PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

[afransen]

Insofar as it drives up the cost of ownership, it naturally displaces some potential residents be they permanent or seasonal. I can assure you there is a shortage of affordable units for resort workers in many areas, including the muskokas as units that used to be rentable for a season have become completely unaffordable. Previously one might get space, personal or shared, for as little as $800 per month just a few years ago. That price point is now is now 2-days in STR, or sometimes 1.

I doubt many seasonal resort workers would be living in waterfront vacation properties.

 

[afransen]

A quick search of Airbnb shows a median price of ~$400 per night for cottages in the Muskokas. Not too many low-folks snapping that up.

I know recent immigrants who live in rooming houses who as a group rented a STR cottage for a weekend getaway. $400 a night is not bad when split between 6 adults for a weekend getaway. Try bringing a family of four anywhere with flight and accommodation for a week for less money.

 

[kEiThZ]

That we went from "I have no sympathy for young people who want to own a home" to "we need to diversify the ownership class of cottages" in a handful of pages is.....I don't have words for that.

Whatever this is, as a fortysomething who has lived and traveled all over this country, I'll just say that I've never once encountered a person who thought diversity of cottage ownership is an issue on par with the rest of the housing crisis.

 

[evandyk]

We rent cottages every year because members of my family like that type of thing but we could never afford to own one. But the prices are eye-watering. A cottage within reach of Toronto will cost more per night than an apartment in Copenhagen. We did both last summer, and Copenhagen was 25% cheaper.

That said, we probably wouldn’t have done either without Air BnB/VRBO, so they do open up opportunities for people.

 

[evandyk]

And yeah, obviously short term rentals of cottages in muskoka is not a contributing factor to the housing crisis. Short term rentals in Toronto are.

 

[kEiThZ]

We rent cottages every year because members of my family like that type of thing but we could never afford to own one. But the prices are eye-watering. A cottage within reach of Toronto will cost more per night than an apartment in Copenhagen. We did both last summer, and Copenhagen was 25% cheaper.

That said, we probably wouldn’t have done either without Air BnB/VRBO, so they do open up opportunities for people.

Agreed. I broadly see STRs are improving access for those who wouldn't and/or couldn't normally own a cottage. I don't see how access can be improved if the ability to rent them is removed.

And yeah, obviously short term rentals of cottages in muskoka is not a contributing factor to the housing crisis. Short term rentals in Toronto are.

The difference should be obvious to most. But we're also talking to a Boomer who can't understand why a young family might want to actually own the place they live and not live under the constant threat of renoviction or simply displacement by landlord fiat:

I don't own a house, and while I'm quite comfortable in my standard of living, I don't have kids, a choice I made long ago.

I'm perfectly fine w/my taxes going to support a child benefit, and to support universal healthcare, affordable childcare, modest university/college tuitions and help for low and lower-middle income seniors.

However, I'm not ok w/my tax dollars going to support the home ownership ambitions of a household whose income is higher than my own.

I'd try to explain why parents try to own the home where they live, but I suspect it's hard for somebody who never had kids to actually understand the value of providing stability to a child and where that value ranks relative to cheap college later. Also, most people who have kids have higher incomes than retired seniors. That's needed to provide for those kids.

 

[Northern Light]

I doubt many seasonal resort workers would be living in waterfront vacation properties.

Who said all of these properties were waterfront?

And until they were souped up for STR, how many were resort-style vacation properties either?

I think you're projecting.

The same logic could be applied to Toronto's real estate market.

The above logic would have it that why should we restrict STRs in Toronto? First off, clearly we're denying low income earners the chance to vacation in Toronto if we do. Also, who would actually live in waterfront condo or really any condo, if they were a seasonal, or part-time or low-wage worker?

Oh wait........the point of the restriction isn't making the condo affordable to rent, its making the condo affordable to own, such than renters buy it, freeing up rental units at lower price points.

