Taxpayers paid a consultant to recommend additional taxes to be paid by taxpayers.
Chris
Jan 30, 2020
In Part I, I responded to an “opinion editorial” published by the Bruce Peninsula Press and argued why issues of noise, open fires/fireworks, parking, and septic overflow risk were not exclusive to rental properties in Northern Bruce Peninsula (NBP). In Part II, I examined regulations applied in the metropolitan City of Toronto and why NBP should not consider following guidelines of a major city center with little similarities to our quaint, rural Bruce Peninsula. After the release of the Background Study and Recommendations Report, part of the Northern Bruce Peninsula Short-Term Accommodation Review, we’ll dissect what issues the taxpayer-funded consultant evaluated, the recommendations made in the report, and the general issues that exist drawing those conclusions.
After an invitation to complete a survey in conjunction with public meetings, information and opinion were formulated to direct the municipality (with the aid of their consultant) as to how to approach short-term accommodations (STAs) in NBP. “Recommendations try to balance all needs and points of view,” the website text proclaims. However, what we find within the report does not appear to have the interest of all parties in mind.
As a disclaimer before I critically debate some of the recommendations, it is noted that “draft recommendations are subject to further community input.” The purpose of this article is to extend the reach of this report to additional property owners in NBP in order to garnish exposure to the slippery slope of government control, starting with responsible STA operators. It is also to draw attention to the admittance that “many municipalities are approaching the regulation of STAs through planning tools,” for example licensing and taxes (new endeavor to take more of your money), zoning provisions (ability to control your private property), increased by-law enforcement (mismanagement of government spending), and “other means” which may as well admit they are leaving the door open for additional burdens on the taxpayer as they invent them.
Months of public discourse… what issues are at the forefront?
Investigating public opinion on the matter, the Background Study suggests public feedback is not in favour of STAs. This statement is closely mimicked in the Recommendations Report, “while current operators generally view the use [of STAs] as positive, the view is not shared by the majority of neighbours and residents whom have participated in the discussions.” The study adds that this perspective would largely change with the implementation of regulations.
This is a grand assumption not consistent with the discourse experienced in public meetings and multiple op-eds submitted to the Bruce Peninsula Press from property owners across the municipality. The few residents that vocalized concerns about disturbances with neighbouring STAs did not suggest their problems would be solved with regulation like a license. But rather it was inferred based on their remarks that they are not happy neighbouring next to a rental at all.
Further, the public doesn’t tend to contribute to feedback if they are generally happy or indifferent. People are far more likely to contribute to this kind of discussion when they are affected negatively. It is in poor taste to suggest this feedback is a representation of the population in the municipality.
Finally, it was somewhat confusing to track why the following statement was also included, contradictory to other areas of the review:
“While it is generally accepted that a majority of STAs do not create issues within the community and that STAs can provide a range of community benefits.”
It would be my concern that financial burdens and control of every aspect of renting out your home would demean the benefits those rentals bring to the municipality.
“Rapid growth” of STAs was one reason for this whole exploration exercise, however, RentCottage.com has been operating since 1995 (among many other vacation rental companies) and has been central on the Bruce Peninsula since June 2012 when they moved their headquarters to Ferndale. It seems more likely that the explosion of Airbnb competed with the hotel industry who are the catalyst for this debate in many municipalities.
“Land use” is another concern and the recommendation report includes a lengthy section on zoning. A "short-term accommodation" is typically a residential home rented out for a short length-of-stay by guests who would use that dwelling as if it were their own cottage. I don’t comprehend how a guest’s use of the property would be any different from the owner’s use of that property.
Perhaps someone can inform me of what specific land-use restrictions apply to allow a temporary guest to use your home the same way you would use it. Current zoning by-laws in NBP do not include STAs therefore, “effectively are not permitted,” says the Skelton, Brumwell & Associates Inc consultant. The Town of Severn has no current specific by-law provisions related to STAs, yet they are not sold whether to apply regulations and have kept “status quo” as one of the feasible options in their municipality.
Because it’s the hot topic discussed in big cities like Toronto, included in the debate is the idea that “STAs are in direct competition with permanent local rental units”, meaning long-term rental units. This is a fabricated concern, especially in Northern Bruce Peninsula.
Vacation homes are not suited to long-term renters’ needs as they tend to be farther from major highway routes, possess features inconsistent with the needs of a long-term renter, and are generally valued higher than the affordability of most long-term tenants (due to higher taxes on waterfront property, and seasonal rates gauged by the utilities).
