Columnists
Boiler plate
There are not enough places to live.
It seems like a ludicrous problem in the County, where the population is a mere 25,000 on roughly the same amount of land as Toronto. Even when farm, commercial and industrial land is taken into account, there really should be enough room.
And yet, when council decided to take on the issue of vacation rentals, especially those run from people’s homes as a secondary income, the dust it kicked up has yet to settle.
It’s an emotionally charged issue. There are people who can’t find homes, or can’t afford to buy a house. And those who can’t afford to live in the homes they already own. There are also people who can afford to take on several mortgages and own residential homes as income property. Some of them, understandably, choose to rent to vacationers, and garner a larger return on their investment. Those properties may be out of reach for folks looking to rent a home long term, but it’s the owner’s prerogative to decide how their property is used. To a point.
If council decides to impose taxes and restrictions on vacation rentals, it will not stop those rentals from existing, but it will change the shape of the landlord’s investment.
No one who has invested in an income property, or even owns a home with a suite used for vacation rentals to make ends meet, wants to see their income regulated out of existence.
On the other side, there are those who feel their neighbourhoods are disappearing. Anecdotally, more and more service workers are crossing the bridge—either working in the County and living on the other side of the Bay, or leaving the region entirely.
One side wants regulation, to ensure that there is more housing, and more affordable housing for residents. The other says the reality is housing isn’t affordable here, and regulation will push out even more people.
Is it possible the argument is a distraction? Developers are looking hungrily at the County, selling its charms on the other side of the Bay. But new homes here have been slow to come. Despite the municipality identifying their development and connection charges as a stopping point, those fees remain.
Despite the County’s secondary plans recommending higher density in its settlement areas— Picton, Wellington, Bloomfield—density remains the same.
True, there are houses selling for more than the asking price, in a ballooning real estate market. And some of those houses are being used for vacation rentals rather than homes. But those prices reflect the real estate market Canada-wide.
The market in the County has demand, but little supply. Building new housing, whether it is, as councillor Lenny Epstein has suggested, a tiny house settlement where those on a smaller budget could rent to own, a standard subdivision like the one proposed for Picton’s west end or something more creative, will alleviate that discrepancy.
Of course, no one wants Prince Edward County to be a cautionary tale. References to places like Niagara Falls and Whistler abound as examples of vacation destinations gone wrong, depleting the local culture.
I fear the animosity between residents here, infighting between those who support vacation rentals and those who abhor them, is the beginning of such a tale. Everyone who lives here wants this to be a great place. Looking at solutions that meet everyone’s needs is the way to get there.
Comments (0)