has to be said, pretty complex, and it has provoked the scorn of Alberto Jarabo of Podemos. Earlier this week he described the hoteliers' appeal as being a "moral perversion" and one advanced by "fraudsters" without legitimacy to take a "legitimate and democratic government" to court.
While this legal row has been going on, the town halls have been following up on their displeasure at having been excluded from the distribution of tourist tax revenue. Their association, Felib, is concerned that future distributions won't be much better. It wants yet another committee to be formed in order to clarify what the town halls can expect in future. It is looking for some form of fixed percentage of revenue and has criticised the way in which priorities for spending the revenue raised last year were shifted.
Which is true, but then the government did say that it would be prioritising water projects that weren't specifically included in its list of "purposes" for the way in which the revenue would be spent. The first twelve million euros of the thirty million total revenue raised last year have been transferred to the government's water agency for seven projects.
It was unclear what grounds the federation felt it had for demanding a review, in particular given the fact that it had done so in 2001 in respect of the old ecotax and failed. Well, these grounds are now clearer. They include what the federation maintains is "disguised discrimination" against tourists. By these they are referring to the fact that tourists who come to the Balearics pay a tax because of the impact they have on the environment. Residents of the Balearics, who also have to pay the tax, do not pay the tax for the same reason because they are already here.
The federation adds that there is further discrimination because under two per cent of overnight stays in accommodation are those of residents. The tax is therefore directed at the travelling tourist.
The argument, one has to think, seems a bit thin; doesn't a tourist tax presuppose a travelling tourist? But the hoteliers believe that this disguised discrimination is sufficient to have the tax scrapped because it goes against European rules. The federation also takes the environmental angle in arguing that the tax discriminates against accommodation by not being applied to non-hotel tourist activities, such as restaurants. Moreover, the method of estimation for its payment places the burden not on tourists but on the accommodation, e.g. hotels.
The federation's case is, it has to be said, pretty complex, and it has provoked the scorn of Alberto Jarabo of Podemos. Earlier this week he described the hoteliers' appeal as being a "moral perversion" and one advanced by "fraudsters" without legitimacy to take a "legitimate and democratic government" to court.
While this legal row has been going on, the town halls have been following up on their displeasure at having been excluded from the distribution of tourist tax revenue. Their association, Felib, is concerned that future distributions won't be much better. It wants yet another committee to be formed in order to clarify what the town halls can expect in future. It is looking for some form of fixed percentage of revenue and has criticised the way in which priorities for spending the revenue raised last year were shifted.
Which is true, but then the government did say that it would be prioritising water projects that weren't specifically included in its list of "purposes" for the way in which the revenue would be spent. The first twelve million euros of the thirty million total revenue raised last year have been transferred to the government's water agency for seven projects.
Saturday, February 04, 2017
Palma And 100% Tourist Tax
The Balearic parliament got down to business this week after its extended winter break. The tourist tax was top of the agenda; the spending thereof. The main discussion, brought up by the Partido Popular, concerned investments for the town halls, which had received none directly. Away from parliament, mayors were convening to consider this, and it was mayors from the PP who were the most strident in demanding some action. They were suggesting that the Felib association, which is the town halls' body, should take the matter to court and seek legal review of the way in which the revenue has been spent.
In the end, the mayors decided on a more conciliatory approach, but not without raising the possibility of pursuing an amendment to the tax legislation and establishing a fixed amount which should go directly to municipalities. They also wanted greater clarity and transparency in respect of revenue spending.
For a government which has made so much of being transparent and of engaging in consensus and dialogue (a point not lost on the PP during parliament's debate), the implication of an absence of transparency will sit uneasily. Or it should do, not least because Felib is represented on the committee which decides how the tax is spent. If it felt that there was some opacity, then something was clearly wrong in the decision-making process.
The government, it has to be said, has created a rod for its own back by, on the one hand, wishing to be participative and involving so many organisations on the spending committee and, on the other, totally failing to be more evenhanded with the distribution of revenue. President Armengol accepted that expectations had been raised and had not been met, but she reminded everyone that there had been the priority for water projects and that the actual pot (30 million) was substantially lower than that it will be next time round.
The trouble is that all the various interested parties do expect, and they have every right to expect. Otherwise, why are they participating in the decision-making and getting nowhere? Biel Barceló didn't help to allay their concerns by saying that the tax is not a distributive system, i.e. everyone doesn't automatically get a share. I'm sorry but that's exactly how it is seen, and the government needs to address the criteria for distribution with some urgency. If not, then the arguments will grow louder.
The extent of the discontent could be found in statements such as that of the Farmers Union. While agriculture is receiving some consideration in the revenue spending, the union - especially against the backdrop of drought and floods - was aghast to note that the Balearic Symphony Orchestra will be having money spent on it.
No one is satisfied, especially not Palma. The tourism councillor, Joana Maria Adrover, is waiting on information to show just how much tax revenue Palma contributed. Once the town hall knows this, it will be agitating that, in effect, it keeps all that revenue for itself. A further problem for the government is that it risks appearing hypocritical if it were to totally dismiss the demands of Palma and other town halls (especially those with high levels of tourism). While it is seeking a new financing system which will have less emphasis on the Balearics subsidising poorer regions of Spain, it cannot play the "solidarity" card and insist that Palma should accept a subsidising function. It might sound like greed on behalf of the town hall (and I for one don't think it should be treated in such a preferential manner), but it does have a point. There again, so also would Calvia, Alcudia and other main tourism municipalities.