Whether a property owner chooses to rent to a long-term renter or a short-term renter should be none of the government’s concern. The market will decide what is in demand and property owners will make the choice based on that demand. What does the municipality intend to do when short-term rentals have been slaughtered and tourists are forced to vacation in another area of the province?
Consider a program on the municipality’s website that could connect long-term rental inquiries to rental operators and let them decide whether their dwelling is appropriate for this kind of rental. The argument suggesting that regulation of STAs will improve long-term rental availability is fundamentally flawed and quite obviously imitated from Toronto’s current situation. Talk about apples to oranges!
In addition to rapid growth, land use, and affordable housing concerns, it was also reported that the municipality of NBP and its consultants are concerned with the inability to regulate currently. Specifically, such regulation would be implemented as annual fees, inspections, tracking, penalties, complaints, and emergency response. It is the persistence on this issue of control that it appears they have ignored rebuttals to these arguments made publicly over the last five months. How will responsible property owners benefit from all this government bureaucracy? That’s not a concern found anywhere in this review.
Copying off the homework of other Ontario municipalities
The following table summarizes the research performed by Skelton, Brumwell & Associates regarding STA regulations in other Ontario municipalities:
Bureaucratic Recommendations
After allowing the public to state their case, some of us might as well have been yelling at a wall. It appears that the following recommendations do not take much of what responsible STA operators had to say, leaving the dreaded feeling that our civil servants do not serve us at all. Municipal tax funds were used to hire Skelton, Brumwell & Associates, and what we received in exchange for our money was a recommendation to charge us even more.
From the data in the review, Toronto has the highest licensing fee of $50, with other municipalities (more closely resembling NBP) enforcing registration with no actual annual fee. For some reason, it is being recommended that STA operators on the Bruce pay a registration licensing fee of $50, $250, or $500 – depending on the class of STA one operates.
This categorization itself is not a bad idea as it addresses different scales and intensities of STA uses. However, the determination of criteria and the insane associated fees is unethical and unreasonable considering any operator wishing to rent out just weekends is forced into Class B or C with an annual registration fee 5-10 times more than what the City of Toronto has implemented.
Conditions to this license can be subject to prohibitions: “no parties”, “no fireworks”, “strict enforcement of occupancy”, and “no outdoor speakers”.
First of all, as mentioned in many rebuttals to Council and the media, current by-law enforcement is lacking, and additional regulations are not going to change that. Besides, how can you tell vacationers to “not party”. Are they for real? Are families supposed to act like they are on a silent retreat or refuse to invite loved ones because celebrations are forbidden? Who are we, and why are we trying to run all of the tourists off of the Bruce and into other, more friendly municipalities?
On the matter of health and safety, I don’t disagree that responsible property owners have to manage their septic systems, regardless of whether they use their property seasonally, are a permanent resident, or rent out their property. Problems can arise from a number of circumstances from groundwater floods, clogs in the system, or general wear and tear. I think it is irresponsible to put regulations on some and not all. What do you think will happen to the rates of septic services in NBP once property owners are forced to follow these strict protocols for mandatory service? Will only certain septic service companies be accepted as “reputable” or “municipal partners”? Consider how property owners could be taken advantage of for fear of potentially losing their STA license.
In order to address the ignition of this issue, a robust “complaint process” has been recommended. If the following protocol doesn’t produce a red flag for administrative overspending, then perhaps I can interest you in the anti-social component of nagging on your neighbours.
All STA units must be posted in the public domain with details about the property related to the license classification. All personal information about the operator must also be posted on the municipality’s website. This flags all kinds of privacy issues with me and I doubt any owner will easily give up their information to be broadcast to whoever wants to go retrieve it.
A municipal contact number will also be provided for complaints and “encourage complainants to contact the municipality where they do not feel comfortable or safe for any reason in contacting renters or operators directly.”
This recommendation suggests we should increase tax-funded administration and enforcement because people “don’t feel comfortable.” This illustrates STA operators in a very negative light and promotes anti-social behaviour to allow citizens to use municipal resources when communication should be a priority. People have become too soft and don’t know how to manage a conflict without hiding behind a keyboard or phone receiver.
You know who won't feel “comfortable”? The little operators burdened with bureaucratic control and outrageous fees they can’t afford.
