Editor:
Des Delaney asks: “Can someone explain why an illegal building that is not permitted or conforming to the building code can be refused a licence to operate as tourist accommodation yet there are dozens of other similar structures in Gibsons used for long-term accommodation that also do not meet life and safety requirements that continue to operate?”
A non-compliant designation informs current and future owners of limitations affecting the usability and value of the property, unless and until brought into compliance. This encourages compliance and deters non-compliance community-wide.
That said, an existing non-compliant unit may provide immediate (but not necessarily future) value to the community as a long-term rental in a time of residential housing shortages. Stable tenancies enable people to live and work locally, delivering tangible benefits.
STRs, on the other hand, provide significant financial benefit almost exclusively to the owners. While STRs increase tourist spending, they can undermine overall economic stability. STRs reduce the community’s ability to house residents who contribute to the local economy and social fabric. They encourage people to buy more housing than they can actually afford by then relying on short-term rentals to “pay the mortgage,” further restricting housing opportunities for families. Other negative effects include weakened community cohesion and increased neighbourhood disturbances.
Ultimately, we rely on local government to determine where, when, and how any policy deviations might best serve the community. The answer to Mr. Delaney’s question is certainly not “blowing in the wind;” it is “firmly grounded” in the need for a stable and suitable housing supply. Hopefully this answer doesn’t go over anyone’s head –– because the one thing everyone needs overhead is a roof!
Alan Donenfeld, Gibsons
