1731 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

CHEK has a different scorecard than the renters group:



I wish to point out it is a sad day for democracy when only 3 councillors decided the fate of STR licensing in Victoria. MIA was councilor Coleman. Mayor and two councilors recused themselves due to perceived conflicts of interests. The three councilors voting in favour was Isitt, Loveday, and Young. Councilors Alto and Thornton Joe voted against with Alto attempting a valiant hail Mary to vote to postpone any decision until further research and data could be done on the subject. Her motion was defeated.

[VicHockeyFan]

In any event, only 25 property owners showed up to speak. That does not sound like very strong opposition.

[nerka]

In any event, only 25 property owners showed up to speak. That does not sound like very strong opposition.

Looking through the letters attached to the meeting minutes there were quite a few in favour of adopting the bylaw, though more opposed.

 

One interesting quirk in the bylaw. I was fully expecting a limit to how many months of the year you could rent out your principal residence. I didn't see that in there. (Correct me if I am wrong)

 

Looks like a hypothetical Victoria homeowner could travel the world for 3 months, 6 months or a year, officially maintain their principal residence in Victoria  and have a trusted neighbour or STVR manager AirBNB the place the entire time.

 

I don't oppose this being allowed, just surprised that council allowed even this small "loophole" given how determined they seemed to be to quash STVRs

[DavidL]

It was 3-2 on the motion to postpone in recognition of the fact that there were only 5 of them in the room (55% of council) and that three had already announced their support of the bylaw,(33%of council).  Thornton Joe talked at length about wanting to postpone but in the end as her vote made no difference, something she talked about, she chose to vote for it.  Who knows why and who cares I suppose.  Coleman was the swing vote 2 weeks ago with the implied promise that it would be discussed further at this meeting, and yet he was at a conference somewhere else, the likelihood of it having been scheduled in the 2 weeks between the last meeting on this bylaw and this one shows pretty effectively that he simply took the back door out on this issue and left those of us who thought he might be reasonable feeling quite let down.  The crowd recognized immediately that without Coleman there it was a done deal and we lost more than a few who simply gave up and left, knowing the outcome was predetermined.  The final frustrating thing is that the first hour or so of the public hearing on this bylaw, in which virtually all of the speakers spoke against specific provisions of the bylaw has gone missing from the video posted to the council meeting.  All of the professional management operators, myself, several other owners seem to have all been edited out of the posted meeting video on the CoV website.

[VicHockeyFan]

Why were there only 25 speakers against?   Where were the other (hundreds?) of vacation rental operators?

[DavidL]

The people in the room probably represented well over a hundred owners. But you make our point. There are currently 186 licensed STRs. This bylaw was only about legal and legitimate STRs, it had little to nothing to do with improperly zoned or illegal STRs. We've said all along there are perhaps 300, maybe 400 legal and legitimate units. The turn out reflects that reality. Out of town owners aren't coming in, let alone out of country owners. Add to that the fact that this was just the last of many council meeting in the subject where council made little or no accommodation throughout the entire process for owners, ignored our requests for consultation, were deaf to any information provided and continued to simply make up facts to suit their narrative, it's a surprise anyone bothered to show up at all to see the end of this farce of a process.

[VicHockeyFan]

Right, I see.  Is there an explanation for the missing video?

 

Coleman is in Laval, Quebec, at a long-since-planned conference.  I don't think he skipped out.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 10 March 2018 - 09:54 AM.

[DavidL]

Right, I see.  Is there an explanation for the missing video?

 

Coleman is in Laval, Quebec, at a long-since-planned conference.  I don't think he skipped out.

 

That was my point...the conference he was at was planned long ago, they knew full well, and he knew full well that he would not be able to attend this council meeting and it could have been easily added to a different council meeting date so that instead of just being short handed the council would not have been at the bare minimum for quorum.  So yeah, he did skip out on it.

 

No explanation yet for the missing video.  All opposition speakers time is intact.

