[afransen]

Even those taking advantage of STRs are generally very well heeled, prices are often quite steep relative to traditional hotels, never mind camping.

Not sure I agree. STRs in northern Ontario are a more affordable option for vacationing than flying a family just about anywhere.

 

[Northern Light]

This is some bizarre anti-capitalist fantasy

It is not bizarre, nor anti-capitalist. I earn my money, in a free'ish, market economy. You are welcome to disagree, but can we lose the pejorative hyperbole please.

that won't fly with most Canadians.

I disagree. The vast majority of Canadians neither own nor rent cottages.

8% of all Canadians own a cottage - meaning 92% do not.

Source: https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/1-6-17-...t-2-3-years40-those-looking-buy-plan-rent-out

Of those who own cottages in the Muskokas only 11% are renting them out, 89% are not.

Source: https://cottagelife.com/general/num...remain-low-in-muskoka-according-to-new-study/

I find it improbable that this move would generate a negative public swell of significance.

I doubt the "cost of cottaging" makes it to the top ten list of most Canadians, let alone middle income families.

I didn't suggest that it did. I simply see no reason to exempt cottage properties from the same rule that should be applied to cities.

If you want to run a hotel, run a hotel, but it has to be zoned,. taxed and insured as one.

 

[lenaitch]

Let be clear, the cottage-ownership class in Muskoka is now quite an elite group and a very small portion of the voting public.

Preventing properties from being used this way would likely force large scale sales, which would depress the market price substantially, and in turn make cottage ownership more accessible to more families.

True for 'new money' ownership but there is a lot of old money family vacation properties. The ones I know I would hardly call "elite". Vacation country extends well beyond Muskoka into areas that are quite accessible by the average, non-elite taxpayer.

People who have gone into significant debt would probably be placed into financial difficulty if their needed rental income were to be taken away. Depressing the market in a significant way might also depress the economies of entire tourist dependent regions. I'm not sure how making cottage ownership more accessible by driving out the old guard for the new ends up solving anything, except perhaps creating a new generation of 'elites'. It's not like it's going to help the housing situation.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm not sure how making cottage ownership more accessible by driving out the old guard for the new ends up solving anything, except perhaps creating a new generation of 'elites'. It's not like it's going to help the housing situation.

Articulated better than me. But this is why I called it anti-capitalist. It's an idea that seeks nothing more than redistribution of property. It's not actually addressing any real housing concerns.

Urban STRs are problematic because they displace people who need housing, by turning condos into hotel rooms and houses into hostels. I don't see how cottage STRs are problematic when the people renting them are using them for exact purpose intended: recreation. Generally speaking, it's not displacing a potential long term resident.

And as for who makes money off that? I fail to see why this is a public policy concern. It's where this idea becomes anti-capitalist. Investing in cottages is arguably okay because it helps boost tourism in those areas. It makes those areas accessible to a much wider swath of the population, while making someone money and creating jobs for locals. Arguing that cottages should be kept cheap for a handful of mostly upper middle class owners to exclusively use? That's elitist to top it off. So some poor immigrant kid from Toronto (me in the 90s) shouldn't be able to experience "cottaging" because my parents weren't old money enough to buy one when they were cheap?

 

[kEiThZ]

The vast majority of Canadians neither own nor rent cottages.

8% of all Canadians own a cottage - meaning 92% do not.

I don't think this statistic means much. Ate there millions of people desperate to own a cottage missing out because of STRs? Cause that is happening with housing.

Of those who own cottages in the Muskokas only 11% are renting them out, 89% are not.

And your idea would make this worse. The way to improve accessibility is to make it as easy as possible for more people to rent out their cottages.


Also, a bit strange that you don't want policy to enable home ownership (going by your previous statement about a lack of sympathy for young people who want to own a home) but you care so much about equity for cottage ownership. I think you'll find that the average young person wants to own their home to avoid the insecurities of renting and they'd rather rent that cottage and not have the obligations of ownership.

This has to be the weirdest exchange about housing that I've had with a Boomer in a while.

 

[Northern Light]

..... It's not actually addressing any real housing concerns.

1) Its about applying a principle consistently; absent evidence that justifies an exception.

Urban STRs are problematic because they displace people who need housing, by turning condos into hotel rooms and houses into hostels. I don't see how cottage STRs are problematic when the people renting them are using them for exact purpose intended: recreation. Generally speaking, it's not displacing a potential long term resident.

Insofar as it drives up the cost of ownership, it naturally displaces some potential residents be they permanent or seasonal. I can assure you there is a shortage of affordable units for resort workers in many areas, including the muskokas as units that used to be rentable for a season have become completely unaffordable. Previously one might get space, personal or shared, for as little as $800 per month just a few years ago. That price point is now is now 2-days in STR, or sometimes 1.

And as for who makes money off that? I fail to see why this is a public policy concern.

Your failure to understand is a problem, but it does not make the policy proposal anti-capitalist.

