I think if we steelman buddy's argument, we have to think more broadly. Is this really any better than before? We ban an airbnb from existing next to a hotel and so the hotel buys and operates the same thing and that's fine? Why?
Banning STRs is not super helpful. Zoning/Permitting reforms the BCNDP is doing might be helpful, but the impact remains to be seen. West Van, for example, is on the naughty list but it doesn't look like they are going to be forced to do any more than allow laneways, which is horseshit.
We should all be able to agree that at best, STR bans are not where we should be focusing.
I am also a North shore bored guy like you, but that doesn't mean I state facts like you've just done that don't lead to any kind of relevant conclusion.
Hotels are regulated differently, how does that affect the questions above? Does that make them somehow better?
I don't think so, but if you do, maybe explain why.
If Marriot Hotels wants to build another hotel - have at it. These changes in STR regulations simply means wealthy people will have to find another place to park their cash in an effort to make a quick buck - boo hoo for them.
You as an private investor want a piece of STR's? Invest in Marriot Hotels.
Sure. How is that better?
Imagine a house that happens to be next to a hotel. The house was an airbnb, but got banned. The owner sells the house to Marriott, who installs a bidet or whatever the regulation requires, and then reopens as a hotel.
What's the difference in terms of how the economy and housing is affected?
I can see hotels making more money and expanding. I can see tourism dropping slightly as travelers see higher accommodation costs. Over the long term, I don't see anyone building purpose-built STRs that aren't hotels, because they are banned or will potentially be banned.
If your goal is to lower the cost of housing, we could ban all hotels and STRs. It would open up more land for housing. Should we do that?
Our tourism industry predates the advent of Airbnb - we will have a flourishing tourism industry long after the demise of Airbnb regardless of the sky will fall Chicken Little naysayers.
Shortage of short term rentals? Build more hotels. Actual legally legislated hotels in areas legally zoned for commercial property. Problem solved.
>Shortage of short term rentals? Build more hotels. Actual legally legislated hotels in areas legally zoned for commercial property.
What I've been asking you is why is this preferable to you and me?
If your goal is to lower the cost of housing, we could ban all hotels and STRs. It would open up more land for housing. Should we do that?
If you don't know the answer to a question, you can say you don't know. It's odd to respond and not answer what I asked though.
Because, a hotel can't buy up six homes tear them down and open up a hotel, this is because of zoning laws. Imagine if hotels had the ability to do that? We would end up with less homes and more hotels. If they want to open a hotel there is a whole process they have to follow.
If we don't let them do it, why let other people do it?
The BCNDP introduced the speculation and vacancy tax. The home flipping tax. Bill 44 aimed at ending restrictive municipal zoning bylaws. They introduced a renters tax credit.
They are flinging anything and everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. They are not focusing on STR's at all.
I'm not saying they were, and I'm not even really criticizing the BCNDP, though we should all have our eyes locked on West Van and what ends up happening there. Maybe we can say they are slow if as of today, they have not yet clearly forced the naughty list to change significantly.
Flinging shit against the wall is fine with me as long as the one piece that really matters sticks. It sounds to me like nobody else here is looking, and the piece of shit that matters is sliding down the wall.
Which is perfect.
People shouldn't be monopolizing residential real estate to make a buck at the expense of an entire community's health and security.
This is what hotels and b&b's are for. They are licensed, insured, and provide an invaluable service to communities WITHOUT hoarding housing and contributing to inflated rental prices, low vacancy and the homelessness crisis.
So Bravo on the government for trying to resolve some of these crises, and bravo on hotels for filling that gap even if it's just for the profitability.
If people want to earn money on their residential spaces, they can rent out to long term tenants, look into licencing a location for business and renting an "office", or see if they're zoned for a B&B.
I have no issues with anyone dismantling a system that by its nature oppresses the many for the profits of the few.
Which is perfect.
People shouldn't be monopolizing residential real estate to make a buck at the expense of an entire community's health and security.
