Canmore population to double? Legal battle?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Instead of having a place in Canmore I'm sure Sliver could take cruise every year, or do an African safari every couple of years, or buy an RV and drive it from place to place or a thousand other things with his recreation budget. If he wants to spend his time and money in Canmore, including by having a place to retreat to, that's his business. The fact that others can't do likewise due to their own personal life journey being different from his does not entitle them to shame the guy for trying to get enjoyment out of his life in the way he sees fit.

This is sort of an interesting point. Travel is totally my thing, and I'm probably close to the carrying costs on a place in Canmore in travel per year in terms of cost. Is me spending a bunch of money taking trips to Australia, Hawaii, and Disney World better than Sliver owning a place in Canmore to chill? That seems like a hard argument. I'm not sure how you would equate carbon emissions from flying all over to habitat destruction from one new condo, but the international travel doesn't seem obviously better to me and I'm biased in favor of it. More of his money is in Canada which is probably better for the economy here.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah if this describes Sliver, then I retract my supp- wait, no, I reiterate my support in even stronger terms, because maybe then he'll send his helicopter to get me and we can hang out on his yacht!

Anyway, my original post wasn't really denying that there are broader ramifications in certain communities for people buying property and then not living in it, it is simply my immediate reaction whenever I see posts that, in effect, try to chastise people for having a vacation place to go to. That GMG. And I can't help but read Bill Bumface's umbrage the same way.

If you're buying up property at scale to hold and flip or rent out at exorbitant rates and thereby driving up rental prices that's one thing, but I'm pretty sure Sliver just wants to pack the car up on Friday and go have a beer on his deck while looking at the mountains. IMO there's nothing the least bit wrong with having that as a life goal, or achieving said life goal, and the busybodies suggesting otherwise... yeah, look, I can't help it. You just seem jealous to me.

It's not Sliver's fault for wanting a second house. Or the oligarch's for wanting a yacht. Its that our system is at a historic high for being permissive to these things, and those with wealth are pulling away at the expense of the majority of people. Home ownership rates are dropping, but second home ownership is rising.

[marsplasticeraser]

I think the issue here is that there is an enormous cost to upgrade infrastructure when a town doubles from 12,000 residents to 25,000 residents.

There's so much additional infrastructure (schools, roads, water, sewers, health care, electricity, water treatment, etc), and it will mostly be paid by the existing residents.

And like every new community, the new communities don't pay their share of the cost of their infrastructure.

So in Canmore you will see significantly increased taxes for existing residents.

And taxes for something that they don't want and actually makes their lives worse would really suck. It seems the local citizens should have some say over this, when they are taking the financial burden.

A side point is that this expansion will make life worse for all existing residents and visitors to the area. Traffic and services are already stretched.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by marsplasticeraser

I think the issue here is that there is an enormous cost to upgrade infrastructure when a town doubles from 12,000 residents to 25,000 residents.

There's so much additional infrastructure (schools, roads, water, sewers, health care, electricity, water treatment, etc), and it will mostly be paid by the existing residents.

And like every new community, the new communities don't pay their share of the cost of their infrastructure.

So in Canmore you will see significantly increased taxes for existing residents.

And taxes for something that they don't want and actually makes their lives worse would really suck. It seems the local citizens should have some say over this, when they are taking the financial burden.

A side point is that this expansion will make life worse for all existing residents and visitors to the area. Traffic and services are already stretched.

If these are all secondary homes, you won't need to build any more schools at least!

[undercoverbrother]

#### yes

Prime Sliver

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

It's not Sliver's fault for wanting a second house. Or the oligarch's for wanting a yacht.

This is the crux of my problem with this whole attitude - Sliver and people in his economic situation are nothing like oligarchs.

