When a municipal government looks to planning, zoning and bylaws, to be effective in the long term, it has to do so with a view to what is strategic. Decisions need to be taken with a view to long term impacts. Urban planning is somewhat the science of this. Long term economic development planning is part of this.
At the second meeting this last Sunday I heard a hotel/motel operator however say something that made me think about the impact STA's have on the ability of core commercial operators of hotels and motels to achieve healthy occupancy levels especially on the shoulder seasons.
It has been said that STA's bring needed tourist money to the area by extending stay duration. That's a reasonable statement. The actual impact of this I would argue however is overstated relative to the benefit of the operators of STA's. Many of these STA's have as a primary feature kitchen facilities for example and the primary draw of a cottage experience is the cottage, not shopping. They, if located in other than commercial areas, are less likely to provide leverage spending benefit than accommodations located within the commercial zone. Regardless there is some benefit. There is also an offset cost in terms of inhibition of permanent 4 seasons residence.
It is a characteristic of accommodation stock in any jurisdiction that it ages. Jurisdictions that suffer from lack of reinvestment in such accommodations for tourists will suffer as a result. Commercial buildings are generally constructed to support maintenance and the wear and tear that comes with the intended use. Maintenance is generally conducted. The same characteristics are not true of most residential properties pressed into STA use. The materials and methods of construction are simply different. Over time these will age and predictably age poorly. Inspection is as we know non-existant.
STA's are economic sugar. They bring a high that will be followed by a crash if they are too much of the overall mix of options and if they degrade the health of core commercial tourist accommodations that are properly inspected, built to standard, and maintained.
Clearly there is a place for STA's in the mix of accommodation. Those looking for a cottage experience, here for more than a room and a night or two in particular would prefer that. I think that a week long rental or more clearly falls in this camp.
I believe it is a fundamental truth that this area will never achieve 4 seasons economic tourist draw until and unless a core hotel/complex is established that can support that draw possibly (probably) with an indoor water facility. That may never happen, however I would suggest that it is less likely to happen if STA's are fulfilling all open demand and depressing the metric of Hotels RevPAR (revenue per available room).
The short term economic advantage of a few and the few real dollars that draw amounts to is hindering the growth and development of what remains core to the economic substrate of tourism: hotels.
STA's have a long term impact that needs to be weighed here. That balance may be in the concept of minimum stay's. 1-2-3 night stays vs 1-2-3-4 week stays are really quite different in terms of their impact. It is statistically unlikely that a hotel would see a visitor for those extended jurations. STA's that are longer stays are therefore not as impactful of Hotel development and investment, but room-by-the-night accommodations are certainly more so.
We know that disabled access, inspection, code standards, parking requirements, strict health controls all are dissimilar between commercial hotels and STA's along wth commercial tax basis. So we can talk about the matter of level playing fields, and other competitive matters, but I think that the reality is that we have to be AT LEAST cognizant that STA's ARE hurting a core commercial tourist facility that we need tactically and strategically.
This idea is borne out in studies that have shown a reduction in RevPAR for hotels as a result of unequal competitive fields. These studies have shown that Airbnb’s listings/offers do not merely supplement the lodging market, but rather show substitute characteristics in their long-term effects on hotel sales’ pattern.
We should note that STA's are located all over the place without the benefit of zoning control (well arguably flaunting zoning control today perhaps is a more accurate description). Zoning is what we do to make adjacent uses compatible, to drive growth in a controlled way to get the results we want. STA's do not necessarily cluster around a town center. They do not create the vibrant traffic that makes a tourist place hop. They do not provide the parking that hotels and motels close to the other commercial operators do and so they do not contribute to the way a town center works. (especially if located in Residential Zones and not existing Commercial zones)
So my point here is this: We have to be cognizant that Hotels are core and strategic to the economy here. We need to carefully consider the impact of STA's on this core tourism facility. That impact is empirically negative.
C
In your opinion. None of this is fact based. Just saying.
Actually I was raising it for discussion. Some positions stated are indeed opinion, but some aspects are fact. The principles of core design and the theory of zoning actually has an historical purpose. I am making the argument as I think we need to think not just about today but about tomorrow. The STA question needs to consider the long term implications. This phenomenon is new, exponentially expanded by this market creation of AirBNB. Everyone is grappling with that right now. I am saying let's not forget long term implications. You cannot blow that off as just opinion. Make the case otherwise. That's the point. If you think that we should ignore that make the case. Hotels are important and strategic to the community too. STA provide a needed role. How do we balance or should we care to ?
