Canmore population to double? Legal battle?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

From the article:

But only subjecting non-Albertans who are second homeowners would tax about 300 confirmed declared homes, compared to a total of about 1,900 second homes in the town.

Of 6,935 declarations made, 90 per cent declared primary residence usage, while 10 per cent declared non-primary residence usage, said Adam Robertson, the Town's manager of communications, in an email.

Of the non-primary residence usage declarations, 56.7 per cent are owned by Albertans and 43.3 per cent are owned by non-Albertans.

About 14 per cent of tax rolls, or 1,129 properties, did not declare but are assumed to be mostly second homes based on council’s plan to tax all undeclared residences.

So if my mathing is correct, there are around 8000 residences in Canmore? And around 1/4 as non-resident? That seems low to me, but I don't live there (or have a second residence).

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

To be clear, the courts ruled the tax was fine to proceed. It's the UCP stepping in with likely changes to the MGA that will prevent it.

Ballpark math based on numbers elsewhere in the article suggest it would have raised an extra $6M or so per year from all 2nd homeowners (so a little over $5M net). It's probably more like $2.4M if it's non-Albertans, and who knows if/how much the admin costs would be reduced?

The courts actually blocked the tax from being implemented in 2025 because that was too rushed. Second homeowners won that in 2024, the Town spent $1 million, and they brought in $0 revenue. We didn't pay a penny all last year.

Courts okayed it to start in 2026, but that was appealed in December 2025. Ruling hasn't been made on that, yet, but is expected within the next month or two, so the tax is on shaky footing with that appeal and it is toast for Albertans with the UCP intervening.

So the tax was schedule to begin January 1, 2026. On January 6, 2026, the Mayor tabled a motion to exempt Albertans from the tax and it passed unanimously by all councilors. Goodbye tax for Albertans. It'll collapse for non-Albertans now, too.

The Town took a big L.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

From the article:

But only subjecting non-Albertans who are second homeowners would tax about 300 confirmed declared homes, compared to a total of about 1,900 second homes in the town.

Of 6,935 declarations made, 90 per cent declared primary residence usage, while 10 per cent declared non-primary residence usage, said Adam Robertson, the Town's manager of communications, in an email.

Of the non-primary residence usage declarations, 56.7 per cent are owned by Albertans and 43.3 per cent are owned by non-Albertans.

About 14 per cent of tax rolls, or 1,129 properties, did not declare but are assumed to be mostly second homes based on council’s plan to tax all undeclared residences.

So if my mathing is correct, there are around 8000 residences in Canmore? And around 1/4 as non-resident? That seems low to me, but I don't live there (or have a second residence).

No, that's accurate. 26% of homes are owned by part-time residents.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Sliver

No, that's accurate. 26% of homes are owned by part-time residents.

I know you and Fuzz will have different views on this, but does it make sense that 1/4 of the homes as non-residents will make that much of a difference on home prices? I get that is a higher percentage, than say Calgary, but I honestly thought it would be higher.

[fotze2]

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Gonna have to counter your misinformation. A lot of the people for it were there long before it was an expensive town, when it's survival was in doubt. You are a rando that decided to buy in an expensive mountain town, not them. For clarity. It's expensive to live now, it wasn't then. Because servicing empty vacation homes made it expensive.

Your bellyaching about wages being low isn't the issue, it's the cost of living for workers to live there that is the problem. I know you know this, but it's easy to take shots from your second home. If wages were high enough to support it, everything would be even more expensive. It's kinda wild how you can't get the connection between vacation homes taking housing from workers, and your vacation home...taking housing from workers. If every home was a vacation home, there would be no workers at all. It takes a balance. With fewer vacation homes there would be more housing for families who would have children who work in the community as they grow up. Canmore is quite obviously out of balance.

So legally the town was fine, but the UCP is going to alter legislation to make it not fine. Guess you suck enough UCP dick you can get them to do what you want. And Dan Williams? Well OK.

IDGAF about these whiners. Live in Canmore and accept the compromises of living in a HCOL town with low wages, or move somewhere that has a LCOL and higher wages (literally everywhere else). I'm not subsidizing anybody to live in a postcard.

It's also funny that you believe all the people moaning about how expensive the town is are from way back when. Did you see this nimwit's letter to the editor in the RMO this week? https://www.rmoutlook.com/vox-populi...y-tax-11705605

She moved to Canmore 3 years ago and is already whining about 'weekenders' lol. Total dork. There is seriously something in the water that makes these people stupid. Like, go back to the beginning of this thread. Three years ago. We knew it was expensive then and somehow she didn't? Give me a break.

[Table 5]

Here we go....Silver Vs Fuzz, round 4? 5?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I know you and Fuzz will have different views on this, but does it make sense that 1/4 of the homes as non-residents will make that much of a difference on home prices? I get that is a higher percentage, than say Calgary, but I honestly thought it would be higher.

