Why don't we just exterminate all bears?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sliver's done a good job of conflating residents and magpie weekenders to try to prove his point. What's missing in his justifications that led to your post is that most people don't have a problem with more people moving to Canmore as residents. Those that come, raise a family, setup a business and participate in the community. It's never been about that, so no, it's not pulling up a ladder once they are in. Since Sliver also took a shot at me being a "new joiner", having been in Calgary since the late 90's. I moved her, got educated, found a job and career, you know, the sorts of things you do when you live in a community.

I don't know if it is 'most' or not, but there is a vocal contingent who love to disparage newcomers (anyone newer than them!). I know the owners of the Grizzly Paw (est. 1996). They are still occasionally denigrated as 'newcomers' (though certainly not as much as before).

A lot of mountain town people are just weird and toxic. I love reading comments in the Outlook...always so out of touch (though tbf lately it's vacant owners making asses of themselves over the tax)

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think there is a lot of irony in claiming Canmore residents are FYGM after a posts like that where you literally say "#### you, I came and got mine".


Anyway, you don't know my personal situation or what life has led me to the choices I've made that are right for me, but just trust me when I say it's not my vacation decisions that led me to not affording Canmore, and those decisions were made for reasons personal to me to make the best of ####ty hands, and it's all irrelevant to the discussion. And I'm not going to put you down for saving money to buy something that was available to you through hard work, that you wanted.


As for townspeople making ####ty voting decisions, welcome to discovering your fellow voters. In their defence, there were more than one councillor acting in their own interests, and not for the voters over the years. I know at least one who was booted for their betrayals after the damage was done, and I'm sure the number is more than one.

Oh weird, so are you saying we don't know each individual's circumstances that shaped how and where they live? You're almost there, Fuzz. Stay on that line of thinking.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Oh weird, so are you saying we don't know each individual's circumstances that shaped how and where they live? You're almost there, Fuzz. Stay on that line of thinking.

I'm just saying you honed in on my taking vacations as evidence if I made different choices I could afford it. There are a lot of other factors out of my control that make that not the case that I'm not going to get into publicly, but knowing that you are actually a good understanding human from your previous posts, would say "ah, I get it" if I explained, and we can leave it at that.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I don't know if it is 'most' or not, but there is a vocal contingent who love to disparage newcomers (anyone newer than them!). I know the owners of the Grizzly Paw (est. 1996). They are still occasionally denigrated as 'newcomers' (though certainly not as much as before).

A lot of mountain town people are just weird and toxic. I love reading comments in the Outlook...always so out of touch (though tbf lately it's vacant owners making asses of themselves over the tax)

Haha, that's is a fair enoguh comment. I know the owners as well, and was very much aware of the "othering" they received. But we loved them, and helped bring them into the community by bring our events to them. I remember one particularity fun afternoon as part of one of our biking events where we did a fastest tire change competition on the patio.


And yes, the Outlook comments section is a great place to read from astroturfers from every side of every discussion. But I think the reality is the quite majority are more accepting of tourism in general, but have issues with how it was done and what the outcome is.

[V]

If you want to live in the 90s, go to Portland. The dream of the 90s is alive in Portland.

On the other hand, if Council wants to extract more money from out of towners, they're well within their right to do so, hilariously, because they actually live there and therefore get to say what kind of a town they want. Maybe the experiment fails and everyone leaves, but my guess is there's plenty of money out there, and the demand is high enough that everyone will end up paying the tax.

I do get a kick out of Sliver's emotional tirades, though. Canadian against Canadian, Albertan against Albertan. You just feel so sad about the labels other people put on you. Haha. I don't buy it. This is all about money. Your point isn't landing how you want because you're so transparently disingenuous.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by V

If you want to live in the 90s, go to Portland. The dream of the 90s is alive in Portland.

On the other hand, if Council wants to extract more money from out of towners, they're well within their right to do so, hilariously, because they actually live there and therefore get to say what kind of a town they want. Maybe the experiment fails and everyone leaves, but my guess is there's plenty of money out there, and the demand is high enough that everyone will end up paying the tax.

I do get a kick out of Sliver's emotional tirades, though. Canadian against Canadian, Albertan against Albertan. You just feel so sad about the labels other people put on you. Haha. I don't buy it. This is all about money. Your point isn't landing how you want because you're so transparently disingenuous.

