1350 replies to this topic

[LJ]

Two years ago in AZ the state brought in a law that prohibits cities and towns from regulating short-term rentals.

 

In the city of Sedona, pop. 10,500, has about 3,000,000 tourist visits a year. Before the law came into effect the city had about 200-300 vacation rentals, now they have more than 1000. The result is many people who work in the city are unable to find long term accommodation and if they can the prices, have gone up by about 30%.

 

Is this a good thing, meaning current homeowners can make some money, or is it a bad thing because workers can't afford to live there?

[Promontory Kingpin]

Two years ago in AZ the state brought in a law that prohibits cities and towns from regulating short-term rentals.

In the city of Sedona, pop. 10,500, has about 3,000,000 tourist visits a year. Before the law came into effect the city had about 200-300 vacation rentals, now they have more than 1000. The result is many people who work in the city are unable to find long term accommodation and if they can the prices, have gone up by about 30%.

Is this a good thing, meaning current homeowners can make some money, or is it a bad thing because workers can't afford to live there?

It’s a good thing. A home owner should have the right to chose what they want to do with their home. It’s not the obligation of the home owner to create “affordable housing”.

Edited by Promontory Kingpin, 05 February 2019 - 08:35 PM.

[Victoria Watcher]

the sudden change or disruption is a shock to the balance but over time it works back out hopefully,

it’s a bit amazing that uber air bnb and skip the dishes are changing things so much.

it’s not like vacation rentals food delivery and even ghost taxis did not exist before.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 05 February 2019 - 08:43 PM.

[Jason-L]

It’s a good thing. A home owner should have the right to chose what they want to do with their home. It’s not the obligation of the home owner to create “affordable housing”.

The correct market outcome would be for those people who work in Sedona to find jobs elsewhere, rendering Sedona a place no one would want to go to, sticking the homeowners with homes they cannot rent, causing them to put them on the market cheap... causing people to buy them and go back to working in Sedona, restoring it as a destination, causing the new homeowners to rent their homes again for more, and the cycle can continue indefinitely.

[Mike K.]

If there’s money to be made employees will find a way to make it, especially in a place like Sedona where the tourism trade is extremely lucrative.

[Victoria Watcher]

things tend to work out. “nobody” can afford to live in Manhattan yet there are thousands of coffee shops with what seem like perfectly content workers staffing them.

[spanky123]

Two years ago in AZ the state brought in a law that prohibits cities and towns from regulating short-term rentals.

 

In the city of Sedona, pop. 10,500, has about 3,000,000 tourist visits a year. Before the law came into effect the city had about 200-300 vacation rentals, now they have more than 1000. The result is many people who work in the city are unable to find long term accommodation and if they can the prices, have gone up by about 30%.

 

Is this a good thing, meaning current homeowners can make some money, or is it a bad thing because workers can't afford to live there?

 

 

Correlation doesn't imply causation. I don't think that there is evidence that the majority of homes listed on Airbnb would otherwise be rented long term. Having owned many rentals myself over the years, my reaction to escalation property prices has been to sell the property and pocket the cash rather than sit and watch rent controls slowly eat away at my profits. 

 

I have no idea why socialists seem to think that private property owners make a small fortune on market rentals in today's environment and that they are preventing large fortunes by restricting short term rentals.

[Bob Fugger]

It’s a good thing. A home owner should have the right to chose what they want to do with their home. It’s not the obligation of the home owner to create “affordable housing”.

 

I agree: Victoria City Council in particular is saddling us with the responsibility of dealing with the aftermath of decades of myopic urban planning.  Sure, you can see the Sooke Hills, but look at my property taxes.  The inability to not let out my units on a short term basis really sticks in my craw.  Theoretically, both my wife and I could change careers and become full-time innkeepers and send our daughter to private school, thereby freeing up two well paying jobs and 50% of her school funding to for others.  Oh well.

[the26er]

The correct market outcome would be for those people who work in Sedona to find jobs elsewhere, rendering Sedona a place no one would want to go to, sticking the homeowners with homes they cannot rent, causing them to put them on the market cheap... causing people to buy them and go back to working in Sedona, restoring it as a destination, causing the new homeowners to rent their homes again for more, and the cycle can continue indefinitely.

Doesn't work in that case - homeowners will just all convert to renting to tourists - you don't go to Sedona for the town, you go for the outdoors so they couldn't care less if all the shops closed down

[Victoria Watcher]

people that like the outdoors don't shop eat and drink?

[rjag]

Just booked a great airbnb carriage house in the Upper Mission part of Kelowna for a few days this spring to visit our son who's at school there. 

 

Lots of accommodations available there and reasonable rates $125/night.

[rjag]

Doesn't work in that case - homeowners will just all convert to renting to tourists - you don't go to Sedona for the town, you go for the outdoors so they couldn't care less if all the shops closed down

 Sedona gets 3 million tourists each year, thats a massive amount of business for hotels, restaurants, and supporting services. Thats nearly on par to what Victoria gets annually...but Sedona has a population of 10,000 so they are doing pretty well

[Teej48]

Has Victoria clamped down on STVRs in areas that were never zoned Transient and do not now have non conforming use status?

[the26er]

people that like the outdoors don't shop eat and drink?

tourists adjust - we don't stay or eat there, we stay in Flagstaff or Phoenix, get supplies there, and do day trips.  Home owners would be in a difficult spot though if 'theoretically' all retail left town, but they would either move, or deal with the hour trip into Flagstaff.

[Victoria Watcher]

tourists adjust - we don't stay or eat there, we stay in Flagstaff or Phoenix, get supplies there, and do day trips.  Home owners would be in a difficult spot though if 'theoretically' all retail left town, but they would either move, or deal with the hour trip into Flagstaff.

 

you said:

 

homeowners will just all convert to renting to tourists - you don't go to Sedona for the town, you go for the outdoors so they couldn't care less if all the shops closed down

 

 

i think the accommodation providers would care if the shops shut down.  because then as you do there would be just day trippers.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 20 February 2019 - 11:17 AM.

[Mike K.]

Has Victoria clamped down on STVRs in areas that were never zoned Transient and do not now have non conforming use status?

 

Theoretically, yes.

 

I think spanky123 might have more info regarding the level/style of enforcement but there is a third party monitoring listings, I believe.

[spanky123]

Has Victoria clamped down on STVRs in areas that were never zoned Transient and do not now have non conforming use status?

 

Victoria hired a California firm to monitor and report on STRs in the City. Whether bylaw enforcement has done anything yet with that information is unknown.

[spanky123]

The Province has rejected Mayor Helps' proposal to allow the City to start 'taxing" STRs as commercial units.

 

https://pub-victoria...ocumentId=32455

[Citified.ca]

^Nice!

 

The City's pursuit of changing the assessment regime relative to short-term vacation rentals goes back to mid-2017 when council debated approaching BC Assessment to discuss the option of taxing AirBnB's as commercial properties. In November of last year Helps wrote the province hoping to introduce "split" assessments for residential properties that rent out a room to a travellers, so as to tax that room as a commercial component of a residential property.

 

The province's response was a flat out no, and they cited cost and bureaucracy as the reasons why.

 

Province nixes City of Victoria's "very costly" plan to tax AirBnB's as commercial properties

https://victoria.cit...ial-properties/

[lanforod]

The province doesn't seem to have much problem with costly plans when it comes to the spec tax though...