What is not mentioned in these news articles is that those voting to "opt-in" are clearly voting for the long term viability of the community over whatever short term pain. Thank you for your courage those who voted in favor.
Also, the articles fail to explain the facts.... that Tofino has higher rates of VR use in general and higher rates of absentee VR use specifically, on a per capita basis, than anywhere in the province
I am happy a healthy majority of councilors saw the writing on the wall and opted in. To save, not destroy, the community.
I am also gratified that Council did not follow the advice of staff. Whose advice in the past is partly responsible for the current dilemma.
A lot of Tofitians will be grateful. Maybe some of those massive BC Assessment increases will moderate. The last few years, both assessments and taxes, have been driven higher by the profits to be made from absentee VR's
What will they be grateful for? What housing did this provide? I'd be grateful for real work on the zoning bylaw - clarity for the next 20 years.
If the rights of property owners at tibbs and Ike don't matter and our government won't stand up for them - how can they be trusted to stand up for what you own?
the way staff was talked about in that meeting was really disrespectful. I would think a public apology should be called for. Thanks to councillor Steere and Sawyer for acknowledging that misconduct and the hard work done on this matter.
Dont forget what nylas report really said.
Split taxation and restricting number of licenses is far more impactful than pulling maybe 10% off the waterfront condo market and calling it housing.
McMaster wants the out of town owners to move here - so he can ignore them ? And 64% of the public
t0 6:17 Your rave about everything and nothing makes McMaster look good. If prices come down a bit people who live here will see a reduction in taxes. Maybe you think you should be able to write them off as a business expense. While most are out of pocket.....get a clue.
Two years from now it's going to be interesting to look back and see exactly what results this "attempt to create more housing" has accomplished.
In the past, Josie's war against South Chesterman Beach Homes, which cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars (the exact figure is hidden in a non-disclosure agreement) resulted in all STR's being stopped on that property. It was claimed that this war would result in the creation of more homes for long term renters. Today, none of those "homes" are occupied by full time residents.
Now it's been decided to "opt in". Again, the taxpayers are going to lose hundreds of thousands of tax dollars in lost business license fees. Potential increases on these properties to commercial tax rates, instead of residential, which would have tripled their property tax contribution, are now lost. Lots of local residents and service providers are going to lose their good paying jobs, servicing these short term rentals. Loss of spin off business from these lost guests is going to have a negative effect on local businesses. There are going to be less people coming to vacation in Tofino.
There will be less paying guests in town, less benefits to the community.
There will not be more long term places available to rent.
Just like South Chesterman's, there will be more empty properties, the owners will not rent them long term, especially with the current structure of the Residential Tenancy Act.
The lack of housing in Tofino will not improve, and folks will realize that the villification of STR's was all an unjustified political witch hunt and the true reason there's no place available to live is because the district has refused to allow the zoning and construction of new housing for over fifteen years.
on the contrary.....there are some folks residing at south chestermans. and some people have bought in there to NOT vacation rent but use the property for their family's enjoyment. The district chose to enforce the restrictive covenant that was placed on title when they were built stipulating there were to be no transient nightly rentals. buyers knew that when they bought the property. As a fine point of law it's assumed that if it wasn't transient it wasn't prohibited so pre-booking was thought of as a way around that. Apparently not. The judge sided with the district as far as enforcing the covenant. And the property was not zoned commercial. that's the salient point of the out-of-control vacation rental activity. It's an unregulated commercial use of a property in a residential zone. That use violates the right of a neighboring property owner to quiet enjoyment of their residentially zoned property. Sometimes owned by absentee owners who don't know the neighbours or care about them at all, nor spend their money in town. If you have ever lived next-door to one of these vacation rentals you would understand how local long-term residents feel especially when asked to conserve water while the VR guests use as much as they feel like. Before vacation rentals came along… We washed each other shirts to get through the winters and it wasn't that bad. As opposed to the endless washing of toilets and making beds.
One of the reasons DOT won't approve more housing is a lack of water.. of coarse commercial use, including VR use, has escalated water consumption making it more difficult to approve new housing. We need the water. we need the housing. but don't tell me escalating consumption from VRs is not part of the cause for shartages..
