It is with much frustration that I see that Huntsville is engaging in yet another Housing Needs Assessment……as if in broad strokes, they have no idea what is needed. The Town cannot grow and prosper without affordable housing proportionate increases (of course, using the universal definition of “affordable” meaning 30% of income or less…. Their current definition of “80% the cost of current stock” is tautological and absurd).
It of course is not surprising that negotiating with private sector developers, as they have been for last decade has created a great deal of housing but has not come close addressing affordability issues. I am quite sure that unless council is willing to place a moratorium on “unaffordable housing” until “affordable housing” targets are met, then nothing will change. (It is of note that in a commissioned report to the District in 2002, the Starr Group not only predicted with remarkable accuracy this current crisis in housing; but recommended the targeted housing plan…..Wasn’t Hugh M. Mayor?).
What intensifies my frustration, is that in the meantime, there are immediate “sure fired” steps that council can take within their mandate.
STRs…..oh yes.
The day that council announced its new look see into housing. Wachsmuth and St Hillaire of the Schools of Urban Planning McGill and School of Planning Waterloo, published a follow-up to BC’ s restrictions of STRs to principal residences only (October 2023). Amongst other findings, the study found rents in areas with STR restrictions fell 5.7% in less than a year with a further decline expected in 2025 when it will be enforced. It is a fascinating read in its detail and history of what is known about STRs…..but their findings offer no surprise.
Currently Huntsville claims that there are some 243 short term rentals. That of course is ridiculous there are easily double that number (no accounting of STRs run by resorts such as Deerhurst with their “condominiums” has been even attempted by the Town…perhaps this is why no attempt to restrict STRs has been attempted)
All and all, the restructuring of housing for the long-term future is massive and involves all levels of government. But in the short term, there are acts that Huntsville can take to immediately reduce housing costs. I am sure that another Housing study only serves to delay badly needed, immediate action.
Paul Whillans,
Huntsville resident
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
Totally agree with you Paul. We don’t need surveys or hire analyst to research Huntsvilles affordable housing. Just get some affordable housing in place already. Minimum wage went up but government was only winner there what with cost of everything costs more due to increased wages. It doesn’t take a genius to know we need a lot of affordable housing.
Mr Tapley……I think it is dismissive and ignorant of the facts to suggest “Including “resorts” and “motels” in the class of STR is kind of ludicrous.”.
For the record, I am very supportive of the traditional resort, hotel, and motel. However, you must be aware of the model that Peter Freed has introduced to Deerhurst RESORT. In a Cottage Life interview (March 2024) has plans to build 447 more condominiums on the Deerhurst property.
If we revisit the Lakeside Lodge experience (approved by Huntsville Council 2015), it saw 150 “condominiums” units built. Five years after completion, over 2/3rds of those units are now listed for short term rental through Deerhurst Accomodations.
It is worth noting that those 150 units would have added more than 2% to Huntsville’s entire housing stock or 11% of Huntsville rental stock……but no, it went to short term rentals. No surprise then that studies over and over show that STR revenues come at the expense of traditional hotels and motels (e.g Dragu et al Tourism Management, 2019).
I have no problem with STRs located in “mom and pop” principal residences. But especially as we are truly in an housing affordability crisis, third party STRs (housing as an investment) whether it is by pension plan, individuals or resort is immoral and not in the public good……..Enabling this by our elected leaderships is equally shameful
STR rentals were never a problem until things like Air B&B (just one of many) came along and changed the landscape by allowing international advertising of peoples “spare time or rooms” to be posted and large rentals achieved by these owners, some actually absentee owners.
Including “resorts” and “motels” in the class of STR is kind of ludicrous. These, many small, businesses have been around since the beginning of time and serve a need for society. They are not trying to change the economic landscape with new, often to date unregulated, types of accommodation that breaks totally with traditional business practices.
Resorts and motels already pay plenty of tax, no more is needed. Size matters little with this type of business as they all generate revenue that is put back into the local economy in terms of tax, staffing, maintenance. This is not so the case with online rental platforms (Air B&B, VRBO, Cottages on the Web and such) Some of these internet based businesses are not even “in Canada” and their revenue flies directly out of the country. (Check out Booking.com as an example) They, to my knowledge are based in Holland and pay no tax in Canada at all! yet their commissions are substantial.
The recent MAT tax has not been shown in any way to benefit small business in the accommodation sector. What this tax will more than likely accomplish is to pay a bunch of municipal staff their salary and with the remainder build competition for local business, in the form of replicating their offerings at the municipal level. This is not an appreciated use of tax that existing business collect (for free). Note that the municipality plans to collect the tax (gross tax 4%) then take their “costs” out of it and then distribute the “net tax” to the MTMA (50%) and the municipality itself, which already took it’s costs out, gets the remaining 50% of net. This supposedly for local projects but for how long these numbers and high goals will remain once the money starts flowing, nobody knows.
The MAT tax applied by resorts, hotels, motels should be optional at the choice of the guest.
If not then it should be applied, at a much lesser rate, to all business in the area as they all benefit from tourism. Roofed accommodation is just an “easy target” to tax. What about the local stores and restaurants that benefit greatly from tourists? What about the contractors who build and service the multitude of private homes turned rental units as STR’s The current situation is not well thought out or fair.