It's just the "everyone who drives slower than me is an idiot and everyone who drives faster than me is a maniac" thing, but in the context of earnings. It's like everyone who earns more money than the average person gets lumped together as "the problem". There is a vast difference from someone who is well-off - say, making $400k in taxable income in a year as a surgeon, or running a small business that's doing well, and a guy with $30 million in net worth making smart investment bets and earning passive income. And there's then another massive difference between that guy and a billionaire. It's like comparing someone who works minimum wage in Calgary to a poor person in Somalia - your entire outlook is too simplistic.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's just the "everyone who drives slower than me is an idiot and everyone who drives faster than me is a maniac" thing, but in the context of earnings. It's like everyone who earns more money than the average person gets lumped together as "the problem". There is a vast difference from someone who is well-off - say, making $400k in taxable income in a year as a surgeon, or running a small business that's doing well, and a guy with $30 million in net worth making smart investment bets and earning passive income. And there's then another massive difference between that guy and a billionaire. It's like comparing someone who works minimum wage in Calgary to a poor person in Somalia - your entire outlook is too simplistic.

spoken like a true oligarch

[kevman]

Originally Posted by marsplasticeraser

I think the issue here is that there is an enormous cost to upgrade infrastructure when a town doubles from 12,000 residents to 25,000 residents.

Kind of like when the city of Calgary went from ~700,000 to ~1,400,000 in the last 30 years?

Canada, and particularly Western Canada, has undergone incredible population growth in the last 30 years. This pressure is being felt by cities and towns alike. Why should Canmore be excluded from this pressure?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

It's not Sliver's fault for wanting a second house. Or the oligarch's for wanting a yacht. Its that our system is at a historic high for being permissive to these things, and those with wealth are pulling away at the expense of the majority of people. Home ownership rates are dropping, but second home ownership is rising.

I hate the inequity in the world. Not much I can do about earth, but let's talk Canada/Alberta/Canmore here.

At a basic level and looking at just properties in Canmore, yeah, I have a second place there. Did I earn that life perk? Absolutely not. I don't think anybody with second-home money earns it. The reason for that is my labour isn't so unique and valuable that I should be in a financial position that allows this, frankly. I'm the most reluctant second-home owner ever. I don't think I deserve it, I'm uncomfortable with the inequity of life and I know if I have more it's largely because somebody else has less.

Okay, well what to do about that. In my case, there are a couple issues I toss around in my head:

1. I own a small business. If I pay my staff $1, I'm going to want, say $0.25 in my own pocket, which is my profit on their labour. That just sucks. It's exploitive and I have to look these people in the eye everyday. Why do I get that extra profit and they don't? It's gross. (I have had to endure losses, too, btw, while I continue to pay them, so my ownership isn't without risk).

A problem, though, is I have capital tied up in this business that I need to make work for me and my family. I have to set some of my discomfort aside and do what's best for my loved ones and, I guess, myself, too. I could sell the business and invest that capital into the stock market, but then that exploitation is still happening in all the businesses I now own shares in. Only difference is I'm now at football-field's length from having to look the exploited in the eyes. And I know the random employees at all these companies cannot be treated with as much care as I treat my staff, so I'm not sure moving my capital in this way is actually helping anything except hiding exploitation from my own eyes.

2. How do I have capital in the first place? That pat-on-the-back answer is I'm a saver and have lived pretty frugally for decades. I've liked financial planning since I was in my late teens (growing up poor and seeing your single mom cry when the furnace conked out in -30 with no money or means to fix it will motivate you to not go through that again).

Probably the main driver, though, is I'm an orphan now. My mom and dad (and brother, for that matter) are all dead. I'm the only one left of my original four. When your parents die, they generally leave what they have to their kids. That's me. Wasn't bazillions, but was enough to get my foot in the door of owning a small business (started at 20%) and buying more and more over the past 18 years to the point two years ago where I now own 100% of my company. For an idea of the size of this seed money, I could have taken 12-18 months off and bought a Honda Civic. That would have been it, but it was enough to start to build something and I'm well aware not everyone has that opportunity.