YOU ARE CORREECT IN THAT THE DOT NEEDS TO APPROVE MORE HOUSING, BUT IF IT IS ALL TO BECOME VR'S WHAT IS THE POINT. TIME TO CHANGE IT UP. YOU CAN STILL VACATION RENTAL, JUST DO IT OUT OF THE HOME THAT YOU OWN AND WHERE YOU LIVE. YOUR ARGUEMENTS ARE SIMPLISTIC AND PREDOMINANTLY SELF SERVING.....MAYBE YOU SHOULD JUST MOVE TO SOME LAISSE FAIRE WORLD WHERE YOU CSN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT.. WHERE IS THAT BY THE WAY?
I would prefer to see locals living in and operating VRs in their primary residence rather than the multiple homes owned by out of town owners and locals who have multiple places and don't live onsite. The ones that are not resident-occupied are difficult to live close to and generally problematic when it comes to water consumption and other issues. Also, I highly doubt those more affordable condo buildings are going to sit empty...
Those five people (mayor and council).....were elected to represent the wishes of their constituents.
From Westerly News article..............the district received 117 letters about the issue with about 54 per cent opposed to opting in, 34 per cent in favour of opting in and the remaining 12 per cent not stating a clear preference.
A similar breakdown was seen in the feedback provided to the district’s TalkTofino online portal where 58 per cent of respondents were against opting in and 33 per cent were in favour.
Instead of listening to the people who elected them, those five people took it upon themselves to presume that they are far more wise and skilled and experienced than the majority of the electorate, smarter than the professionals that have been hired to guide us through these complicated processes and simply voted to go ahead with something they "felt" might possibly be the best idea available to them at this time.
Those five people, on Tuesday, did a lot of damage to a lot of people in our community.
Ego. Run amok!
Those five people.......We will not forget what you have done.
What is not mentioned in these news articles is that those voting to "opt-in" are clearly voting for the long term viability of the community over whatever short term pain. Thank you for your courage those who voted in favor.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the articles fail to explain the facts.... that Tofino has higher rates of VR use in general and higher rates of absentee VR use specifically, on a per capita basis, than anywhere in the province
I am happy a healthy majority of councilors saw the writing on the wall and opted in. To save, not destroy, the community.
I am also gratified that Council did not follow the advice of staff. Whose advice in the past is partly responsible for the current dilemma.
Applause all around
A lot of Tofitians will be grateful. Maybe some of those massive BC Assessment increases will moderate. The last few years, both assessments and taxes, have been driven higher by the profits to be made from absentee VR's
ReplyDeleteThe most accurate representation out there.
ReplyDeleteMcMaster - hopes people will move here. So he can ignore them
Says he expects a 5-10% drop in prices. Which people still can't afford.
How does this help? We know who it's hurts.
What will they be grateful for? What housing did this provide? I'd be grateful for real work on the zoning bylaw - clarity for the next 20 years.
ReplyDeleteIf the rights of property owners at tibbs and Ike don't matter and our government won't stand up for them - how can they be trusted to stand up for what you own?
the way staff was talked about in that meeting was really disrespectful. I would think a public apology should be called for. Thanks to councillor Steere and Sawyer for acknowledging that misconduct and the hard work done on this matter.
Dont forget what nylas report really said.
Split taxation and restricting number of licenses is far more impactful than pulling maybe 10% off the waterfront condo market and calling it housing.
McMaster wants the out of town owners to move here - so he can ignore them ? And 64% of the public
t0 6:17 Your rave about everything and nothing makes McMaster look good. If prices come down a bit people who live here will see a reduction in taxes. Maybe you think you should be able to write them off as a business expense. While most are out of pocket.....get a clue.
ReplyDeleteTwo years from now it's going to be interesting to look back and see exactly what results this "attempt to create more housing" has accomplished.
ReplyDeleteIn the past, Josie's war against South Chesterman Beach Homes, which cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars (the exact figure is hidden in a non-disclosure agreement) resulted in all STR's being stopped on that property. It was claimed that this war would result in the creation of more homes for long term renters. Today, none of those "homes" are occupied by full time residents.
Now it's been decided to "opt in".
Again, the taxpayers are going to lose hundreds of thousands of tax dollars in lost business license fees.
Potential increases on these properties to commercial tax rates, instead of residential, which would have tripled their property tax contribution, are now lost.
