The Bruce Peninsula Short Term Accommodations Group (“BPSTAG”), is now over 260 members strong. We have members who own Short Term Rentals (Cottage Rentals) and people whose livelihoods depend on STAs.
BPSTAG recently sent a letter to council in response to the recommendations put forth by the consultant hired to review short term accommodations. You can find the full letter here www.thebrucepeninsula.com/bpstag-report.pdf
We encourage home owners and others who have an interest or a stake in the issue to read the response the BPSTAG group has presented.
BPSTAG recognizes the need to have reasonable and minimally invasive regulation of STAs in the municipality. Almost all of what is needed to ‘regulate’ is already enshrined in existing bylaws. A failure to enforce those bylaws should not give rise to an additional regulatory framework.
The consultant’s reports contained significant errors of facts, typographic and numbering errors. The reports also do not follow the framework seen in other professional reports – this statement based on reviews done by professionals on behalf of the group.
BPSTAG found very little cause for a review on STAs. No statistical data was presented, No outreach to neighbours or STA owners. This despite BPSTAG reaching out to the consultant and municipality directly, asking to engage.
What is needed is an evidenced based approach that achieves the objective of the municipality. What has been presented appears to be a solution in search of a clear problem.
Zoning:
The zoning analysis and conclusions in the report were flawed. The consultant suggests that since STAs are not contemplated in the bylaws, they are not permitted. If that logic were applied to other uses not specifically set out in the bylaws, a great deal of uses (including long-term rentals) would not be permitted. The public statements made by the consultant that STAs are illegal are not only incorrect but have a chilling effect on the industry and are thus likely defamatory. Such casual utterances on an issue of such significance, should raise serious questions about the report and its authors.
Class Based Licensing:
The report continued to recommend a multi-class licensing system for the STAs. There appears to be no rhyme or reason for the thresholds for the classes. There is no commentary as to why the thresholds are chosen or what they are designed to address.
A limit on the number of days an STA can rent is without rationale. A property is rented or it is not. Enforcement of this rule would be near impossible, and would be a costly administrative burden on the municipality.
A size-based class system is similarly not necessary, nor does it address any of the factors seeming to underpin the municipality’s investigation in the first instance. The limiting factors on occupancy should be septic capacity and perhaps reference to the number of bedrooms/beds available so as to avoid overcrowding. The remaining concerns will be covered by existing bylaws regarding noise etc.
There should be one fee levied for licensing. It is a fee to reflect the administrative cost of creating a central registry of STAs and general administration to ensure STA reporting compliance with respect to septic health. The costs of enforcement should be paid for through fines levied.
As for the report’s recommendations regarding minimum stays, there has been no rationale provided to support any minimum duration. No data collected in the survey conducted, nor reference to the background report was provided. There should be no relationship between levels of regulation and duration of stay, as there is no evidence provided suggesting a correlation between stay duration and any problem perceived or demonstrated.
Noise and Disturbance:
This issue is universal in all recreational areas. The recommendations are reasonable and should apply to all residents.
Licensing:
We generally support the licensing of STAs. The notion of ‘Conditional’ is unclear. One assumes that it’s conditional on the STAs ability to comply with septic, occupancy (and perhaps zoning) conditions. We support the licencing of STAs and think it makes good sense for the municipality to ensure compliance with reasonable standards, as well as to develop some actual data on the industry and benefit to the area.
Housing Supply Needs:
Affordable housing is an issue everywhere. However, there is no evidence presented that the availability of these properties in inventory would change the rental/ownership landscape in the region.
Complaints Process:
The process of complaints must be 100% transparent with all information, including complainant, being available to the owner.
Enforcement:
With our comments on zoning in mind, we take no issue with this section. Some transparency and checks and balances should be considered. Municipalities like Blue Mountains and Tiny have made the fines payable by both the owner and the renter, requiring the renter to sign an acknowledgement of the bylaw prior to being able to rent the property. Additionally, a process of complaint verification should be in place to prevent abuse by NIMBY neighbours.
Commercial Competition and Taxation:
We disagree 100% with the outrageous rationale (as might the competition bureau) provided by the consultants. If this tax is used to control competition in favour or support of traditional accommodations, this is likely illegal. However, if an accommodation tax, or destination marketing fee is added to support infrastructure development and renewal (not general revenues), we think that is an excellent idea and should apply universally to all those offering accommodations in the region, or to none at all.
In conclusion, if the municipality engages in a reason/evidence-based approach to the creation of reasonable and minimally invasive regulations and enforcement, we would imagine the process will go as smoothly as possible in the circumstances. However, if the process continues in the current fashion (including statements amounting to legal conclusions made by the consultants and patent and potential conflict of interest on council, which has gone unchecked), it will be responded to with expensive, protracted and well funded litigation from a large committed group of electors.
Please email us at bpstag2019@gmail.com for more information.