***

I'd say all people with a second-home budget have had a combination of financial luck (I don't consider it completely lucky my entire family is dead, of course. A condo in Canmore means nothing to me compared to the thought of having my family still), the goal (if you don't work and plan toward something like this it won't just fall into your lap regardless of your financial circumstances unless you're, like, a decamillionaire or something) and a dash of hard work. The financial luck is the biggest thing, though. People don't get wealthy because they're so awesome, although many think that's the case. It just isn't, though.

So what now, then? Should I donate what I have to charity and become a monk? I'm 46, have two kids entering a difficult-to-navigate and unpredictable future. I don't have "retire at 46" money, nor would I want to retire even if I could. I want to be a contributive member of society. I complain about working, but really, I would feel like a total deadbeat if I didn't work at my age and I don't think that would be good for my mental health.

Okay, so that's where I'm coming from, but I have to insert my feelings and thoughts on all this into the world and country in which I live. We're capitalists. We're free. If you have money you can buy things. A second home is a bit flashy so easy to pick on. I get it and it's not crazy; however, I think the issue people have (and, in fairness, generally recognize) is with the system and not the individual. And I don't see a better system out there, either, which is the other issue. Communism doesn't work and I don't think any of us would want that, anyway.

Where is that money spent more ethically? I like and appreciate bizaro86's comment:

Originally Posted by bizaro86

This is sort of an interesting point. Travel is totally my thing, and I'm probably close to the carrying costs on a place in Canmore in travel per year in terms of cost. Is me spending a bunch of money taking trips to Australia, Hawaii, and Disney World better than Sliver owning a place in Canmore to chill? That seems like a hard argument. I'm not sure how you would equate carbon emissions from flying all over to habitat destruction from one new condo, but the international travel doesn't seem obviously better to me and I'm biased in favor of it. More of his money is in Canada which is probably better for the economy here.

What would help things? First, I'm 100% supportive - and vote for parties closest to sharing this ideal - of increased taxes. I railed against lowering business taxes under UCP and even quit my membership in CFIB (Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses) over their pushing for - and support of - this measure that took revenue out of public hands that could have helped those less fortunate than profitable business owners (I say profitable because, of course, you're only taxed on your profits).

Most small businesses are a part of CFIB and they advocate for small-business interests through lobbying efforts. They're quite powerful. With that membership, I used to pay lower fees on credit card transactions, payroll processing and several other benefits. This stand costs me several hundred dollars a month, but I refuse to be associated with an organization that pushes for lower taxes on businesses (they should be higher) and fewer employee rights (there should be more). I'm the only small business owner I know making this stand, but I'm going on years doing this and am out thousands of dollars due to my protest. Money well spent, IMO.

I also think there should be punitive tax brackets at certain income levels. Say, anything over, like, $5 million/year is taxed at 95%. Over $4 million/year is taxed at 80%. Over $2.5 million/year is taxed at 65%. Over $1.5 million/year is taxed at 55%. Whatever the numbers and percentages are, you get the idea. Nobody's value is so high that they are entitled to the huge numbers that are contributing to this growing inequality. It's absurd, entitled and greedy that we've allowed things to get so unfair. Bothers me to no end.

That - in my view - is how we wrangle this all in and start building back up our middle class and give people something more in life to look forward to than a weekend where they can run around looking for the best sales on groceries to prep for the next week of toil. If you are bothered by the fact that I own a second home I hope to hell you're voting for parties that want to raise taxes. Let's knock high earners back down to earth and use that to improve the lives of the vast majority of people.

Now, to the second home specifically: Build more houses. This is just a supply thing. I have enough money to two houses. Okay. Well, I didn't kick out some poor family and make them sleep in a cardboard box wearing potato sacks FFS. We have all the land and building materials we could ever want in Canada. There's no shortage of anything. There are great and efficient ways to make pre-fabricated houses that should be used. Increased government tax revenue could even subsidize these buildings. I'm enjoying my life. I actually get less enjoyment than I would like, though, knowing the challenges others face (I faced them myself most of my life). I want more people to have more security.