Palma will doubtless be taking note of developments in Catalonia. The government there has agreed to increase to 50% the amount of tourist tax revenue which goes to the municipalities. Barcelona, while welcoming this development, is insisting that it should have all the revenue which the city generates, which is exactly what Palma is inferring it wants.
The tourist tax spending has opened up a can of worms. The government has some hard thinking to do in order to prevent rows in the future; ones which eventually might find their way to the courts.
In the end, the mayors decided on a more conciliatory approach, but not without raising the possibility of pursuing an amendment to the tax legislation and establishing a fixed amount which should go directly to municipalities. They also wanted greater clarity and transparency in respect of revenue spending.
For a government which has made so much of being transparent and of engaging in consensus and dialogue (a point not lost on the PP during parliament's debate), the implication of an absence of transparency will sit uneasily. Or it should do, not least because Felib is represented on the committee which decides how the tax is spent. If it felt that there was some opacity, then something was clearly wrong in the decision-making process.
The government, it has to be said, has created a rod for its own back by, on the one hand, wishing to be participative and involving so many organisations on the spending committee and, on the other, totally failing to be more evenhanded with the distribution of revenue. President Armengol accepted that expectations had been raised and had not been met, but she reminded everyone that there had been the priority for water projects and that the actual pot (30 million) was substantially lower than that it will be next time round.
The trouble is that all the various interested parties do expect, and they have every right to expect. Otherwise, why are they participating in the decision-making and getting nowhere? Biel Barceló didn't help to allay their concerns by saying that the tax is not a distributive system, i.e. everyone doesn't automatically get a share. I'm sorry but that's exactly how it is seen, and the government needs to address the criteria for distribution with some urgency. If not, then the arguments will grow louder.
The extent of the discontent could be found in statements such as that of the Farmers Union. While agriculture is receiving some consideration in the revenue spending, the union - especially against the backdrop of drought and floods - was aghast to note that the Balearic Symphony Orchestra will be having money spent on it.
No one is satisfied, especially not Palma. The tourism councillor, Joana Maria Adrover, is waiting on information to show just how much tax revenue Palma contributed. Once the town hall knows this, it will be agitating that, in effect, it keeps all that revenue for itself. A further problem for the government is that it risks appearing hypocritical if it were to totally dismiss the demands of Palma and other town halls (especially those with high levels of tourism). While it is seeking a new financing system which will have less emphasis on the Balearics subsidising poorer regions of Spain, it cannot play the "solidarity" card and insist that Palma should accept a subsidising function. It might sound like greed on behalf of the town hall (and I for one don't think it should be treated in such a preferential manner), but it does have a point. There again, so also would Calvia, Alcudia and other main tourism municipalities.
Palma will doubtless be taking note of developments in Catalonia. The government there has agreed to increase to 50% the amount of tourist tax revenue which goes to the municipalities. Barcelona, while welcoming this development, is insisting that it should have all the revenue which the city generates, which is exactly what Palma is inferring it wants.
The tourist tax spending has opened up a can of worms. The government has some hard thinking to do in order to prevent rows in the future; ones which eventually might find their way to the courts.
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Spending The Tourist Tax
The committee for the impulse of sustainable tourism has 32 members. The executive committee of this committee has 16 members. Which of the two really makes the decisions on spending tourist tax revenue? The question is asked because it is supposedly the larger of the two. The executive committee, though, came up with its projects for how the revenue should be spent. By no means was everyone on the larger committee happy. The same was presumably the case with the executive committee.
The government's apparent desire for transparency has led to an absurd mix of committees - one half the size of the other and with its membership roughly reflecting the make-up of the larger committee. The key members of both committees, where the spending decisions have been concerned, are the government ministers (with Biel Barceló the president of both committees), the island councils' representatives, the unions, and the representative of the farming advisory council. Between these there are ten members on the executive committee. On the larger committee there are eighteen. Majority rules twice over.
There is the distinct sense of a sham about all this. The government loves to talk about the involvement of "social agents" (business, unions, associations), but it is clear that what the government wants, the government gets, regardless of what some social agents (and others) might think. The priority given to water projects was probably fair enough, but as for the rest of the spending, it isn't representative of all those who comprise this committee. Indeed, there is an impression that certain social agents carry greater weight than others, such as the single representative of the farming community rather than town halls, business and even the environmentalists.
The government can legitimately point to the low amount of revenue from last year, which should be twice as much when the committee meets to decide 2017 spending, but who's to say if the wishes of all will be satisfied next time round? One doubts that they will. Part of the problem with the approach the government has adopted - the numerous "purposes", the array of interests represented on the committee - is that it raises expectations that are then dashed and lead to arguments and controversies.
Palma town hall has had its nose put out of joint more than most. It hasn't received a cent. Mayor Hila would like Palma to be added to the four islands in there being a guarantee of revenue distribution. He has made a comparison with the situation in Catalonia, where Barcelona has a 33% allocation. Whether Palma deserves to be given some form of preferential treatment is up for debate (personally, I don't think it does), but one wonders if there hasn't been an underlying context to the city's failure to get any revenue: the relationship between Hila and President Armengol. It was only a few weeks ago that the government didn't agree to investment for Palma under the law on "capitals". Comment at the time referred to the difficult relationship.