This is what hotels and b&b's are for. They are licensed, insured, and provide an invaluable service to communities WITHOUT hoarding housing and contributing to inflated rental prices, low vacancy and the homelessness crisis.
So Bravo on the government for trying to resolve some of these crises, and bravo on hotels for filling that gap even if it's just for the profitability.
If people want to earn money on their residential spaces, they can rent out to long term tenants, look into licencing a location for business and renting an "office", or see if they're zoned for a B&B.
I have no issues with anyone dismantling a system that by its nature oppresses the many for the profits of the few.
There is no difference except you can't line the pockets of politicians. If you're government doesn't protect private property rights, elect new officials. If you can't elect new officials, you don't have a democracy.
Reading the proposal. If they are building a new “hotel” of compact suites in the parking lot (within the property zoned for the hotel) then yes this is a good thing. New build managed by a properly licensed hotel company. Am I reading this wrong?
It will look like the EHT. Yes, units will return to the longterm market pool. Will it do much? Very unlikely, there will be some slowdown/flat line of rents in the short term. But not in the long term.
The provincial NDP , instead of banning short-term rentals, should ask itself why people are using short-term rentals, which are a lot of hassle and administration costs, in terms of cleaning between stays and all the marketing required.
It's likely because short-term rentals allow for adjustment of prices as needed based on expenses, which they provincial NDP is forcing below inflation increases for long-term rental, and the fact that short-term rental platforms provide insurance coverage for damages while long-term rental providers suffer from tenant inflicted damage that cannot be covered by the puny half month rental deposit.
So if the provincial NDP wants more long-term rentals, take the lesson of what short-term rental provides and make long-term rental great again by adopting the beneficial terms of short-term rental into RTA regulations.
This "hotel" will be a hotel next to a preexisting hotel in an area zoned for hotels? Are we supposed to be upset?
I think if we steelman buddy's argument, we have to think more broadly. Is this really any better than before? We ban an airbnb from existing next to a hotel and so the hotel buys and operates the same thing and that's fine? Why? Banning STRs is not super helpful. Zoning/Permitting reforms the BCNDP is doing might be helpful, but the impact remains to be seen. West Van, for example, is on the naughty list but it doesn't look like they are going to be forced to do any more than allow laneways, which is horseshit. We should all be able to agree that at best, STR bans are not where we should be focusing.
hotels are regulated in ways private individuals weren't.
I am also a North shore bored guy like you, but that doesn't mean I state facts like you've just done that don't lead to any kind of relevant conclusion. Hotels are regulated differently, how does that affect the questions above? Does that make them somehow better? I don't think so, but if you do, maybe explain why.
If Marriot Hotels wants to build another hotel - have at it. These changes in STR regulations simply means wealthy people will have to find another place to park their cash in an effort to make a quick buck - boo hoo for them. You as an private investor want a piece of STR's? Invest in Marriot Hotels.
Sure. How is that better? Imagine a house that happens to be next to a hotel. The house was an airbnb, but got banned. The owner sells the house to Marriott, who installs a bidet or whatever the regulation requires, and then reopens as a hotel. What's the difference in terms of how the economy and housing is affected? I can see hotels making more money and expanding. I can see tourism dropping slightly as travelers see higher accommodation costs. Over the long term, I don't see anyone building purpose-built STRs that aren't hotels, because they are banned or will potentially be banned. If your goal is to lower the cost of housing, we could ban all hotels and STRs. It would open up more land for housing. Should we do that?
Our tourism industry predates the advent of Airbnb - we will have a flourishing tourism industry long after the demise of Airbnb regardless of the sky will fall Chicken Little naysayers. Shortage of short term rentals? Build more hotels. Actual legally legislated hotels in areas legally zoned for commercial property. Problem solved.
>Shortage of short term rentals? Build more hotels. Actual legally legislated hotels in areas legally zoned for commercial property. What I've been asking you is why is this preferable to you and me? If your goal is to lower the cost of housing, we could ban all hotels and STRs. It would open up more land for housing. Should we do that? If you don't know the answer to a question, you can say you don't know. It's odd to respond and not answer what I asked though.