Yeah, it's honestly not that high. It's fine. And they're building more now (TSMV - 10% low-income housing) and they're finishing up The Gateway at Three Sisters with low-income housing already open and people living there.

Canmore dipshts protested all of this, mind you. They live and breath FYGM & NIMBY.

Once this tax is totally laid to rest I'll just go back to quietly enjoying the hell out of my cabin and letting these miserable sad sacks whine amongst themselves. It has been really gratifying watching them lose everything they try to do to prevent other people from enjoying their area. Sucks they've been using my tax dollars to do it, but I'm at the point where I thrive off of their misery. It's good for my soul.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Sliver

IDGAF about these whiners. Live in Canmore and accept the compromises of living in a HCOL town with low wages, or move somewhere that has a LCOL and higher wages (literally everywhere else). I'm not subsidizing anybody to live in a postcard.

It's also funny that you believe all the people moaning about how expensive the town is are from way back when. Did you see this nimwit's letter to the editor in the RMO this week? https://www.rmoutlook.com/vox-populi...y-tax-11705605

She moved to Canmore 3 years ago and is already whining about 'weekenders' lol. Total dork. There is seriously something in the water that makes these people stupid. Like, go back to the beginning of this thread. Three years ago. We knew it was expensive then and somehow she didn't? Give me a break.

Jesus, that is an egregiously stupid letter to the editor. Why hasn't she offered up the $80k/ per year for three years equity increase to the cause. Take out a home equity loan and donate that equity delta. Why would they even print that?

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Here we go....Silver Vs Fuzz, round 4? 5?

Lets not forget about those lazy ass teachers who work 8 months a year and complain about it.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by fotze2

Jesus, that is an egregiously stupid letter to the editor. Why hasn't she offered up the $80k/ per year for three years equity increase to the cause. Take out a home equity loan and donate that equity delta. Why would they even print that?

That's the 'other side' (aka Fuzz's) to this issue. They don't have a leg to stand on and their arguments are 100% emotional and 0% logical.

The thing is, you and I can obviously see how stupid that letter is, but in the mind of a Canmorite that letter is a mic drop. It's hilarious and why they keep losing every single time they try to block new housing (which they say they need, but they don't want it built) or try to penalize people that actually bring money to the Town (which they say they want, but they resent us when we show up).

That letter is completely standard issue and normal when talking to them. It's a great letter. Sums up their perspective quite well, tbh.

[Sliver]

P.S. The replies to those dumb letters are always good. I like this one:

J Pyecroft Jan 9, 2026 11:07 AM
Stripped of emotion and ideology, these arguments are not supported by how housing markets actually function.

Housing scarcity in Canmore is driven by land constraints, zoning, development approvals, and a mismatch between wages and housing costs.

Appreciation is not income until a home is sold, and rising values increase taxes and carrying costs in the meantime.

Council’s recent revisions say more than intended. A tax that must be repeatedly narrowed and re-justified reveals its origin: a solution looking for a problem, driven by resentment toward so-called “dark homes” rather than evidence. Second-home ownership did not create Canmore’s affordability crisis, and redefining the target does not change that fact.

If affordability is the goal, why is the burden placed on homeowners rather than employers and businesses that rely on local labour?

****

And this one:

CWhitfield Jan 9, 2026 2:44 PM
“Shortage of housing is also created by a high percentage of non-resident owners.”

Correlation does not equal causation. Housing shortages are not created by property owners, but by constraints on the supply side of the supply–demand curve. Limited supply combined with strong demand leads to higher prices - simple economics. Individual homeowners do not control housing supply. Supply is driven by municipal development policy, zoning, and the willingness of developers to assume construction risk.

If this logic were valid, then all homeowners should contribute equally to funding affordable housing, since all homeownership limits supply. Second homeowners could argue that primary homeowners are unjustly enriched: second homeowners pay identical millage rates while receiving fewer benefits because they do not reside in Canmore full-time. Why, then, should primary homeowners not pay more to offset this imbalance? That hardly seems fair, or does it?

[Fuzz]

I don't think anyone moving within the past three years has a lot to stand on given they knew what they were entering(unlike decades long residents), but her points aren't all that wonky.

Those two replies just like to make things up.

Housing scarcity in Canmore is driven by land constraints, zoning, development approvals, and a mismatch between wages and housing costs.

Which is a thing to say, as long as you ignore the constraints of the valley, and the reality that homes sitting empty 3/4 of the year are taking up limited space that could be used for full time housing.

Correlation does not equal causation. Housing shortages are not created by property owners, but by constraints on the supply side of the supply–demand curve.