But more than this, there is the somewhat unseemly attempt by town halls (not just Palma) and by others to grab a piece of an admittedly not very large honeypot. When they don't have their wishes satisfied, you end up with the arguments. On top of this, there is Barceló insisting that tourist tax legislation has been introduced and implemented and that the revenue is now being spent: all within the space of fifteen months and "without any problem". Who is he trying to kid? The committee is just one example of a problem.
The government's apparent desire for transparency has led to an absurd mix of committees - one half the size of the other and with its membership roughly reflecting the make-up of the larger committee. The key members of both committees, where the spending decisions have been concerned, are the government ministers (with Biel Barceló the president of both committees), the island councils' representatives, the unions, and the representative of the farming advisory council. Between these there are ten members on the executive committee. On the larger committee there are eighteen. Majority rules twice over.
There is the distinct sense of a sham about all this. The government loves to talk about the involvement of "social agents" (business, unions, associations), but it is clear that what the government wants, the government gets, regardless of what some social agents (and others) might think. The priority given to water projects was probably fair enough, but as for the rest of the spending, it isn't representative of all those who comprise this committee. Indeed, there is an impression that certain social agents carry greater weight than others, such as the single representative of the farming community rather than town halls, business and even the environmentalists.
The government can legitimately point to the low amount of revenue from last year, which should be twice as much when the committee meets to decide 2017 spending, but who's to say if the wishes of all will be satisfied next time round? One doubts that they will. Part of the problem with the approach the government has adopted - the numerous "purposes", the array of interests represented on the committee - is that it raises expectations that are then dashed and lead to arguments and controversies.
Palma town hall has had its nose put out of joint more than most. It hasn't received a cent. Mayor Hila would like Palma to be added to the four islands in there being a guarantee of revenue distribution. He has made a comparison with the situation in Catalonia, where Barcelona has a 33% allocation. Whether Palma deserves to be given some form of preferential treatment is up for debate (personally, I don't think it does), but one wonders if there hasn't been an underlying context to the city's failure to get any revenue: the relationship between Hila and President Armengol. It was only a few weeks ago that the government didn't agree to investment for Palma under the law on "capitals". Comment at the time referred to the difficult relationship.
But more than this, there is the somewhat unseemly attempt by town halls (not just Palma) and by others to grab a piece of an admittedly not very large honeypot. When they don't have their wishes satisfied, you end up with the arguments. On top of this, there is Barceló insisting that tourist tax legislation has been introduced and implemented and that the revenue is now being spent: all within the space of fifteen months and "without any problem". Who is he trying to kid? The committee is just one example of a problem.
Wednesday, January 04, 2017
The Non-Tourism Tax
The vice-president of the Balearics and minister for tourism, innovation and research; the minister for the presidency; the finance minister; the employment, trade and industry minister; the minister for the environment; the director generals for tourism and budgeting; three representatives from both the CCOO and UGT unions; four representatives from CAEB, the Balearic confederation of business associations; two from Pimeb, the federation of small to medium-sized businesses; two from Felib, the federation of local authorities (town halls); two from environmentalists GOB; one from Friends of the Earth; one from the University of the Balearic Islands; one from Arca, the association for the protection of old urban centres; one from the agriculture council; one apiece from the four island councils; one from Palma town hall.
These are the 32 members of the committee for sustainable tourism impetus, the grand title given to the group which decides how tourist tax revenue is to be spent. How many of them are involved in tourism in a direct fashion? Very few. There is tourism minister Biel Barceló, who is the committee's president; Pilar Carbonell, the tourism director general; Inma Benito of the hoteliers via CAEB; Joana Maria Adrover, Palma's tourism councillor. One can make a case for, for instance, Cosme Bonet from the Council of Mallorca, but tourism isn't in his job title; it is buried inside his portfolio for economic affairs.
The representation reflects the pre-determined nature of sustainable tourism impetus; it owes very little - directly - to tourism as such. And the proposals for spending which have been presented to the committee reinforce this. There are 236 in all. Under ten per cent - 22 - fall under the broad "purpose" of tackling tourism seasonality, developing tourist products for the low season and promoting sustainable tourism. You may note something rather odd about this latter category. Is promoting sustainable tourism not the same as sustainable tourism impetus?
We did of course know that the annual plan for sustainable tourism impetus would give priority to water projects, a decision taken by the government (which is of course well represented on the committee). Its motivation, its impetus was the direct consequence of the drought. Needs must. And while there cannot be too much objection to this, it emphasises the unfocused nature of tourist tax revenue spending, if a crisis of Mother Nature can demand funding to compensate for previous failures of investment.
The committee has at its disposal the initial 30 million euros that were collected last year. In order to allocate funding from this pot, it has to whittle down the 236 proposals with a total value of 218.4 million euros. It will have more to play with from this year (at least double), but the comparatively small amounts in overall government budgetary terms raise the question as to why so many people are needed to oversee the spending. What other tax requires such a diverse committee? Spending decisions are otherwise made by smaller committees: parliament's and the government's.
There is much to be said for the committee's inclusiveness, but how consensual can it truly be when there is representation of polar opposites? I previously described it as a camel to decide on a camel of spending, and I see no reason to revise that opinion. The inclusiveness has been defined as participative, but is it little more than a grand PR stunt, one which has spread this participation through a cascade to spending committees set up by individual town halls? Ultimately, the cabinet has to approve the committee's decisions. The cabinet has five members on the committee.
