By John Francis,
Bruce Peninsula Press
Excerpts from the Town of South Bruce Peninsula website:
“On March 16, 2021 South Bruce Peninsula Council passed By-Law 30-2021, approving the implementation of a four percent (4%) mandatory MAT [Municipal Accommodation Tax] applicable on all short-term accommodations under 30 days.”
“Council discussed report AD23-2021 regarding the Short-Term Rental Accommodation Implementation. The initial cost of registering will be lowered from $500 to $300. The annual licensing fee is $500. The administration of the Short Term Rental Accommodation program will be done by LTAS Technologies Inc, owner of Harmari STR.”
Both programs have been approved by SBP Council; both programs will come into effect on January 1, 2022.
A quick reading suggests that SBP’s MAT and regulations are virtually identical to those proposed for MNBP.
* * * * *
Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula’s (MNBP) Sept 27 Meeting will take place as this newspaper is being printed. The Agenda includes notice of a delegation from Northern Bruce Peninsula Cottage Association and a PowerPoint presentation of their main points.
Their PowerPoint makes the following claims:
-Complaints registered with MNBP Bylaw Enforcement indicate an “incident rate” at STAs of one tenth of one percent — one problem per thousand occupancy-nights.
-The PowerPoint dismisses as a “Myth” the idea that STAs are driving up real estate values in MNBP.
-The PowerPoint states that most waterfront municipalities do not have an STA bylaw.
It requests that MNBP delay passing both the STA Bylaw and the MAT Bylaw, but notes that “If Council approves either the STA or MAT bylaws today the NBPCA will promptly launch the provincial appeals process and continue to lobby in an increased public format.”
The same, or very similar, claims and arguments have been made at every stage of the consultations. The STA Bylaw and the MAT Bylaw are scheduled to be passed into law at the Sept 27 Council Meeting and to come into effect on Jan 1, 2022.
* * * * *
Bruce Peninsula Press was hoping for clarification as to why the Ontario Ministry of Transport erected and then removed a five-foot-tall mesh fence along several kilometres of Hwy 6, south of Emmett Lake Road.
The fencing was removed at the request of Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON), whose Hunting Ground abuts the highway where the fence was erected.
But SON is still distressed and perplexed as to why the fence was erected in the first place without proper consultation — a wasteful and pointless public expense.
Emily Martin of SON Environment states that SON shares MTO’s concerns about road mortality, but points out that the fence was designed “without concern for impact on other species — especially bear and deer — and without concern for SON’s Aboriginal and Treaty rights”.
Had SON been consulted, she says, they would have recommended a much less intrusive, much less expensive alternative — something about fourteen inches (35 cm) tall that would divert frogs and turtles without affecting bear or deer, and also without fencing SON members out of their own Hunting Ground. The alternative type of fencing might require some annual maintenance, but it’s about a cost-benefit analysis.
Martin understands that staff turnover has been an issue at MTO, so it has been difficult to get clear answers to SON’s questions. Regardless, “MTO, as a crown agency, has a duty to consult — if it had we would have designed a project much better for everyone.”
MTO has yet to respond to requests for clarification.