Lots of local residents and service providers are going to lose their good paying jobs, servicing these short term rentals.
Loss of spin off business from these lost guests is going to have a negative effect on local businesses. There are going to be less people coming to vacation in Tofino.
There will be less paying guests in town, less benefits to the community.
There will not be more long term places available to rent.
Just like South Chesterman's, there will be more empty properties, the owners will not rent them long term, especially with the current structure of the Residential Tenancy Act.
The lack of housing in Tofino will not improve, and folks will realize that the villification of STR's was all an unjustified political witch hunt and the true reason there's no place available to live is because the district has refused to allow the zoning and construction of new housing for over fifteen years.
on the contrary.....there are some folks residing at south chestermans. and some people have bought in there to NOT vacation rent but use the property for their family's enjoyment.
ReplyDeleteThe district chose to enforce the restrictive covenant that was placed on title when they were built stipulating there were to be no transient nightly rentals. buyers knew that when they bought the property. As a fine point of law it's assumed that if it wasn't transient it wasn't prohibited so pre-booking was thought of as a way around that. Apparently not. The judge sided with the district as far as enforcing the covenant. And the property was not zoned commercial.
that's the salient point of the out-of-control vacation rental activity. It's an unregulated commercial use of a property in a residential zone. That use violates the right of a neighboring property owner to quiet enjoyment of their residentially zoned property. Sometimes owned by absentee owners who don't know the neighbours or care about them at all, nor spend their money in town.
If you have ever lived next-door to one of these vacation rentals you would understand how local long-term residents feel especially when asked to conserve water while the VR guests use as much as they feel like.
Before vacation rentals came along… We washed each other shirts to get through the winters and it wasn't that bad. As opposed to the endless washing of toilets and making beds.
One of the reasons DOT won't approve more housing is a lack of water.. of coarse commercial use, including VR use, has escalated water consumption making it more difficult to approve new housing. We need the water. we need the housing. but don't tell me escalating consumption from VRs is not part of the cause for shartages..
ReplyDeleteYOU ARE CORREECT IN THAT THE DOT NEEDS TO APPROVE MORE HOUSING, BUT IF IT IS ALL TO BECOME VR'S WHAT IS THE POINT. TIME TO CHANGE IT UP. YOU CAN STILL VACATION RENTAL, JUST DO IT OUT OF THE HOME THAT YOU OWN AND WHERE YOU LIVE. YOUR ARGUEMENTS ARE SIMPLISTIC AND PREDOMINANTLY SELF SERVING.....MAYBE YOU SHOULD JUST MOVE TO SOME LAISSE FAIRE WORLD WHERE YOU CSN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT.. WHERE IS THAT BY THE WAY?
ReplyDeleteOMG!! The reason that there isn't a proper water supply is because of vacation rentals.
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to argue with intelligent logic like that.
And carbon tax puts more money in my pocket.
Naw, trust me, you won't get pregnant.
I would prefer to see locals living in and operating VRs in their primary residence rather than the multiple homes owned by out of town owners and locals who have multiple places and don't live onsite. The ones that are not resident-occupied are difficult to live close to and generally problematic when it comes to water consumption and other issues. Also, I highly doubt those more affordable condo buildings are going to sit empty...
ReplyDeleteThose five people (mayor and council).....were elected to represent the wishes of their constituents.
ReplyDeleteFrom Westerly News article..............the district received 117 letters about the issue with about 54 per cent opposed to opting in, 34 per cent in favour of opting in and the remaining 12 per cent not stating a clear preference.
A similar breakdown was seen in the feedback provided to the district’s TalkTofino online portal where 58 per cent of respondents were against opting in and 33 per cent were in favour.
Instead of listening to the people who elected them, those five people took it upon themselves to presume that they are far more wise and skilled and experienced than the majority of the electorate, smarter than the professionals that have been hired to guide us through these complicated processes and simply voted to go ahead with something they "felt" might possibly be the best idea available to them at this time.
Those five people, on Tuesday, did a lot of damage to a lot of people in our community.
Ego. Run amok!
Those five people.......We will not forget what you have done.
Some of us didn’t write letters….but told different council members how we felt. In favour btw. So letters numbers aren’t an indication of a majority.
ReplyDelete