OMG -- Stop all this people!
a) based on the Township's own statistics there is no issue. (By law infractions are complaint driven.)
b) we are speaking of addreesing supposed complaints re noise, smoke ettc.
c) This is not a planning tool.
d) the Consulatants are not Planners.
e) Your projections re hotels being built of sterner stuff than houses indicates that you have never worked on the motels up here-...
f) Talk of a 4 season tourist layout is non sensical in this context. (or any context really)
g) The scope of the discussions is getting way out of hand.
h) And no, I sgree with Shari that it is not obvious that you can lease out your house under trhe bylaw. You can't have it both ways! - that activity is not listed!
Let's get back to the simplistic topic at hand and finish this off instead of certain people and interests trying to make a meal out of it.
93 percent of the tax base here is residential and the tourist industry causes us nothing but heartache. So if some people want to rent their cottage as has been done on the Peninsula since the 1930's then more power to them! (Hopefully they will all get listed as legal non conforming use as this has been going on since before any bylaws or building code.)
Now, everyone take a breath and go find some usefull work to do!
There are indeed a group of folks who have been pushing the point that there is no issue and leave it all alone. That is a view I grant you. That is not the only view. You cannot divorce zoning and bylaws from planning. THAT is nonsensical. Well maybe it makes sense if you just don't follow the rules. Therein lies the problem. Renting out their homes as they have done since the 1930's is hardly what we are talking about. AirBNB et all did not exist and people were not purpose-building STA accomodation in residential zones never mind stuffing 20 people into a 3 bedroom house every weekend. Maybe you are unaware of those ? What I see is a small vocal group of owners of STA attempting to stifle discourse. For those of us used to living in places where bylaws and zoning get enforced we are used to a different set of assumptions.
So agh yes we should all ignore this little problem and just leave you to it. Obviously council will do what they decide. I simply want anyone who sees this forum to think broadly about this topic and not be shutdown by a few people who have a vested economic interest. That's why I am posting.
Thankyou for recognizing the view of others.
I recognize your view and wish you to bring it up at the up coming County Planning and the new Municipal Zoning Bylaw meetings that will recommence next year – under an unknown set of rules that have not yet been specified by Premier Ford.
What I’m trying to say is your level of discourse is way above the people participating in this forum. It is way above the Counsellors I know in that they are not Planners. Indeed, the fabled “Consultants” are not Planners. The Township pays good money and a lot of money for Provincial Planners from Wiarton/Walkerton to help with updating zoning bylaws and we should leave it to them in that forum to get around the global issues.
Certainly you can’t divorce Bylaws from planning—but again, that is not the issue here. I understand we’re responding to the election campaign complaints delivered to the candidates re noise etc. If we are indeed to increase the scope as you are possibly suggesting we need to get the specialist local Provincial Planners on board in case things are a bit different here than wherever you come from.
I live here full time and the phenomena of “urban myths” is alive and well here where you could call them village myths. Yes – I have heard the stories of cramming 20 people into a 3 bedroom house but have never seen pictures or an address. You? I have read the local press speaking of “exploding septic systems” – now that is a lesson in journalist excess for the record books!
I haven’t observed AB&B to be an issue here and I understand that depending on the management company they are often amongst the best performers. I somewhat pause when I hear people refer to AB&B problems in Barcelona and Vienna so as to indicate there must be an issue here. - you heard any of that?
(Alternatively I have known of a six bedroom house with a large rec room that housed 18 people just 6 doors down from me, without issues.)
I‘ll take one good natured poke at you …I note you refer a lot to motels – commercials and such. Now, as I said before, 93% of the tax base is residential. Is it possible –just possible- that there is more than just a few “special interest people “ that don’t want a great deal of interference in the status quo. Don’t want an expensive licencing system with extra Municipal staff and the associated costs?
But I digress, what I am suggesting is you take up your learned concerns in the proper forum which is the upcoming review of the Municipal Zoning bylaw – last year it was the biggest fight the Municipality ever saw with up to 900 people coming out in protest in a Township of about 3960 people. Here we are concerned with the complaint driven process only. We have no experts of any kind involved. None. (except possibly yourself?)
The concern is the people phoning in and registering complaints only.
Oh, and the last time I heard that story of stuffing a three bedroom house it was 15 people in a two bedroom house – like all fish stories it has grown to 20 people in a 3 bedroom house over the winter. Maybe we should check back this time next year and see what the “myth” has grow to by then?
Couple of thoughts:
The background and explanation of scope regardless of whatever went before is wider than complaints. If they meant to limit this to complaints alone then they erred considerably. So we probably are talking at cross purposes because of a difference in that context. I can only say that I think that public processes and scope have to be taken at face value as written because only then can we operate in the parameters that everyone has to follow. Rightly or wrongly they have opened this wider. Now they have to hear it.
I agree about problems elsewhere, they at best only inform possible classes of issues. I agree that urban myths are useless constructs to make policy on. I believe that 98% of the time STA's are innocuous and 2% are problematic (maybe less). I agree that teeth in nuisance bylaws and an ability to enforce 7/24 with realistic reactivity should resolve those except in the case of repeat offenders and then some local ability to act should exist, with due process underpinning it. Note that all of Toronto only had 45 complaints noted in the working papers to the bylaw changes.