Edited by DavidL, 10 March 2018 - 10:33 AM.

[spanky123]

That was my point...the conference he was at was planned long ago, they knew full well, and he knew full well that he would not be able to attend this council meeting and it could have been easily added to a different council meeting date so that instead of just being short handed the council would not have been at the bare minimum for quorum.  So yeah, he did skip out on it.

 

No explanation yet for the missing video.  All opposition speakers time is intact.

 

Doesn't the Mayor set the agenda?

[North Shore]

Ain't democracy wonderful?  ;-)

[Cityguy]

Has anyone seen the actual report done by California company at the behest of Victoria City Council? I can find no record of its finding anywhere.  What was the name of that consulting company?

I'm also interested in seeing supportable statistics as to how short-term rentals impact on housing affordability in this city?

I know that my property taxes have more than doubled, perhaps tripled in the last 10 years.....could that have anything to do with affordability?

[VicHockeyFan]

Host Compliance.

[Cityguy]

Thanks VicHockeyFan.....have you had a chance to read this report, or do you know where I might find it at City Hall?

[Cityguy]

On another topic.....I found this article re bike lanes to be of interest :-) http://business.fina...omoting-cycling

[Cityguy]

I have filed requests under the Freedom of Information policy of the City, to obtain a copy of the report of Home Compliance, showing the results of that report's recommendations to the City.  I've also filed, under the same policy, a request for data that substantiates the claims that short-term rentals have driven up the costs of home purchases and have removed significant numbers of properties from the long-term rental market.

I've filed these requests as nowhere can I find this information on the City of Victoria's web site.

Has anyone else seen any of this anywhere?

[Cityguy]

This may not be particularly germane to the conversations in this topic.....but I do have a question regarding the BC Governments Speculation Tax on secondary homes.

 

Why is it that these communities:

 

Metro Vancouver, including Bowen Island and the Fraser Valley Regional District

Capital Regional District, including the lower Gulf Islands

Nanaimo Regional District, including Parksville, Qualicum Beach and Gabriola Island

Municipalities of Kelowna and West Kelowna

 

are all going to be subject to the Speculation Tax......but WHISTLER IS NOT?

 

Am I missing something? Are the property values, like the air up there, too rarefied and therefore "untouchable" by this Government? Is the BC NDP simply punishing the rest of us, but leaving Whistler exempt so that they can get free ski passes?

 

Someone, help me out here :-)

[North Shore]

Is it still 'The Resort Municipality of Whistler'?  Hard to punish owners of vacant property in a town that's branded as a resort...

[Mike K.]

If that's the case, the property owners atop Bear Mountain Resort could have a field day in court.

[Jackerbie]

This may not be particularly germane to the conversations in this topic.....but I do have a question regarding the BC Governments Speculation Tax on secondary homes.

 

Why is it that these communities:

 

Metro Vancouver, including Bowen Island and the Fraser Valley Regional District

Capital Regional District, including the lower Gulf Islands

Nanaimo Regional District, including Parksville, Qualicum Beach and Gabriola Island

Municipalities of Kelowna and West Kelowna

 

are all going to be subject to the Speculation Tax......but WHISTLER IS NOT?

 

Am I missing something? Are the property values, like the air up there, too rarefied and therefore "untouchable" by this Government? Is the BC NDP simply punishing the rest of us, but leaving Whistler exempt so that they can get free ski passes?

 

Someone, help me out here :-)

 

If I am gauging the intent of the tax correctly, (Resort Municipality of) Whistler isn't included because it has a very different affordability problem largely unrelated to speculation. RMOW has a robust local housing plan, and already restricts a significant portion of new housing inventory to residents. Ex., between 2006 and 2016, 864 new homes were built, of which 618 were resident restricted. 

[Kungsberg]

"The City is now accepting Business Licence applications for short-term rental businesses"

April 4, 2018

http://www.victoria....-available.html