Additional issues to consider
As mentioned previously, comparing a rural municipality like Northern Bruce Peninsula to urban centers like Toronto, Oakville and Ottawa is poor judgment. The review of the City of Ottawa simply makes two points; the hotel industry is the main driver for pursuing regulations on private property tourist rentals, and ironically that the hotel industry cannot always support the demand for special events taking place in the city where accommodations are required. The demand, at times, is so heavy that the city has had to resort to using parks and community centers to supply that demand.
As is with the Town of the Blue Mountains, by-law services are employed to check platform sites daily in addition to adding by-law officers to serve demerit points, distribute fines, and revoke licenses for bad behaviour. This means that with the implementation of such a micromanaged system, additional public servant personnel will be required to perform these duties.
There are inconsistencies with definitions and language regarding zoning and regulation. For instance, in some municipalities, a “short-term accommodation” refers to a rental duration of 28 days and others use 30 days. Additionally, at times there is a distinction between “short-term accommodation” and “tourist establishment” leading to unique regulations between them, other municipalities refer to these operations as “tourist establishment / short-term accommodation” interchanging the two terms under the same regulation.
The pursuit to define “short-term accommodation” seems minuscule in scale compared to everything else in this review, however, it is in great care that the right exact words are used so as to not confuse these regulations with any other type of tourist accommodation. In Northern Bruce Peninsula, an STA has been defined as, “private residential dwellings (or part of dwellings) that are rented to provide accommodations to a person or persons on a temporary basis for a period of fewer than 30 days and to which the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, as may be amended from time to time, does not apply. Short-Term Accommodations do not include bed and breakfast establishments, hotels, motels, lodges or other commercially zoned accommodation uses for the traveling public.”
This specifically targets small-time private property owners (just regular people) who open their homes to transient guests for a variety of reasons; from help with paying expenses, to avoiding a property from staying vacant for an extended period of time, to a passion for sharing the Bruce with guests who don’t have a place of their own here.
As was noted with the City of Ottawa, the hotel industry has a meaningful stake in ensuring there is less competition in their market. Hotels are a business and maximize the amount of income they can generate by offering many units in a small area. Hotels and similar commercial accommodations have notoriously been poor in NBP and further, do not offer the same experience as a private cottage on the lake for the entire family to enjoy.
STAs will be forced to comply with this laundry list of regulations including the four percent Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT), which is supposed to be a tax to partially subsidize the marketing for tourism in the municipality. What are the plans for the MAT fund in NBP? If STA operators are contributing to the MAT, how will these funds directly benefit those property owners in place of the commercial tourism businesses? According to the Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association, “funding generated from hotels in rural areas must be used to promote their own destination,” (ORHMA, Municipal Accommodation Tax).
The issue presented on the ORHMA website regarding MAT is that “large metro areas may attract tourists from outside the province but MAT will only shift current Ontario businesses from one destination to another.” Meaning, if we have a MAT but our neighbouring communities or other Ontario municipalities with similar vacation features do not, we will lose our tourists to a more affordable vacation spot.
The final issue I will outline in regards to the recommended complaint process affirms that complainants will be kept anonymous and their information will be deemed confidential. If you have a complaint, and you are not willing to express your concerns in-person to your neighbour, and in addition, there is no requirement to provide your information, what will stop false complaints from being reported? With the risk of losing one’s license due to infractions and the certainty of exaggerated or fabricated reports, it would be easy for someone who doesn’t like living next to a well-run STA to submit anonymous complaints in the hopes of negatively affecting one’s right to operate.
The language in the report suggests this consultant has already made up their mind, regardless of claims that further public opinion will be considered. For the amount of discussion I have seen on behalf of STA operators, I fear that the number of small voices will be overwhelmed by the privileged voices of policymakers. The only way to change policy or halt intrusive policies from being applied is to make your opinion heard. If you are an STA operator in NBP, I encourage you to follow my lead and put your thoughts down into words to share with your government representatives (at all levels), the media, and your neighbours.
Perhaps it will take a collection of voices from both sides of the debate to work out a more reasonable solution to the issues at hand. You can contribute to the discussion and debate on the municipality’s website: nbpstareview.org
It would be a shame if this scheme for additional taxes and red tape could be rectified with a simple meeting of the people; where conversations can take place not with council members or consultants, but with neighbours. And we can all prosper and live quaintly in our little piece of the treasure we know as our home, Northern Bruce Peninsula.
>>>
Northern Bruce Peninsula STA Review, Reports
Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association, Municipal Accommodation Tax
Comentarios