What is stopping increased supply of houses? Well, in Canmore specifically, NIMBYs. Fuzz - a great guy, I think we'd all agree - has a very typical Canmore attitude. 'It was better when it was just me and mine there, and now everyone has ruined it.' Sorry, but that's everywhere that isn't on a Biff-Tannen Back to the Future II downward death spiral. If you aren't progressing as town/city, you are regressing. Plus, not sure about the rest of you, but I thought Canmore was pretty ####ty from a tourist/vacation area perspective in the 80s and early 90s. Like, there's a reason we all drove right past it and went to Banff. Canmore sucked. Now it's rad and things are more expensive.

Is housing tight in Canmore? Yes, because it is now a vacation destination. In vacation towns - every single one of them - real estate is expensive and living conditions for lower-wage inhabitants adapts. When I lived in Lake Louise there were seven of us in a two-bathroom unit, sharing bedrooms and it was smaller than my current vacation home. That's vacation-town living for the service industry and low earners. Works fine for the transient population that's in for a couple years and then back to Australia or wherever.

What about the middle class permanent Canmore residents? The people working for the town, the foreman at a landscaping company, the teacher...they should be able to live, too, and have a home, right? Did I scoop out a home from underneath them? No, in spite of what a typical Canmore person will tell you. Build more. I support that. They don't.

And it always goes back to this for me: if you think Canmore is too crowded then move out. I don't think it's too crowded. I like Canmore in 2023 a billion times more than Canmore in 1993. I wouldn't want to spend my time there in 1993. I would love to live there full time in 2023. If you think it's too crowded, then move away and STFU. What gives you the right to dictate how Canmore should be and what it should be? Because you called dibs? Because you were here first? I'm at three years with property there - some people have lived there less time than me. Should my voice be louder than theirs because of that? Fk that. Nobody is above anybody and Canmore locals should stop fkn acting like they're in a different class with more valuable input than me. It's NIMBYism, it's selfishness, it's gatekeeping and it's rude.

And on homeownership in general again...some solutions are:

• Ban on Air BnBs. We have hotels for that.
• Build more. (NIMBYs need to STFU or GTFO).
• Change our concept of what an acceptable home is. (pre-fab assembly-line houses seem like a no-brainer here. It's not like your Toyota Corolla is built as a one-off onsite...it's built on a line). Building from scratch onsite is asinine.
• Higher taxes on the rich so they just have less money to toss around.
• We need to lower house prices. How can that be done? A good start would be a cap on realtors' rates. Their minimal efforts are increasing the cost of a $500,000 home by $17,000. It's preposterous and their fee is totally out of whack with their value. We're all paying way too much because of that one industry. Maybe increased interest rates would help, although that should have been done years ago.

If people want a second home, though, let's build more. If you want a second car, we build you another car. You want to replace your perfectly good phone with a new phone? You buy it and another gets built. That doesn't mean there's now somebody walking around out there without a phone.

It's not true that buying a second home has to mean somebody else doesn't get a house of their own. We can build more. The government can subsidize or mandate x percentage of pre-fab/lower cost homes in new developments. Don't look at me, though. I want to be part of the solution. Fuzz and his ilk - while maybe well intentioned? - are part of the problem.

[Slava]

^This is a good post, overall. I disagree with some of your views on business ownership and capitalism though. The reality is that I took the risk when I started my business and made enormous sacrifices to get it to where it is. The fact that I can hire people and now profit off their labour is part of the reward in the risk/reward scenario. You get compensated for that risk, if these risks don't put you out of business in the first couple of years, which as we all know is what happens in about 80% of the cases.

And yeah, inequity does suck. But the harsh reality is that we'll never actually have real economic equality.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is the crux of my problem with this whole attitude - Sliver and people in his economic situation are nothing like oligarchs.