The whole exercise gives the appearance of everyone wanting to play with a new toy, and a not very valuable one at that, given the number of projects. Barceló has said in the past that revenue will not go towards large and more expensive projects. One can perhaps therefore already rule out the purchase - for 12.1 million euros - of the Es Canons finca in Arta, which the town hall there has proposed. There are others which may naturally fall by the wayside because, even given the camel-like nature of the spending "purposes", they struggle to qualify. I give you, for instance, Petra town hall's project for three million euros to be spent on municipal facilities. Or what about Palma's 1.59 million for a cover to be put on one of its swimming pools?
Barceló has made much of the fact that tourists are used to paying taxes. While true, there is nowhere which makes such a fuss about its tax as is occurring in the Balearics. This is because most taxes are spent on general services. When, for instance, Rome introduced its tax, it was totally unabashed in saying that it was to help pay for the likes of cleaning and waste. Catalonia, oddly enough, spends the tax on tourism. In the Balearics, it's less than ten per cent. If that.
These are the 32 members of the committee for sustainable tourism impetus, the grand title given to the group which decides how tourist tax revenue is to be spent. How many of them are involved in tourism in a direct fashion? Very few. There is tourism minister Biel Barceló, who is the committee's president; Pilar Carbonell, the tourism director general; Inma Benito of the hoteliers via CAEB; Joana Maria Adrover, Palma's tourism councillor. One can make a case for, for instance, Cosme Bonet from the Council of Mallorca, but tourism isn't in his job title; it is buried inside his portfolio for economic affairs.
The representation reflects the pre-determined nature of sustainable tourism impetus; it owes very little - directly - to tourism as such. And the proposals for spending which have been presented to the committee reinforce this. There are 236 in all. Under ten per cent - 22 - fall under the broad "purpose" of tackling tourism seasonality, developing tourist products for the low season and promoting sustainable tourism. You may note something rather odd about this latter category. Is promoting sustainable tourism not the same as sustainable tourism impetus?
We did of course know that the annual plan for sustainable tourism impetus would give priority to water projects, a decision taken by the government (which is of course well represented on the committee). Its motivation, its impetus was the direct consequence of the drought. Needs must. And while there cannot be too much objection to this, it emphasises the unfocused nature of tourist tax revenue spending, if a crisis of Mother Nature can demand funding to compensate for previous failures of investment.
The committee has at its disposal the initial 30 million euros that were collected last year. In order to allocate funding from this pot, it has to whittle down the 236 proposals with a total value of 218.4 million euros. It will have more to play with from this year (at least double), but the comparatively small amounts in overall government budgetary terms raise the question as to why so many people are needed to oversee the spending. What other tax requires such a diverse committee? Spending decisions are otherwise made by smaller committees: parliament's and the government's.
There is much to be said for the committee's inclusiveness, but how consensual can it truly be when there is representation of polar opposites? I previously described it as a camel to decide on a camel of spending, and I see no reason to revise that opinion. The inclusiveness has been defined as participative, but is it little more than a grand PR stunt, one which has spread this participation through a cascade to spending committees set up by individual town halls? Ultimately, the cabinet has to approve the committee's decisions. The cabinet has five members on the committee.
The whole exercise gives the appearance of everyone wanting to play with a new toy, and a not very valuable one at that, given the number of projects. Barceló has said in the past that revenue will not go towards large and more expensive projects. One can perhaps therefore already rule out the purchase - for 12.1 million euros - of the Es Canons finca in Arta, which the town hall there has proposed. There are others which may naturally fall by the wayside because, even given the camel-like nature of the spending "purposes", they struggle to qualify. I give you, for instance, Petra town hall's project for three million euros to be spent on municipal facilities. Or what about Palma's 1.59 million for a cover to be put on one of its swimming pools?
Barceló has made much of the fact that tourists are used to paying taxes. While true, there is nowhere which makes such a fuss about its tax as is occurring in the Balearics. This is because most taxes are spent on general services. When, for instance, Rome introduced its tax, it was totally unabashed in saying that it was to help pay for the likes of cleaning and waste. Catalonia, oddly enough, spends the tax on tourism. In the Balearics, it's less than ten per cent. If that.
Sunday, January 01, 2017
Culture, Anger And Tourist Tax: Top Stories From 2016
Google very kindly make available statistics of the number of individual page views that each blog post receives. These are direct views in that they are to the specific URL of the post rather than having been read by regular followers of the blog. They are an indication of popularity, although I wouldn't say they were the best; my personal opinion of the diversity of subjects that appear on the blog would give a different result.
This caveat aside, the story that proved to be the most popular was that of 17 September, Promoting Culture: Where's The Strategy? This was about an agreement between the tourism and culture ministries - a "protocol", as they liked to call it - to promote cultural tourism. This required an investment of 600,000 euros to internationalise the islands' culture via a "tourism strategy". I was scathing of the whole thing, not least because an aspect of this strategy is supposedly to push filming on the islands. The relevant ministers, Biel Barceló and Ruth Mateu, admitted that there aren't the necessary tax incentives to do this, as there are in other parts of Spain. So they were going ahead with a "strategy" without having the wherewithal to implement it. Moreover, the "protocol" only lasts until the end of 2017. Could anyone make any sense of it, I asked. PR nonsense was my conclusion, and we haven't heard anything about it since September.