Brilliant opening sentence. Meaningless. The next bit does address the constraints, but never gets around recognizing putting increased taxes on empty homes is a municipal policy that reduces the attractiveness of empty homes, which makes more available for people who want to live and work there. He acknoledges why you would make policies, but just doesn't like this one. The rest is just nonsense that doesn't make any rational sense.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Gonna have to counter your misinformation. A lot of the people for it were there long before it was an expensive town, when it's survival was in doubt. You are a rando that decided to buy in an expensive mountain town, not them. For clarity. It's expensive to live now, it wasn't then. Because servicing empty vacation homes made it expensive.

Your bellyaching about wages being low isn't the issue, it's the cost of living for workers to live there that is the problem. I know you know this, but it's easy to take shots from your second home. If wages were high enough to support it, everything would be even more expensive. It's kinda wild how you can't get the connection between vacation homes taking housing from workers, and your vacation home...taking housing from workers. If every home was a vacation home, there would be no workers at all. It takes a balance. With fewer vacation homes there would be more housing for families who would have children who work in the community as they grow up. Canmore is quite obviously out of balance.

So legally the town was fine, but the UCP is going to alter legislation to make it not fine. Guess you suck enough UCP dick you can get them to do what you want. And Dan Williams? Well OK.

This is starting to happen in The Pass. Long time locals are being priced out.

AI Overview

Increased Demand and Rising Prices: The Crowsnest Pass has become a desirable place to relocate, partly due to its attractiveness as a weekend/recreational destination, which has increased overall housing demand. This high demand has driven up prices, with the total assessed value of properties growing by over 11% between 2022 and 2024 alone.

Strain on Long-Term Housing Supply: Properties converted into tourist homes or STRs are removed from the long-term rental and resale markets, intensifying housing scarcity for permanent residents. Studies across Canada confirm a direct correlation between the proliferation of STRs and housing affordability challenges.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't think anyone moving within the past three years has a lot to stand on given they knew what they were entering(unlike decades long residents), but her points aren't all that wonky.

Those two replies just like to make things up.
Which is a thing to say, as long as you ignore the constraints of the valley, and the reality that homes sitting empty 3/4 of the year are taking up limited space that could be used for full time housing.

Brilliant opening sentence. Meaningless. The next bit does address the constraints, but never gets around recognizing putting increased taxes on empty homes is a municipal policy that reduces the attractiveness of empty homes, which makes more available for people who want to live and work there. He acknoledges why you would make policies, but just doesn't like this one. The rest is just nonsense that doesn't make any rational sense.

Zoning has everything to do with the problems. Canmorites vote for the dumbest councilors ever. They blocked employee housing lol. $0 cost to taxpayers. Immediate housing online for workers. Nope, let's block it because we might need a warehouse in the future.

https://www.rmoutlook.com/canmore/em...-areas-7507591

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by troutman

This is starting to happen in The Pass. Long time locals are being priced out.

AI Overview

Increased Demand and Rising Prices: The Crowsnest Pass has become a desirable place to relocate, partly due to its attractiveness as a weekend/recreational destination, which has increased overall housing demand. This high demand has driven up prices, with the total assessed value of properties growing by over 11% between 2022 and 2024 alone.

Strain on Long-Term Housing Supply: Properties converted into tourist homes or STRs are removed from the long-term rental and resale markets, intensifying housing scarcity for permanent residents. Studies across Canada confirm a direct correlation between the proliferation of STRs and housing affordability challenges.

STRs are a problem in Canmore, too. That's a different issue from second homes. AirBnBs are the exact type and price of home that would be great for full-time residents working low paying jobs. The Town should definitely focus on that.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by sliver

strs are a problem in canmore, too. That's a different issue from second homes. Airbnbs are the exact type and price of home that would be great for full-time residents working low paying jobs. The town should definitely focus on that.

lol.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by you&me

Kananaskis has a lot of potential to develop into more of a town site. Heck, we could get Fortress going again...

Fortress Mountain proposing all-season resort for Kananaskis Country

https://www.rmoutlook.com/kananaskis...untry-11368826

[powderjunkie]

I don't really care for either side of this debate, but I'm just glad there are lots of hurt feelings all around.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by troutman

This is starting to happen in The Pass. Long time locals are being priced out.

AI Overview

Increased Demand and Rising Prices: The Crowsnest Pass has become a desirable place to relocate, partly due to its attractiveness as a weekend/recreational destination, which has increased overall housing demand. This high demand has driven up prices, with the total assessed value of properties growing by over 11% between 2022 and 2024 alone.

Strain on Long-Term Housing Supply: Properties converted into tourist homes or STRs are removed from the long-term rental and resale markets, intensifying housing scarcity for permanent residents. Studies across Canada confirm a direct correlation between the proliferation of STRs and housing affordability challenges.

AI overvirew....fff************************cccccckkkk !!!!! Be a human, dude.