It's 90% about money and 10% about the vilification of second homeowners by town council and full-time residents.

Town council has hired a lobbying firm - using my tax dollars - to fund a PR campaign that is anti-second homeowner. My money is going toward an effort to desparage me to promote a 300% increase in my taxes while making me uncomfortable to be around hostile neighbours.

There's nothing disingenuous about my perspective or anything I've said.

This tax increase could very well be large enough that we'll have to rethink our vacation home there. So who will buy if we sell? The front desk Aussie at the Windmark? The dishwasher at Boston Pizza? Of course not. It'll just be a richer Calgarian than me. This tax solves nothing in terms of affordable housing.

The town lost a court battle to implement this tax in 2025. Did they cut programs for affordable housing to make up for the shortfall? Nope. We're going to hold off on resurfacing an ice rink and building a wildlife fence around a field.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm just saying you honed in on my taking vacations as evidence if I made different choices I could afford it. There are a lot of other factors out of my control that make that not the case that I'm not going to get into publicly, but knowing that you are actually a good understanding human from your previous posts, would say "ah, I get it" if I explained, and we can leave it at that.

I respect that and I don't actually want to get in your business and of course I think you should have your privacy.

I wish Canmorites would respect my privacy, personal decisions, efforts/sacrifices to achieve a dream and not jealously try to scapegoat me for problems of their own creation.

[PepsiFree]

All this strife over a town with a couple golf courses and a McDonalds.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

All this strife over a town with a couple golf courses and a McDonalds.

Haha, trying to rile both sides up, eh? I approve.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Sliver

This tax increase could very well be large enough that we'll have to rethink our vacation home there. So who will buy if we sell? The front desk Aussie at the Windmark? The dishwasher at Boston Pizza? Of course not. It'll just be a richer Calgarian than me. This tax solves nothing in terms of affordable housing.

That's not really how real estate works though. If a richer Calgarian had wanted your property or one like it, they would have bought it already. But now because tax rates are going up, they're all of the sudden going to want to buy the place? The only incentive would be if the price dropped, which would naturally improve affordability for locals because the pool of potential buyers would be smaller.

Generally I don't mind vacant home taxes when we're dealing with housing shortages. However, I do think there should be carve outs for places that are primarily recreational.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

All this strife over a town with a couple golf courses and a McDonalds.

If the mountains weren't there it's basically Estevan.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sigh.

First off, the vacancy tax is happening this year.

"Providing zero" was a reference to having a Calgary company come in to do the construction work. They bring their own crew in, do the work, and leave. They don't pay taxes like a local company would, or employ locals, or sponsor local community events.

And you seem to read like Sliver, in that you completely missed wast I was saying. You can go back and re-read my post, but it isn't against tourists, it's against empty condos taking up limited space vs hotels that would allow more people to visit, and room for more people to live. Do I need a math equation for you? I'm not sure why it's so hard to grasp.

"Sigh" nothing.

The vacancy tax (rude name, btw, I have a home there, not a 'vacant' home) was scheduled to begin January 1, 2025.

A group of second homeowners sued the Town. The Town lost that fight and were not allowed to implement the tax in 2025, causing a budget shortfall. The Town spend over six figures on that defense and lost.

Why do you think the tax is active this year? I realize the Town councilors keep saying they won the court case, but look into it. You're being lied to. They lost and I have to pay $0 in 2025 as a result of the Town losing.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That's not really how real estate works though. If a richer Calgarian had wanted your property or one like it, they would have bought it already. But now because tax rates are going up, they're all of the sudden going to want to buy the place? The only incentive would be if the price dropped, which would naturally improve affordability for locals because the pool of potential buyers would be smaller.

Generally I don't mind vacant home taxes when we're dealing with housing shortages. However, I do think there should be carve outs for places that are primarily recreational.

Because the town has approved so many expensive developments with no requirements for low-cost homes within any of those developments for the last 25 years. There is no drop low enough that would allow anybody working a service job - the only industry in town - to buy any of the houses that exist today.

Does Canmore have a housing problem? Yes, in the same way the mountains always have. In 1997 my girlfriend and I couldn't find a place to live in Banff because - like today - there was far greater demand for places than there were places available. So we bought a 1972 16' trailer for $1k and lived in campgrounds moving it every two weeks. I didn't expect anybody else to subsidize my desire to live in a resort town.