Number two was from 21 July - A Camel To Design A Camel: Tourist Tax. The introduction read: "How many government departments, local authorities, business associations, unions and others does it take to change the cash collected from the tourist tax into meaningful projects?" One camel was therefore the Commission for the Promotion of Sustainable Tourism, the body which decides how revenue is to be spent. The other was the tax itself with its ill-defined multi-purposes. As things were to turn out, the government used the drought as the justification (not unreasonably) to place emphasis on water projects. We are still waiting, though, to hear what these (and other) projects actually are. When there's a commission with such camel-like ingredients, should this come as any surprise?
In third place was the article about Balearic hotel interests in Cuba - Keep Taking Us To Havana, 1 December - while just behind in fourth spot was the post of 2 May, When Anger Takes Over: Mallorca And Cycling. This was prompted by the general chaos caused by the Mallorca 312 cycle event, which isn't a race as such but a trial. As I noted, it was a trial that "tested the over 4,000 cyclists and tested the patience of many people on the island". The event brought to a head the simmering (and not so simmering) conflict created by cycling. The value and benefit of cycling to Mallorca seems irreconcilable with attitudes of residents. Whether these attitudes are shared by a majority, one doesn't know. Perhaps they should undertake a survey rather than rely on social-media hysteria.
Chaos of a different sort came in at number five - More On Vueling And The Chaotic Spanish Air Industry, 16 July. At six was a subject that crept ever higher up the agenda in 2016. The Pariah Status Of Airbnb from 11 November noted that Airbnb didn't exhibit at London's World Travel Market, despite it being "arguably the most important business in the travel market right at the moment". This was the context for a discussion of the need for the regional government "to take tough and effective action against Airbnb and other such sites". Just how tough will be revealed when the holiday rentals' legislation is approved. Whether it will be effective is a totally different matter.
There was further anger on 23 April. Getting Angry In Puerto Pollensa (number seven) said that "emotions have been allowed to run high; rather too high". They were to do with the pedestrianisation fiasco and the Gelats Valls ice-cream kiosk. There was of course to be even more anger because of the separate fiasco of the sun loungers.
At eight was a tribute to a web-based business which doesn't attract the concerns surrounding Airbnb. Hotelbeds: The Best Of Mallorca from 14 July looked at this successful business, sold by Tui for a fortune, which is headquartered on Palma's Paseo Marítimo. There was a coincidence with this article. Although not the same type of business, Hotelbeds does have some similarity with Low Cost Holidays, which went belly up a few days later.
In ninth spot was The Mess Of Regulating Holiday Rentals, 21 May. "The regional government is getting itself into a right old pickle over holiday rentals' regulation" was the introduction to an article on the difficulties regarding legislation. The pickle has become increasingly pickled, what with the idea to zone Mallorca and the intention to allocate places for holiday rentals that don't coincide with areas of high residential need. The government's problems are such that it ignored the fact, as stated in the May article, that the sustainable tourism tax law mandated it to have regulation in place within six months of that law having been approved: it should have been at the end of September therefore.
And in tenth place was The Environmental Crisis Coming Our Way of 17 May. This quoted a spokesperson from the environmentalists GOB who said that this will be "a crazy year, the infrastructure will not cope". Was it all environmentalist hot air? The prognosis was for: "airport stretched beyond its limit; Palma crowded out by ships and passengers; roads chockful of hire cars; ever more thousands of apartments being rented out; the hotels full; limits needing to be placed on the numbers on unspoiled beaches; supermarket supplies questionable; water supplies threatened; outdated sewage-treatment plants incapable of taking the pressure. Too many planes, too many ships, too many cars, too many people." 2017 will be no different.
There was in fact an eleventh post. It had the second highest number of page views but it wasn't a story, just a very short and simple post. It was the one to say that, after a few days of downtime when the Blogger system changed and I couldn't post, I was back. Heartening, I guess.
This caveat aside, the story that proved to be the most popular was that of 17 September, Promoting Culture: Where's The Strategy? This was about an agreement between the tourism and culture ministries - a "protocol", as they liked to call it - to promote cultural tourism. This required an investment of 600,000 euros to internationalise the islands' culture via a "tourism strategy". I was scathing of the whole thing, not least because an aspect of this strategy is supposedly to push filming on the islands. The relevant ministers, Biel Barceló and Ruth Mateu, admitted that there aren't the necessary tax incentives to do this, as there are in other parts of Spain. So they were going ahead with a "strategy" without having the wherewithal to implement it. Moreover, the "protocol" only lasts until the end of 2017. Could anyone make any sense of it, I asked. PR nonsense was my conclusion, and we haven't heard anything about it since September.
Number two was from 21 July - A Camel To Design A Camel: Tourist Tax. The introduction read: "How many government departments, local authorities, business associations, unions and others does it take to change the cash collected from the tourist tax into meaningful projects?" One camel was therefore the Commission for the Promotion of Sustainable Tourism, the body which decides how revenue is to be spent. The other was the tax itself with its ill-defined multi-purposes. As things were to turn out, the government used the drought as the justification (not unreasonably) to place emphasis on water projects. We are still waiting, though, to hear what these (and other) projects actually are. When there's a commission with such camel-like ingredients, should this come as any surprise?
