I think a question council needs to answer is whether they have any rental properties at all. Not just STR. A landlord renting to long-term tenants would still benefit from STRs as those could be LTR options, increasing supply, more competition and lower rents.
When I saw this piece yesterday regarding short-term rentals (again) and it contained the sentence "what if this were framed differently", I had high hopes that as an investigative journalist whose work I admire for being thought-provoking may be finally exploring the perspective on the other side of this debate more thoroughly. Admittedly I was a little disappointed, so here is a quick blurb of how I'd imagined it could have gone.
"What if this were framed even more differently. Imagine, for example, that Council were presented with a request to remove 150 hotel/motel/short-term rental units that have catered to people visiting Prince George for a few days or weeks. Would they be eager to allow it to happen?"
Just a few months ago it was announced by the provincial government that 123 units are slated to be officially converted to housing for lower income people in Prince George. This announcement and number does not include multiple other locations that used to be for travelers which have already morphed into longer-terms rentals (think Brother's Inn on the Hart, 1201 1st Ave before BC Housing took it over, the Prince Motel, The Fraser Inn, the list goes on).
Now I'm not saying that visiting medical professionals, work crews, or someone accessing medical care in PG would have opted to stay at one of these above listed locations. However, on the flip side, me being a long-term renter I can also guarantee that an ex-airbnb located in upper College Heights is also not a location someone like me would (or could) ever consider either. The rental costs throughout the city are obscene compared to 5 years ago, regardless.
Adding 150 new rental units on either end of the spectrum is a drop in the bucket benefitting very few, while paying lip service to the masses carrying pitchforks, and making the government of the day either very popular, or very unpopular. Either way, someone such as myself isn't affected in any meaningful, positive way by the provincial government freeing up rooms that are not suitable for my lower middle-class bracket. We need housing but will never be able to afford to purchase in this financial climate, regardless if 150 previous airbnbs go on either the rental market or become available for purchase. It's such a multi-faceted issue and yet it seems that one small subsection is being focused on and persecuted for, locally. Are we angry at the post-secondary schools for allowing international students? How about businesses who encourage work permit immigration? Or our medical system for actively marketing in other countries across the world to bring in medical professionals? This all affects housing equally or more so than a handful of short to medium-term rentals, who also already service some of this "here for a good time, but not a long time" demographic.
I whole-heartedly agree that this legislation has the ability to have significant positive impacts in various populated areas of BC. However it is not a "one size fits all" for our province, much like countless other initiatives any government of the day enacts province-wide which frustrate people in the north.
I do not own any airbnbs and am generally an "eat the rich" type gal, but to me, local media going after 0.4% so furiously seems almost like click-bait.
Listen....just because some government lackey decided, by the stroke of a pen, that a stand of timber was 'old growth' doesn't mean that it needs to be protected in any way. BC is a lumber producer and much of our northern economy and jobs depends on harvesting these trees. Whether Drax get's them or Carrier Lumber gets them is of no concern. The point is that SOMEONE gets them. Sure...we still need to harvest the trees in a responsible and sustainable manner but it's important that we continue to provide good jobs for people in the north.
It is is also important to maintain a healthy, diverse ecosystem for a myriad of species and other human values, especially with a consideration to indigenous rights and big ticket challenges like climate change. As a professional forester, stewardship for ecosystem health in light of changing and new expectations and environment conditions is as important, if not more so, as socio-economic health for us humans. Evolving with the times will ensure that socio-economic and ecosystem health in the long term. I would add that pellets are not lumber, and lumber and other higher value products provides more jobs and economic value than do pellets.
Having said that, I need to go read up on what the BBC and revisit the CBC report. What exactly are they using to make the pellets, from where, what kind of stands, etc? Because context does matter.
I think a question council needs to answer is whether they have any rental properties at all. Not just STR. A landlord renting to long-term tenants would still benefit from STRs as those could be LTR options, increasing supply, more competition and lower rents.
Cori has some decent arguments but “you wouldn’t be able to afford a mortgage anyway” is not one of them.
When I saw this piece yesterday regarding short-term rentals (again) and it contained the sentence "what if this were framed differently", I had high hopes that as an investigative journalist whose work I admire for being thought-provoking may be finally exploring the perspective on the other side of this debate more thoroughly. Admittedly I was a little disappointed, so here is a quick blurb of how I'd imagined it could have gone.
"What if this were framed even more differently. Imagine, for example, that Council were presented with a request to remove 150 hotel/motel/short-term rental units that have catered to people visiting Prince George for a few days or weeks. Would they be eager to allow it to happen?"
Just a few months ago it was announced by the provincial government that 123 units are slated to be officially converted to housing for lower income people in Prince George. This announcement and number does not include multiple other locations that used to be for travelers which have already morphed into longer-terms rentals (think Brother's Inn on the Hart, 1201 1st Ave before BC Housing took it over, the Prince Motel, The Fraser Inn, the list goes on).
Now I'm not saying that visiting medical professionals, work crews, or someone accessing medical care in PG would have opted to stay at one of these above listed locations. However, on the flip side, me being a long-term renter I can also guarantee that an ex-airbnb located in upper College Heights is also not a location someone like me would (or could) ever consider either. The rental costs throughout the city are obscene compared to 5 years ago, regardless.
Adding 150 new rental units on either end of the spectrum is a drop in the bucket benefitting very few, while paying lip service to the masses carrying pitchforks, and making the government of the day either very popular, or very unpopular. Either way, someone such as myself isn't affected in any meaningful, positive way by the provincial government freeing up rooms that are not suitable for my lower middle-class bracket. We need housing but will never be able to afford to purchase in this financial climate, regardless if 150 previous airbnbs go on either the rental market or become available for purchase. It's such a multi-faceted issue and yet it seems that one small subsection is being focused on and persecuted for, locally. Are we angry at the post-secondary schools for allowing international students? How about businesses who encourage work permit immigration? Or our medical system for actively marketing in other countries across the world to bring in medical professionals? This all affects housing equally or more so than a handful of short to medium-term rentals, who also already service some of this "here for a good time, but not a long time" demographic.
I whole-heartedly agree that this legislation has the ability to have significant positive impacts in various populated areas of BC. However it is not a "one size fits all" for our province, much like countless other initiatives any government of the day enacts province-wide which frustrate people in the north.
I do not own any airbnbs and am generally an "eat the rich" type gal, but to me, local media going after 0.4% so furiously seems almost like click-bait.
Wait, then did the Mr. G's store name come from Mr. PG?!
(80% kidding)
Listen....just because some government lackey decided, by the stroke of a pen, that a stand of timber was 'old growth' doesn't mean that it needs to be protected in any way. BC is a lumber producer and much of our northern economy and jobs depends on harvesting these trees. Whether Drax get's them or Carrier Lumber gets them is of no concern. The point is that SOMEONE gets them. Sure...we still need to harvest the trees in a responsible and sustainable manner but it's important that we continue to provide good jobs for people in the north.
It is is also important to maintain a healthy, diverse ecosystem for a myriad of species and other human values, especially with a consideration to indigenous rights and big ticket challenges like climate change. As a professional forester, stewardship for ecosystem health in light of changing and new expectations and environment conditions is as important, if not more so, as socio-economic health for us humans. Evolving with the times will ensure that socio-economic and ecosystem health in the long term. I would add that pellets are not lumber, and lumber and other higher value products provides more jobs and economic value than do pellets.
Having said that, I need to go read up on what the BBC and revisit the CBC report. What exactly are they using to make the pellets, from where, what kind of stands, etc? Because context does matter.