It's just the "everyone who drives slower than me is an idiot and everyone who drives faster than me is a maniac" thing, but in the context of earnings. It's like everyone who earns more money than the average person gets lumped together as "the problem". There is a vast difference from someone who is well-off - say, making $400k in taxable income in a year as a surgeon, or running a small business that's doing well, and a guy with $30 million in net worth making smart investment bets and earning passive income. And there's then another massive difference between that guy and a billionaire. It's like comparing someone who works minimum wage in Calgary to a poor person in Somalia - your entire outlook is too simplistic.

OK. But let’s be clear that someone with a taxable income of $400k is rich - probably in the top 2-3 per cent in income in one of the richest countries in the world. And the social and economic problems of inequality that we’re experiencing in Canada today aren’t just about the oligarchs vs the 99.5 per cent. The top 10 per cent is pulling away from the 90 per cent as we become a winner-take-all society. And housing is absolutely one of the areas where this is an evident and worsening problem.

But since we don’t like to talk about class in Canada, we pretend that households earning $40k, $90k, $150k, and $400k are all middle class and all being screwed over by the Jeff Bezos and Elon Musks of the world.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I own a small business. If I pay my staff $1, I'm going to want, say $0.25 in my own pocket, which is my profit on their labour. That just sucks. It's exploitive and I have to look these people in the eye everyday.

I agree with a lot of what you said in that post, but feeling shame about making a profit is just dumb. There's no point in hiring staff if you're not profiting off their labor in some way. It's not like you're using slave labor...your employees get job security and (presumably) a fair wage. And as a business owner, you take on all the risk, the equipment costs, the marital/family costs, the loans, the opportunity cost, the stress....why do all that if there's no monetary incentive?

Don't feel shame for your success. Small businesses are an economic backbone of our economy (they make up something like 98% of businesses in Canada). As long as you are treating people fairly along the way, you should be proud of your success in life.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I agree with a lot of what you said in that post, but feeling shame about making a profit is just dumb. There's no point in hiring staff if you're not profiting off their labor in some way. It's not like you're using slave labor...your employees get job security and (presumably) a fair wage. And as a business owner, you take on all the risk, the equipment costs, the marital/family costs, the loans, the opportunity cost, the stress....why do all that if there's no monetary incentive?

Don't feel shame for your success. Small businesses are an economic backbone of our economy (they make up something like 98% of businesses in Canada). As long as you are treating people fairly along the way, you should be proud of your success in life.

To add to this, businesses take huge risks. And when it's a small business that risk is on the the individual and their family. It's great to own a business when things are flowing. When things dry up and you have $50k+/month of bills and salaries to pay, not so great.

And most small businesses fail. Leaving the owners out huge amounts of cash and potentially losing their life savings, homes, etc...

Also, business owners do not get the luxury of leaving anything at the office. They don't work 9-5 and then turn off their computers.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

OK. But let’s be clear that someone with a taxable income of $400k is rich - probably in the top 2-3 per cent in income in one of the richest countries in the world. And the social and economic problems of inequality that we’re experiencing in Canada today aren’t just about the oligarchs vs the 99.5 per cent. The top 10 per cent is pulling away from the 90 per cent as we become a winner-take-all society. And housing is absolutely one of the areas where this is an evident and worsening problem.

But since we don’t like to talk about class in Canada, we pretend that households earning $40k, $90k, $150k, and $400k are all middle class and all being screwed over by the Jeff Bezos and Elon Musks of the world.

A big part of what kept things even was wealth built through home ownership. If you were making $50k/year, you could afford to buy a home for $300k, that would be worth $500k in the future. If you were making $200k/year, you'd buy a home for $400k that might be worth $1,000,00 in the future. Now, only the top end are buying financially sound properties. Home prices going through the roof is probably the biggest factor in terms of the widening wealth gap in Canada.