I have no specific grievance here. I am aware of a specific home that has been pressed into service with non resident owners where the occupancy is higher than the bedroom count and size could have supported for septic but they are far enough away to not be my soup. Is that 20 people - in a word NO. Do I think that misuse is the rule ? No of course not for the reasons stated by others. It is not in the best interest of any sane owner to overutilize septic to the point of failure. My use of the "20 in 3" was hyperbole.
I generally am concerned about being run roughshod over however too. I did not sign up to live next to a hotel but am fully understanding of conforming uses and I did my research before locating. . There are legal levers to address that but it would be nice to see that tidied up in bylaws.
I am not sure who is not special interest here :) That does not mean we cannot appreciate others views and needs and try not to harm each other.
I only in fact have two small obvious differences in opinion therefore.. I think there are a lot more people around that are both capable and willing to engage if we can raise the level of discourse and explain the issues and secondly I think that the scope is as explained in the background and by the consultant who was empowered to do so.
I think you may want to consider the potential benefits of responding on a wider basis.
Prosecuting a limitation of scope may be futile. They have a right to define scope.
Hi,
I don’t think I disagree with what you say.
Getting lost in the verbiage here such as empowered, prosecuting, scope, legal levers, etc., which suggests that the general populace has lost control of this as well. I do consulting myself though basically retired and my area is largely organizational efficiency, plant maintenance/engineering, etc.
Maybe you weren’t party to it, but the massive zoning bylaw work of last year that was put off till next year included the issue of rentals, STRs, B&B’s etc. There is a whole structure to this with appropriate staff from the province and such.
To break off a chunk now and go off in all directions on it would be tremendously inefficient especially as we don’t have people hired and organized for that. For example, we need professional planners as above, a spattering of legal opinions and what not. Hope this makes sense.
You may want to check the qualifications and experience of the present “consultants” – they were basically hired to do a literature survey.
I and many others have observed the attempts to increase the scope of this with alarm due to the inefficiencies and deviation form the original intent - which was to address the supposed “complaint driven” issues from the election.
Zoning issues such as restricted geographic areas, number of days you can rent, rental categories, multiple units, secondary residences, tax structures, staff hirings, etc. are material for the new zoning bylaw considerations that will be started in a few months.
Will be looking forward to your participation in the many meetings that will be held on the new zoning bylaw.
I was not party to that except that I tracked the proposed changes and built to comply with both what was and what was proposed. In all of those proposed changes, and I just went back and reviewed the change document edits, there is no "fix" to this situation. STA have not been added as a use, B&B is carried on. This would still be a non-conforming use as written. So I appreciate a lot of your ideas about this but there is nothing inherently wrong with the council packaging and dealing with one mutli-faceted issue now in advance. In fact that is the way change generally happens, not in a wholesale re-write of an entire bylaw in one sitting. The whole set of changes across the entire bylaw was perhaps a bridge too far for too many people. Kicking this can down the road just is avoidance.
They specifically said this in that change document and did not handle this matter at all :
Some matters that have been deemed to be beyond or outside of the scope of the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law project include:
Regulations / licensing / zoning of Short Term Accomodations (B&B, hostel, cottage rental,etc).
C
Again - the idea is to optimize use of resources. That's all. The median income in this Township at the bottrom of the stats Canada scale and we need taxes low. I don't think the negative expression "kicking it down the road" is called for.
"A bridge too far" - no sir. It was a wholesale attack on property values due to increasing of arbitrary E/H boundaries, envelopes around arbitrarily nominated Provincially signifigant wet lands and such. The situation was so bad I had older people calling me up crying because their source of income for future extendicare housing etc was compromised. 900 people came out to an open house in Lions head, 900 out of a tiotal population of 3950. That is why the rental trivia was temporarily moved off the table. There was much bigger fish to fry.
It was not a bridge too far at all. The property owners knew exactly what was going on and they didn't want any of it. Thousands of dollars were spent getting it prorogued till after the election in the hopes that the new Council and the new Provincial Government would help with the recognition of private property rights.
I cannot debate that (personal impacts and issues) and accept your comments at face value, but if we cannot do anything until we do everything it seems like a recipe for doing nothing. RIght now we are talking about this one item. If they are going to deal with it then they need to deal with the whole set of issues around STA. Looking at just a subset of it (complaints alone) is just avoiding dealing with the greater set of issues in any integrated way. The scope indicated they intend to understand the overall policy needs. Maybe to your point some will be carried over into the Comprehensive Bylaw at some future date, but that is something we will have to see. RIght now as I understand it they are trying to get input to formulate a policy response.