Movement to submit new referendum proposal on short-term rentals
The decision comes after the Constitutional Court ruled the initiative invalid, citing both procedural and substantive issues.
What?
The Housing Referendum Movement (MRH) has announced that it will revise its proposal for a referendum on short-term rentals (Alojamento Local, AL) in Lisbon after the Constitutional Court rejected the initial initiative last Friday.
MRH criticized the court’s decision as a “political move” and described it as a “blow to participatory democracy.”
In a statement released on Tuesday, MRH confirmed they received official communication from the Lisbon Municipal Assembly (AML) on Monday, granting them the opportunity to revise the referendum proposal and resubmit it for Constitutional Court review by the following Monday.
The movement emphasized that the revisions would not compromise the original intent of the initiative, signed by thousands of citizens.
MRH lamented the rejection of the referendum, which they argue fails to address the severity of Lisbon’s housing crisis.
They criticized the court for being “particularly inflexible with the popular proposal” and noted the absence of any reference to housing’s social function in the court’s ruling, calling it an “ideological choice.”
Constitutional Court ruling
As reported by PORTUGAL DECODED in early December, the original proposal, supported by over 11,000 signatories, including 6,600 Lisbon residents, sought public input on two questions:
Whether Lisbon City Council should cancel existing local accommodation registrations in residential buildings within 180 days.
Whether local accommodation should be prohibited outright in residential properties.
The initiative sought significant changes to Lisbon’s municipal regulations governing local accommodations, sparking debate over the balance between tourism and housing needs.
On December 3, the AML approved the initial referendum proposal with support from PS, BE, PEV, PAN, Livre, and two independent deputies, while PSD, CDS-PP, IL, PPM, Aliança, Chega, and one other independent deputy voted against. The PCP and MPT abstained.
However, the Constitutional Court ruled the initiative invalid, citing both procedural and substantive issues:
Insufficient Signatures: The required 5,000 signatures from registered voters in Lisbon were not met.
Improper Documentation: The signature sheets lacked identification of the initiative’s representatives, raising questions about the legitimacy of the petitioners’ intent.
Missing Formal Opinion: Lisbon Mayor Carlos Moedas did not issue a required formal opinion on the matter, further breaching procedural requirements.
The Court also highlighted substantive legal conflicts, stating that municipal councils lack the authority to definitively ban local accommodation activities.
The proposed changes to the municipal regulations would effectively nullify national laws governing local accommodation operations, rendering them unenforceable across most of Lisbon.
The judges pointed out that existing legislation already provides mechanisms for regulating local accommodation, such as designated containment zones and sustainable growth areas.
These tools, introduced in 2018, aim to manage local accommodation without outright bans, which would violate national regulatory frameworks.
The decision is available here (in portuguese only).
Lisbon Mayor’s reaction
On Saturday, the Mayor of Lisbon, Carlos Moedas, stated that the Constitutional Court’s decision to block a local referendum on short-term rentals (AL) in the city is “a major defeat for the radical left supported by the Socialist Party (PS).”
In a written statement sent to the Lusa news agency, social-democrat Carlos Moedas highlighted the work of the current municipal executive, led by PSD/CDS-PP, in regulating AL in Lisbon “with moderation and balance, protecting Lisbon residents,” while criticizing the previous PS-led administration.
For the mayor, this represents a defeat for “those who expelled Lisbon residents from the city over the past 14 years.” AL activity, he pointed out, “increased from 500 units in 2011 to 18,000 in 2018.”
“They are the ones now criticizing the current executive for regulating the market with clear rules—protecting areas of the city that no longer need more AL—while providing freedom and opportunities for other areas and families to grow and benefit from this business,” Moedas stated.
He highlighted his administration’s role in overseeing the sector, noting that 250 licenses have been canceled in the last three years.
“Today in Lisbon, AL cannot exceed 2.5 units per 100 residential units. This is a relative cap and becomes absolute at 5%. This ensures that in any parish exceeding 5% AL, no further AL will be permitted,” the municipality explained. It did not, however, acknowledge that these ratios between AL establishments and housing units were implemented under a PS proposal for the “immediate suspension” of new AL licenses in the city.
Furthermore, there is a single absolute containment area across the municipality when a ratio of “5% or more” is reached. Currently, the city as a whole registers a ratio of 7.2%.
“As long as we remain at or above 5%, there will be no new AL. [...] At this moment, what is in effect is a suspension, and therefore, there is no new AL in Lisbon,” the municipality reiterated.
The Movement’s reaction
MRH expressed frustration over the “excessive bureaucratic burden” that hinders access to participatory democracy and questioned whether local referenda are practical tools in Portugal.
The group pledged to continue their fight to ensure housing serves its social purpose.
MRH now faces the challenge of addressing the court’s concerns and resubmitting the proposal while staying true to the initiative’s original objectives.
In their statement, MRH reiterated their commitment to ensuring that “houses are for living” and vowed to persevere in their advocacy for participatory democracy.