If you bought a home in Canada 10+ years ago, you probably made hundreds of thousands of tax free dollars and might even be looking at a second home. If you don't own a home now, good luck saving the $100k+ (after tax dollars) you need for a down payment and then keeping up with vastly increasing interest rate payments.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

OK. But let’s be clear that someone with a taxable income of $400k is rich - probably in the top 2-3 per cent in income in one of the richest countries in the world. And the social and economic problems of inequality that we’re experiencing in Canada today aren’t just about the oligarchs vs the 99.5 per cent. The top 10 per cent is pulling away from the 90 per cent as we become a winner-take-all society. And housing is absolutely one of the areas where this is an evident and worsening problem.

But since we don’t like to talk about class in Canada, we pretend that households earning $40k, $90k, $150k, and $400k are all middle class and all being screwed over by the Jeff Bezos and Elon Musks of the world.

I feel like we talk about class all the time in Canada. It's part of the "we'll just tax the rich and the corporations" lexicon that comes into our election discourse every time. Of course, rich just means people who make more than me and corporations just mean bigger, facelss corporations. It's definitely not our friends and neighbors, or heaven forbid it was about me!

Honestly, Sliver is maybe the only guy I've heard push for more taxes on his corporation. I give him a lot of credit for that, even though he could be a full-blown communist!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Slava

I feel like we talk about class all the time in Canada. It's part of the "we'll just tax the rich and the corporations" lexicon that comes into our election discourse every time. Of course, rich just means people who make more than me and corporations just mean bigger, facelss corporations. It's definitely not our friends and neighbors, or heaven forbid it was about me!

We might call the poorest 10 per cent disadvantaged, and the top 1 per cent rich. But we don’t like to talk about the important economic and social gradients of the 89 per cent of us who fall in between. There’s a reason Canadian politicians always say they’re fighting for the middle class - they know that everyone who earns between 40k and 400k will think it’s about them.

As owning property becomes intergenerational - renters all the children of renters and homeowners all people handed down money and property, while people choose marriage partners based on property status like in a Jane Austen novel - it will become increasingly difficult to ignore class in this country.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Magna Carta

I want to be very clear, that I meant this sincerely:

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

It's not Sliver's fault for wanting a second house.

I have a similar attitude on a lot of the things that you mentioned in your post, and take similar personal actions. We're aligned on a lot.

I'm by no means moving my family from my detached inner city SFH into a row house to take a stand, even though I think that is the type of home ownership that is more beneficial for society in the case of a family like ours. The existence of my large yard is contributing to taking away an opportunity for housing form someone else, and I don't think I'm wealthy enough to justify being able to afford that.

There is no implication you should sell your place in Canmore or feel bad about it.

My point is purely that many luxury choices are artificially cheap, and don't represent their cost to broader society. I use cheap pretty loosely here, as this relates to taxation of wealth as well as the lack of ability of our free market to properly price in things like environmental impact etc.

So I am saying that the systems that let people pay dick all for taxes and buy yachts, or contribute to the rising rates of second home ownership, or a huge amount of people live in inner city houses taking up extra wide lots like my house absolutely contribute to other people struggling to attain housing.

Is it on us to give up what we have to fix it? Nope. Helping where an individual can (charity, creating jobs etc) is great. As is voting.

But we have a problem, IMO.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I want to be very clear, that I meant this sincerely:

I have a similar attitude on a lot of the things that you mentioned in your post, and take similar personal actions. We're aligned on a lot.

I'm by no means moving my family from my detached inner city SFH into a row house to take a stand, even though I think that is the type of home ownership that is more beneficial for society in the case of a family like ours. The existence of my large yard is contributing to taking away an opportunity for housing form someone else, and I don't think I'm wealthy enough to justify being able to afford that.

There is no implication you should sell your place in Canmore or feel bad about it.