 

[Northern Light]

I know recent immigrants who live in rooming houses who as a group rented a STR cottage for a weekend getaway. $400 a night is not bad when split between 6 adults for a weekend getaway. Try bringing a family of four anywhere with flight and accommodation for a week for less money.

Anecdotal evidence is fair; but should be supported by something more substantial.

I know a wide range of people in a wide range of incomes having come from a low-income background and been moderately successful.

I can tell you, I don't currently know a single cottage owner, or renter in my entire social circle of hundreds.

 

[kEiThZ]

the point of the restriction isn't making the condo affordable to rent

It's both. Units moving to the STR market increase rents and purchase prices. Renters and buyers have to compete with the cashflow potential of an STR. Heck, there's a whole hidden market where people run STR businesses using rented condos.

The above could be true of cottages. But again, there's really no clear case for why government should intervene. Cottages aren't essential housing.

 

[Northern Light]

I'd try to explain why parents try to own the home where they live, but I suspect it's hard for somebody who never had kids to actually understand the value of providing stability to a child and where that value ranks relative to cheap college later. Also, most people who have kids have higher incomes than retired seniors. That's needed to provide for those kids.

So you're slagging my dead parents now? People who had a child and owned a cottage.

Meanwhile, I don't have kids, but don't own a cottage.

 

[Northern Light]

The difference should be obvious to most. But we're also talking to a Boomer who can't understand why a young family might want to actually own the place they live and not live under the constant threat of renoviction or simply displacement by landlord fiat:

You and I are only a couple of years apart in age, I'm under 50, born in the mid 70s.

Once again, you have your facts wrong. You draw conclusions w/o evidence and spew them w/venom.

 

[afransen]

We rent cottages every year because members of my family like that type of thing but we could never afford to own one. But the prices are eye-watering. A cottage within reach of Toronto will cost more per night than an apartment in Copenhagen. We did both last summer, and Copenhagen was 25% cheaper.

That said, we probably wouldn’t have done either without Air BnB/VRBO, so they do open up opportunities for people.

I guess you exist in circles far above those NL runs in.

Maybe I live in a totally different reality. I know quite a few people who use AirBnB for vacation accommodations. Aside from all-inclusives/cruises, I'd say about half of people who tell me about vacation plans used AirBnB or similar. It is often a lot more cost effective and convenient for a family, and allows lower meal costs through prepping simple meals at home/packing picnics instead of dining out for every meal.

I am rather unpersuaded that STRs are the affordability boogeyman they are made out to be. They have other legitimate concerns for safety, disrupting neighbours and so on.

 

[kEiThZ]

So you're slagging my dead parents now? People who had a child and owned a cottage.

No. Just surprised you don't understand how privileged you were. Maybe you're focused on the importance of owning a cottage because of your childhood experiences. You seem to forget how important the stability your parents provided was. They weren't moving around every few years just because of landlord whims.

Meanwhile, I don't have kids, but don't own a cottage.

And now we know why you're more worried about distributing cottages than ensuring stability for families.

You and I are only a couple of years apart in age, I'm under 50, born in the mid 70s.

Once again, you have your facts wrong. You draw conclusions w/o evidence and spew them w/venom.

Boomer is a state of mind. And there are times that Gen X shares that mindset. Putting cottages on the same level as urban housing is one of them.

 

[Richard White]

Folks. Can we move the debate about STRs to another thread?

 

[Northern Light]

And now we know why you're more worried about distributing cottages than ensuring stability for families.

'We' know no such thing.

Why can't you debate without personalizing? You notice I neither advocate for nor against a policy based on your existence? I never mention your parents or family. Proper debate is evidence based, and dispassionate. It requires no character assassination.

You're welcome to disagree with me; but marshal facts in favour of your position.

Its not personal, its logic. If you think my logic is off, show me why. You're the one who is arguing for cracking down on STR in urban/suburban areas (I agree); but then asking for a carve-out to protect upper-middle income and wealthy property owners in cottage country.

The onus is on you to establish the meritorious nature of that carve out.