Mercan offered that and they refused? Wow, theyâre nuts. We knew this was driven by populism, but youâd think theyâd also want to actually try to fix the issues if possibleâŠ
The missed opportunity is crazy. Imagine if theyâd said they were getting rid of all real estate investment options for the GV, unless it involved the development and rental of affordable housing that would only be available to Portuguese residents with income below a certain level. I think that would have immediately become one of the most popular categories of investmentâŠ
Housing Bill to be legally challenged by real estate owners:
âThe Lisbon Association of Owners (ALP) will contact the competent entities to request the review of the constitutionality of the legislative package More Housing, in order to allow the Constitutional Court to assess the diploma, as âit should have already happenedâ, advances to DN / Dinheiro Vivo President LuĂs Menezes LeitĂŁo.â
Will discuss? Looks more like vote and confirm on Sep, 21. So if nobody will submit it to constitutional court (not sure what happens in that case), it will be in force roughly on October, 2-3. Hopefully opposition parties will do this play with the Constitutional court. It requires only 23 deputies, not sure why they did not gather it yet.
I am under the impression that if Parliament overrides the Presidentâs veto then the President has 8 days to approve it rather than the 20 days noted in the IAS article.
Ok folks, so a fresh letter now been sent to all the Deputados on the Housing committee (24 of them), asking to revise the draft and remove the retroactive âconverstion to enterpreneurâ clauses.
Hoping this would take some positive effect ahead of their debate (on Sep 21st?)âŠ
Good job. My sense, though, is that PS is determined to pass the bill entirely unchanged, so that the President must then promulgate it.
If PS wants to water down / clarify the D2 stuff, they have the opportunity to do that in Regulations, perhaps with language about a presumption of entrepreneurial status for specified classes of investments.
No! They are still there, namely clauses 5 of Article 42 and 4,5 of Article 43.
This is a âknown issueâ that have been discussed in this thread.
If these clauses stay and go into force, there is some hope that:
a) SEF would ignore them somehow, or
b) There will be further regulations issued/amended that would either cancel or âenableâ the conversion.
However, if neither of that happens, we will face further disruption/delays on top of existing situation, as SEF will not be able to execute the conversion even if they wanted to.
But what Iâm doing here is the last ditch attempt to remove them from the law before it comes into force.