My point is purely that many luxury choices are artificially cheap, and don't represent their cost to broader society. I use cheap pretty loosely here, as this relates to taxation of wealth as well as the lack of ability of our free market to properly price in things like environmental impact etc.

So I am saying that the systems that let people pay dick all for taxes and buy yachts, or contribute to the rising rates of second home ownership, or a huge amount of people live in inner city houses taking up extra wide lots like my house absolutely contribute to other people struggling to attain housing.

Is it on us to give up what we have to fix it? Nope. Helping where an individual can (charity, creating jobs etc) is great. As is voting.

But we have a problem, IMO.

Boy, you took the brunt of my full-on assault, eh? Haha, didn't mean it like that FWIW. Was just a jumping off point.

I agree with your post here.

Out of thanks at the moment.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by GGG

I find this funny. Because of you want less wildlife encounters in town then perhaps expanding the town into a wildlife corridor isnt good idea.

Regardless of whether someone is for or against this proposal it will increase Human / Animal conflict in Canmore. So if your goal is too push away bears and cougars then you should oppose this development.

I would much rather have cougars in the city while I'm still young enough for them.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Sliver

-snip-

What is stopping increased supply of houses? Well, in Canmore specifically, NIMBYs. Fuzz - a great guy, I think we'd all agree - has a very typical Canmore attitude. 'It was better when it was just me and mine there, and now everyone has ruined it.' Sorry, but that's everywhere that isn't on a Biff-Tannen Back to the Future II downward death spiral. If you aren't progressing as town/city, you are regressing. Plus, not sure about the rest of you, but I thought Canmore was pretty ####ty from a tourist/vacation area perspective in the 80s and early 90s. Like, there's a reason we all drove right past it and went to Banff. Canmore sucked. Now it's rad and things are more expensive.

Is housing tight in Canmore? Yes, because it is now a vacation destination. In vacation towns - every single one of them - real estate is expensive and living conditions for lower-wage inhabitants adapts. When I lived in Lake Louise there were seven of us in a two-bathroom unit, sharing bedrooms and it was smaller than my current vacation home. That's vacation-town living for the service industry and low earners. Works fine for the transient population that's in for a couple years and then back to Australia or wherever.

What about the middle class permanent Canmore residents? The people working for the town, the foreman at a landscaping company, the teacher...they should be able to live, too, and have a home, right? Did I scoop out a home from underneath them? No, in spite of what a typical Canmore person will tell you. Build more. I support that. They don't.

And it always goes back to this for me: if you think Canmore is too crowded then move out. I don't think it's too crowded. I like Canmore in 2023 a billion times more than Canmore in 1993. I wouldn't want to spend my time there in 1993. I would love to live there full time in 2023. If you think it's too crowded, then move away and STFU. What gives you the right to dictate how Canmore should be and what it should be? Because you called dibs? Because you were here first? I'm at three years with property there - some people have lived there less time than me. Should my voice be louder than theirs because of that? Fk that. Nobody is above anybody and Canmore locals should stop fkn acting like they're in a different class with more valuable input than me. It's NIMBYism, it's selfishness, it's gatekeeping and it's rude.
-snip-

Just a couple quick points here. You thought Canmore sucked in the early 90's, but the Canmore of that day was what residents loved. Canmore wasn't Banff, it was a point of pride for many.Does that help you understand why they resist turning their home into what they tried to avoid?

As for telling the residents to STFU and deal with it, I think that's kind of bull####. The residents are who built the Bow Valley for you. They are the ones who established a community, took care of the ski hills, kept Banff running, and build a town where people knew each other and cared about it. And you are gleefully tearing that down, to create a town where nobody knows each other, or cares about anything, really. Their input is more valuable than theirs, because they live in it every day and continue to contribute tot he community, whereas weekenders show up, use whatever they want, and leave. The day to day of running the town is irrelevant to them. It is not to residents. This might be obvious, given that vast majority of residents oppose this expansion. Maybe instead of lashing out at them, you could try to understand it from their perspective?