In third place was the article about Balearic hotel interests in Cuba - Keep Taking Us To Havana, 1 December - while just behind in fourth spot was the post of 2 May, When Anger Takes Over: Mallorca And Cycling. This was prompted by the general chaos caused by the Mallorca 312 cycle event, which isn't a race as such but a trial. As I noted, it was a trial that "tested the over 4,000 cyclists and tested the patience of many people on the island". The event brought to a head the simmering (and not so simmering) conflict created by cycling. The value and benefit of cycling to Mallorca seems irreconcilable with attitudes of residents. Whether these attitudes are shared by a majority, one doesn't know. Perhaps they should undertake a survey rather than rely on social-media hysteria.
Chaos of a different sort came in at number five - More On Vueling And The Chaotic Spanish Air Industry, 16 July. At six was a subject that crept ever higher up the agenda in 2016. The Pariah Status Of Airbnb from 11 November noted that Airbnb didn't exhibit at London's World Travel Market, despite it being "arguably the most important business in the travel market right at the moment". This was the context for a discussion of the need for the regional government "to take tough and effective action against Airbnb and other such sites". Just how tough will be revealed when the holiday rentals' legislation is approved. Whether it will be effective is a totally different matter.
There was further anger on 23 April. Getting Angry In Puerto Pollensa (number seven) said that "emotions have been allowed to run high; rather too high". They were to do with the pedestrianisation fiasco and the Gelats Valls ice-cream kiosk. There was of course to be even more anger because of the separate fiasco of the sun loungers.
At eight was a tribute to a web-based business which doesn't attract the concerns surrounding Airbnb. Hotelbeds: The Best Of Mallorca from 14 July looked at this successful business, sold by Tui for a fortune, which is headquartered on Palma's Paseo Marítimo. There was a coincidence with this article. Although not the same type of business, Hotelbeds does have some similarity with Low Cost Holidays, which went belly up a few days later.
In ninth spot was The Mess Of Regulating Holiday Rentals, 21 May. "The regional government is getting itself into a right old pickle over holiday rentals' regulation" was the introduction to an article on the difficulties regarding legislation. The pickle has become increasingly pickled, what with the idea to zone Mallorca and the intention to allocate places for holiday rentals that don't coincide with areas of high residential need. The government's problems are such that it ignored the fact, as stated in the May article, that the sustainable tourism tax law mandated it to have regulation in place within six months of that law having been approved: it should have been at the end of September therefore.
And in tenth place was The Environmental Crisis Coming Our Way of 17 May. This quoted a spokesperson from the environmentalists GOB who said that this will be "a crazy year, the infrastructure will not cope". Was it all environmentalist hot air? The prognosis was for: "airport stretched beyond its limit; Palma crowded out by ships and passengers; roads chockful of hire cars; ever more thousands of apartments being rented out; the hotels full; limits needing to be placed on the numbers on unspoiled beaches; supermarket supplies questionable; water supplies threatened; outdated sewage-treatment plants incapable of taking the pressure. Too many planes, too many ships, too many cars, too many people." 2017 will be no different.
There was in fact an eleventh post. It had the second highest number of page views but it wasn't a story, just a very short and simple post. It was the one to say that, after a few days of downtime when the Blogger system changed and I couldn't post, I was back. Heartening, I guess.
Friday, December 30, 2016
Saturation, Sustainability And Stability: Mallorca's Tourism 2016
It was the 3S year. Not sun, sea and sand (substitute sex for the latter if you prefer) but saturation, sustainability and stability. Mallorca had stability by the safety and security load, plus - more or less - political stability. Geopolitics, a word that was being rammed down our throats, were at play in creating the opposite in different parts of the Med: the instability of others was Mallorca's good fortune. Until, that is, it came to saturation. Tourist numbers were greater than ever. And they were everywhere. Clogging up beaches, clogging up town centres (well, one, i.e. Palma, but only now and then), clogging up the port in Palma on account of the leviathans of the sea colliding on the same days, clogging up roads with the thousands more hire cars that had been diverted from Turkish ports, clogging up private apartments and firing off messages of gratitude to Airbnb. Bloody tourists.
It may have only been a couple of cranks who sprayed their messages on walls of Palma's old town, but their sentiments were far more widely held. Regardless of whether politicians attempted to either downplay or make hay with the slogans, the publicity had won. Saturation and its negative effects were here to stay. Or for at least as long as geopolitics are active in the eastern Mediterranean and northern Africa.
It wasn't as if we hadn't been here before. Few mentioned the fact that there had been similar murmurings of discontent at the turn of the millennium, despite Mallorca experiencing something of a crisis because of competition from destinations then unaffected by geopolitics. The response had been a campaign for sustainability - yes, they've been talking about it for that long - and a new tax. The ecotax was introduced in 2002 and then un-introduced eighteen months later. Politics, not of a geo nature but of a typically Balearic style, saw to it that the ecotax was ejected with force and catapulted into the deep blue waters of the Mediterranean, never to darken a hotel reception again. Until 1 July, 2016.
While former tourism minister Celesti Alomar had believed (hoped) that the ecotax would lead to a cut in tourist numbers, the current minister, Biel Barceló, didn't seem to suggest that the new tourist tax was a means of limiting numbers. Not to begin with anyway. Although he remained somewhat equivocal on the tax and limits relationship, others were not for equivocating. Podemos and fellow travellers in Barceló's Més party were all for putting it up in 2017 in order to keep the numbers down. Més and numerous members of Podemos signed up to the campaign "Sense límits no hi ha futur".