How do we solve that problem? Staff accommodations are the best way. Like the staff accommodation I lived in on Lake Louise in 1994-5. Service staff cannot afford to buy homes at basically any price. It's the same everywhere, in spite of Canmore people's flawed beliefs that they're unique and special.

Current housing inventory - approved by council and townspeople - cannot work for people working in the tourism industry. The homes built are too nice and too expensive. Demand is also too high from everywhere that this tax won't lower prices. There's always another wealthy Calgarian or Edmontonian that will buy it. A waiter never will and never can.

Speaking of which, how many waiters and hotel maids can buy a home in Calgary? Low-end job workers have been priced out of real estate across the western world. This tax is creating animosity in the town, penalizes a disenfranchised group, and will not solve the housing crisis the town and its people have created.

Businesses need to build barracks/staff accommodation.

Town needs to ban AirBnBs so that lower-cost level of housing can be instantly added to the rental pool.

There are some basic fixes that are fair and don't penalize people or allow them to be surveilled by a government to monitor where they sleep at night.

Finally, if you can't afford to live in Canmore I guess go find somewhere else to live. I can't afford to live there full time - there aren't enough jobs that pay well.

I also can't afford to live in Bearspaw, so I live in a basic bitch bungalow in a Calgary suburb.

We live where we can afford. End of story.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Sliver

"Sigh" nothing.

The vacancy tax (rude name, btw, I have a home there, not a 'vacant' home) was scheduled to begin January 1, 2025.

A group of second homeowners sued the Town. The Town lost that fight and were not allowed to implement the tax in 2025, causing a budget shortfall. The Town spend over six figures on that defense and lost.

Why do you think the tax is active this year? I realize the Town councilors keep saying they won the court case, but look into it. You're being lied to. They lost and I have to pay $0 in 2025 as a result of the Town losing.

The sigh was about Slava missing my point and having to explain again what I had just explained.

For the tax, I haven't kept up on it, that was the last I heard. If it's off again I'll defer to your knowledge.

But isn't this a case of the residents wanting something, doing what you suggest by taking action, and it still not being the right thing in your mind? Because residents have pursued courses of action that are against development in the past, and they get shut down by other levels of government. The town doesn't seem to have much ability to control anything the way they would like so blaming Canmore residents "for problems of their own creation" ignores the reality of what they've tried to do. Canmore is what it is now because of powerful wealthy people making the decisions(mostly poor ones - Stewart Creek as an example), not the locals. You can decide that's OK, but it means it isn't the fault of citizens to have ended up where they are.

[Wormius]

It’s an interesting convo, but I’d prefer a place in the mountains farther away if it were just a vacation property. It feels hard to justify spending a ton of money on something that is just an hour away from Calgary. Need the right balance between convenience and escape.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by troutman

I don’t disagree there will be more pressure and demand for mountain living. Certainly not mocking Sliver - it’s a topic that has to be addressed. But where does it start? There is capacity in CNP and BC. We would have to rewrite the rules in National and Provincial parks. Many Canadians feel strongly about protecting pristine wilderness and wildlife. There will be a collision.

I could see highway 40 being paved from Highwood House to Coleman one day. Twinning highway 22. What about Chain Lakes and west of Turner Valley? West of Rocky Mtn House? I don’t think I will live to see these changes, but it seems inevitable.

Oh this needs to happen. I would love having a paved mountainous route down to crowsnest.

As much as hwy22 works it does make it a little more roundabout.

They could also pave from k-country lakes through to Elkford (your new Banff?) and Sparwood.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Haha, trying to rile both sides up, eh? I approve.

I'm not a troll, how dare you!! lol

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by BigThief

I'm not a troll, how dare you!! lol

You might not be, but your 8 other accounts sure were!

[troutman]

My friend in Canmore had to buy a condo there for his employees to live in. No other options for them.

https://www.mcleod-law.com/resource/...-term-rentals/

The much-anticipated short-term rental decision, Condominium Corporation No. 042 5177 v. Kuzio, was released on February 27, 2020. The result is that a Condominium Corporation can, through its Bylaws, stop Owners from engaging in short-term rentals of their Units.

This is the case in my condo. Word is the Act might be amended to say no condos in AB can have STRs.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

You might not be, but your 8 other accounts sure were!

Hey chill man, Jiri is going to see this a year from now and DM Textcitic.