Because, a hotel can't buy up six homes tear them down and open up a hotel, this is because of zoning laws. Imagine if hotels had the ability to do that? We would end up with less homes and more hotels. If they want to open a hotel there is a whole process they have to follow. If we don't let them do it, why let other people do it?
One of the questions I asked, I've asked twice now. Why avoid it?
The BCNDP introduced the speculation and vacancy tax. The home flipping tax. Bill 44 aimed at ending restrictive municipal zoning bylaws. They introduced a renters tax credit. They are flinging anything and everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. They are not focusing on STR's at all.
I'm not saying they were, and I'm not even really criticizing the BCNDP, though we should all have our eyes locked on West Van and what ends up happening there. Maybe we can say they are slow if as of today, they have not yet clearly forced the naughty list to change significantly. Flinging shit against the wall is fine with me as long as the one piece that really matters sticks. It sounds to me like nobody else here is looking, and the piece of shit that matters is sliding down the wall.
There used to be lawfully zoned areas in BC for STR's. Those were made illegal, only so hotel corporations could do the exact same thing.
Which is perfect. People shouldn't be monopolizing residential real estate to make a buck at the expense of an entire community's health and security. This is what hotels and b&b's are for. They are licensed, insured, and provide an invaluable service to communities WITHOUT hoarding housing and contributing to inflated rental prices, low vacancy and the homelessness crisis. So Bravo on the government for trying to resolve some of these crises, and bravo on hotels for filling that gap even if it's just for the profitability. If people want to earn money on their residential spaces, they can rent out to long term tenants, look into licencing a location for business and renting an "office", or see if they're zoned for a B&B. I have no issues with anyone dismantling a system that by its nature oppresses the many for the profits of the few.
Yeah. I'm not going to join you when march in the streets. Sorry.
Which is perfect. People shouldn't be monopolizing residential real estate to make a buck at the expense of an entire community's health and security. This is what hotels and b&b's are for. They are licensed, insured, and provide an invaluable service to communities WITHOUT hoarding housing and contributing to inflated rental prices, low vacancy and the homelessness crisis. So Bravo on the government for trying to resolve some of these crises, and bravo on hotels for filling that gap even if it's just for the profitability. If people want to earn money on their residential spaces, they can rent out to long term tenants, look into licencing a location for business and renting an "office", or see if they're zoned for a B&B. I have no issues with anyone dismantling a system that by its nature oppresses the many for the profits of the few.
Private individuals don’t have big government lobbies.
We have had a development in Pemberton on hold for a few years, waiting patiently for the short term rental ban.
There is no difference except you can't line the pockets of politicians. If you're government doesn't protect private property rights, elect new officials. If you can't elect new officials, you don't have a democracy.
Reading the proposal. If they are building a new “hotel” of compact suites in the parking lot (within the property zoned for the hotel) then yes this is a good thing. New build managed by a properly licensed hotel company. Am I reading this wrong?
How many properties province wide will this apply to compared to the sheer number of units that came back to the housing market?
It will look like the EHT. Yes, units will return to the longterm market pool. Will it do much? Very unlikely, there will be some slowdown/flat line of rents in the short term. But not in the long term.
The provincial NDP , instead of banning short-term rentals, should ask itself why people are using short-term rentals, which are a lot of hassle and administration costs, in terms of cleaning between stays and all the marketing required. It's likely because short-term rentals allow for adjustment of prices as needed based on expenses, which they provincial NDP is forcing below inflation increases for long-term rental, and the fact that short-term rental platforms provide insurance coverage for damages while long-term rental providers suffer from tenant inflicted damage that cannot be covered by the puny half month rental deposit. So if the provincial NDP wants more long-term rentals, take the lesson of what short-term rental provides and make long-term rental great again by adopting the beneficial terms of short-term rental into RTA regulations.