The politics of the tourist tax were in themselves curious. Més in their former solo guise as the PSM had been against the ecotax in 2002 (believe it or not, they had feared it would harm tourist numbers). It had been PSOE - Alomar especially - who had been the evangelists and advocates. Although PSOE in their current form have never admitted that they would have rather the tourist tax had been given a wide berth, they were badgered into it by Més and Podemos.
And once it was on the parliamentary agenda, it caused all sorts of disagreement, not least with regard to how the revenue was to be spent. There was, for example, the notion (proposed by Toni Reus of Més) of some of the revenue going towards old folks' homes. The scrapping was such that an unidentified member of Podemos entertainingly remarked that during one particularly heated discussion "we were screaming like we were kids in primary school".
Paramount, though, was our old friend sustainability, so much so that the tax was officially dubbed the sustainable tourism tax. It duly arrived in time for the high season, and fears that outraged tourists might be dragged off to the cells for refusing to part with payment were to prove to have been unfounded.
It is perhaps instructive to look back at quotes that I used in reviewing the 2015 tourism year. The president of the Mallorca Hoteliers Federation, the ubiquitous Inma Benito, had called it a bad measure that "will cause the loss of millions in 2016". Hans Müller of Thomas Cook believed that it "could suddenly cost us everything that has been gained over the past four years". As things turned out, the hoteliers and the tour operators were grateful for the geopolitics as far as Mallorca was concerned; tour operators otherwise experienced losses, especially in Turkey.
With limits and saturation very much on the agenda, Barceló introduced the draft for the holiday rentals legislation. This will be one of the big issues for 2017, and it will be a contentious issue as well. The divvying up of the 43,000 places according to nine zones in Mallorca, to say nothing of the other three islands, will be a wonder to behold, while the lawyers will already be champing at the bit. On all-inclusives, if the tourism ministry is true to its word and gets tough with offer that is not registered, then good on the ministry.
2016 will otherwise be remembered for the collapse of Low Cost Holidays and so for the job losses. It was a case study of crap cash-flow management allied to inadequate regulatory control in the Balearics: the tourism ministry was left to squirm and cite European bonds as its fallback position for holidaymakers whose holidays were costing them double. There were also the losses that Vueling was consistently making: it kept on having to cancel flights. The airports authority Aena hasn't explained if the record numbers at Palma airport took account of the cancellations.
And what of losses in 2017? Brexit had no impact this year, and in truth there had been little justification for thinking that it would have. We're told that bookings from the UK are buoyant for next year, the bigger fear being lower spend. But as no one believes tourist spending statistics anyway, how will we able to tell?
So we look forward to the new year, one during which we will revisit - time and time again - the same themes. 2017 will be 3S year Mark II.
It may have only been a couple of cranks who sprayed their messages on walls of Palma's old town, but their sentiments were far more widely held. Regardless of whether politicians attempted to either downplay or make hay with the slogans, the publicity had won. Saturation and its negative effects were here to stay. Or for at least as long as geopolitics are active in the eastern Mediterranean and northern Africa.
It wasn't as if we hadn't been here before. Few mentioned the fact that there had been similar murmurings of discontent at the turn of the millennium, despite Mallorca experiencing something of a crisis because of competition from destinations then unaffected by geopolitics. The response had been a campaign for sustainability - yes, they've been talking about it for that long - and a new tax. The ecotax was introduced in 2002 and then un-introduced eighteen months later. Politics, not of a geo nature but of a typically Balearic style, saw to it that the ecotax was ejected with force and catapulted into the deep blue waters of the Mediterranean, never to darken a hotel reception again. Until 1 July, 2016.
While former tourism minister Celesti Alomar had believed (hoped) that the ecotax would lead to a cut in tourist numbers, the current minister, Biel Barceló, didn't seem to suggest that the new tourist tax was a means of limiting numbers. Not to begin with anyway. Although he remained somewhat equivocal on the tax and limits relationship, others were not for equivocating. Podemos and fellow travellers in Barceló's Més party were all for putting it up in 2017 in order to keep the numbers down. Més and numerous members of Podemos signed up to the campaign "Sense límits no hi ha futur".
The politics of the tourist tax were in themselves curious. Més in their former solo guise as the PSM had been against the ecotax in 2002 (believe it or not, they had feared it would harm tourist numbers). It had been PSOE - Alomar especially - who had been the evangelists and advocates. Although PSOE in their current form have never admitted that they would have rather the tourist tax had been given a wide berth, they were badgered into it by Més and Podemos.
And once it was on the parliamentary agenda, it caused all sorts of disagreement, not least with regard to how the revenue was to be spent. There was, for example, the notion (proposed by Toni Reus of Més) of some of the revenue going towards old folks' homes. The scrapping was such that an unidentified member of Podemos entertainingly remarked that during one particularly heated discussion "we were screaming like we were kids in primary school".
Paramount, though, was our old friend sustainability, so much so that the tax was officially dubbed the sustainable tourism tax. It duly arrived in time for the high season, and fears that outraged tourists might be dragged off to the cells for refusing to part with payment were to prove to have been unfounded.
It is perhaps instructive to look back at quotes that I used in reviewing the 2015 tourism year. The president of the Mallorca Hoteliers Federation, the ubiquitous Inma Benito, had called it a bad measure that "will cause the loss of millions in 2016". Hans Müller of Thomas Cook believed that it "could suddenly cost us everything that has been gained over the past four years". As things turned out, the hoteliers and the tour operators were grateful for the geopolitics as far as Mallorca was concerned; tour operators otherwise experienced losses, especially in Turkey.
With limits and saturation very much on the agenda, Barceló introduced the draft for the holiday rentals legislation. This will be one of the big issues for 2017, and it will be a contentious issue as well. The divvying up of the 43,000 places according to nine zones in Mallorca, to say nothing of the other three islands, will be a wonder to behold, while the lawyers will already be champing at the bit. On all-inclusives, if the tourism ministry is true to its word and gets tough with offer that is not registered, then good on the ministry.
2016 will otherwise be remembered for the collapse of Low Cost Holidays and so for the job losses. It was a case study of crap cash-flow management allied to inadequate regulatory control in the Balearics: the tourism ministry was left to squirm and cite European bonds as its fallback position for holidaymakers whose holidays were costing them double. There were also the losses that Vueling was consistently making: it kept on having to cancel flights. The airports authority Aena hasn't explained if the record numbers at Palma airport took account of the cancellations.
And what of losses in 2017? Brexit had no impact this year, and in truth there had been little justification for thinking that it would have. We're told that bookings from the UK are buoyant for next year, the bigger fear being lower spend. But as no one believes tourist spending statistics anyway, how will we able to tell?
So we look forward to the new year, one during which we will revisit - time and time again - the same themes. 2017 will be 3S year Mark II.
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Rentals' Websites To Charge The Tourist Tax
The Balearic and Catalonian governments are moving closer together on various issues, such as regional financing, and they are both on the same page when it comes to holiday rentals' websites. Under the law accompanying its 2017 budget, Catalonia will introduce a clause that will make websites charge the region's tourist tax. Not only will this raise extra revenue (some 7.5 million euros to add to the around 43 million that Catalonia already raises), it will act as a further means of detecting illegal apartment rental.
In the same way, the Balearic legislation on holiday rentals will stipulate that sites such as Airbnb have to charge the tax. Moreover, they will also be obliged to only market properties which have a registration number which verifies that they are legally registered - this registration is due to be extended to apartments, under tough quality conditions, which are currently "illegal" if they are marketed for holiday/tourism purposes.
Neither the Balearics nor Catalonia will find the demand to charge the tourist tax straightforward. That's because Airbnb and other similar sites, e.g. Homeaway and Rentalia, insist that they do not offer tourist activity, and there is an association in Spain - Adigital - which presents this case. The websites are just, according to its president, "technological intermediaries between the supply and demand".
This argument is already being used in challenging proceedings against Airbnb and Homeaway in Catalonia and Valencia for illegal promotion of tourist accommodation. As they are not offering a "tourist" service as such, then how can they be flouting regulations?
Here is a further example of how definitional technicalities can let abuse slip through the net. Spain's urban leasing act (aka tenancy act) is another, as it enables flagrant abuse of rental legislation.
In Ibiza, meanwhile, there are moves being made on the understanding that the regional government is permitting (or will permit) island councils to adopt specific regulations for rentals. The town hall of Santa Eulària has announced that it is to prohibit holiday rentals in apartment buildings. The Council of Ibiza is looking at adopting an island-wide regulation that would do likewise, a key justification for doing so being the threat to "co-existence" of residents and tourists.
With holiday rentals seemingly such a significant factor in increasing the overall number of tourists, it looks likely that further fuel will be added to the saturation debate. It is anticipated that by the year end, the Balearics will have received more than 14 million tourists for the first time; in fact, well over - the number could nudge 15 million.
In the same way, the Balearic legislation on holiday rentals will stipulate that sites such as Airbnb have to charge the tax. Moreover, they will also be obliged to only market properties which have a registration number which verifies that they are legally registered - this registration is due to be extended to apartments, under tough quality conditions, which are currently "illegal" if they are marketed for holiday/tourism purposes.
Neither the Balearics nor Catalonia will find the demand to charge the tourist tax straightforward. That's because Airbnb and other similar sites, e.g. Homeaway and Rentalia, insist that they do not offer tourist activity, and there is an association in Spain - Adigital - which presents this case. The websites are just, according to its president, "technological intermediaries between the supply and demand".
This argument is already being used in challenging proceedings against Airbnb and Homeaway in Catalonia and Valencia for illegal promotion of tourist accommodation. As they are not offering a "tourist" service as such, then how can they be flouting regulations?
Here is a further example of how definitional technicalities can let abuse slip through the net. Spain's urban leasing act (aka tenancy act) is another, as it enables flagrant abuse of rental legislation.
In Ibiza, meanwhile, there are moves being made on the understanding that the regional government is permitting (or will permit) island councils to adopt specific regulations for rentals. The town hall of Santa Eulària has announced that it is to prohibit holiday rentals in apartment buildings. The Council of Ibiza is looking at adopting an island-wide regulation that would do likewise, a key justification for doing so being the threat to "co-existence" of residents and tourists.
With holiday rentals seemingly such a significant factor in increasing the overall number of tourists, it looks likely that further fuel will be added to the saturation debate. It is anticipated that by the year end, the Balearics will have received more than 14 million tourists for the first time; in fact, well over - the number could nudge 15 million.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