Investing in cottages is arguably okay because it helps boost tourism in those areas.

This presumes a significant net gain in total population, on a full-year basis, with the same number of buildings; while excluding the displacement effect on locals, seasonal, low-wage workers and others.

It also doesn't generate the investment in tourist amenities that hotels/resorts create; while diminishing the economic return of same.

It makes those areas accessible to a much wider swath of the population, while making someone money and creating jobs for locals.

Evidence, please. I do not agree w/this conclusion in the absence of evidence that validates it.

Arguing that cottages should be kept cheap for a handful of mostly upper middle class owners to exclusively use?

That's not what I'm arguing. Its disingenuous to suggest as much.

The knock-down pressure of lower prices has multiple side effects; it generates more hotel rooms for one; it also generates more campgrounds and other facilities.

That's elitist to top it off. So some poor immigrant kid from Toronto (me in the 90s) shouldn't be able to experience "cottaging" because my parents weren't old money enough to buy one when they were cheap?

This piece will suggest to you that immigrants are currently a rare sight in cottage country and even less likely to be owners. Making the price point more accessible by booting investors would likely increase diversity in cottage country, not the other way around.

Throughout its history, cottage culture has been about who we want to be seen as rather than who we truly are

Sabrina Maddeaux: While we tend to link it in our minds to a sentimentality for the past, cottage culture has always been influenced by the values of the times

nationalpost.com

I would point out that cottage country used to be accessible to lower-middle income parents like mine.

Neither of my parents ever owned a house. But while together, they were able to afford a cottage in the Kawarthas.

Also, scandinavia shows some of the highest ownership of recreational/cottage properties in the world.

Its part of a fairer, more equal society.,

It also means restrictions on what those properties can be.

Which is to say, when I was a child, cottages rarely had indoor plumbing, you used an outhouse. There was no such thing as heating or air conditioning (for the most part). A cottage was a modest structure in size that providing you a roof, walls and windows, and maybe a woodburning stove for warmth and cooking. It provided highly affordable access to the outdoors.

The STR culture has been part of the movie make these places 4-seasons and lux, causing them to be priced well beyond the poor irrespective of income.

A quick search of Airbnb shows a median price of ~$400 per night for cottages in the Muskokas. Not too many low-folks snapping that up.

 

[afransen]

Insofar as it drives up the cost of ownership, it naturally displaces some potential residents be they permanent or seasonal. I can assure you there is a shortage of affordable units for resort workers in many areas, including the muskokas as units that used to be rentable for a season have become completely unaffordable. Previously one might get space, personal or shared, for as little as $800 per month just a few years ago. That price point is now is now 2-days in STR, or sometimes 1.

I doubt many seasonal resort workers would be living in waterfront vacation properties.

 

[afransen]

A quick search of Airbnb shows a median price of ~$400 per night for cottages in the Muskokas. Not too many low-folks snapping that up.

I know recent immigrants who live in rooming houses who as a group rented a STR cottage for a weekend getaway. $400 a night is not bad when split between 6 adults for a weekend getaway. Try bringing a family of four anywhere with flight and accommodation for a week for less money.

 

[kEiThZ]

That we went from "I have no sympathy for young people who want to own a home" to "we need to diversify the ownership class of cottages" in a handful of pages is.....I don't have words for that.

Whatever this is, as a fortysomething who has lived and traveled all over this country, I'll just say that I've never once encountered a person who thought diversity of cottage ownership is an issue on par with the rest of the housing crisis.

 

[evandyk]

We rent cottages every year because members of my family like that type of thing but we could never afford to own one. But the prices are eye-watering. A cottage within reach of Toronto will cost more per night than an apartment in Copenhagen. We did both last summer, and Copenhagen was 25% cheaper.

That said, we probably wouldn’t have done either without Air BnB/VRBO, so they do open up opportunities for people.

 

[evandyk]

And yeah, obviously short term rentals of cottages in muskoka is not a contributing factor to the housing crisis. Short term rentals in Toronto are.

 

[kEiThZ]

We rent cottages every year because members of my family like that type of thing but we could never afford to own one. But the prices are eye-watering. A cottage within reach of Toronto will cost more per night than an apartment in Copenhagen. We did both last summer, and Copenhagen was 25% cheaper.

That said, we probably wouldn’t have done either without Air BnB/VRBO, so they do open up opportunities for people.

Agreed. I broadly see STRs are improving access for those who wouldn't and/or couldn't normally own a cottage. I don't see how access can be improved if the ability to rent them is removed.

And yeah, obviously short term rentals of cottages in muskoka is not a contributing factor to the housing crisis. Short term rentals in Toronto are.

The difference should be obvious to most. But we're also talking to a Boomer who can't understand why a young family might want to actually own the place they live and not live under the constant threat of renoviction or simply displacement by landlord fiat:

I don't own a house, and while I'm quite comfortable in my standard of living, I don't have kids, a choice I made long ago.

I'm perfectly fine w/my taxes going to support a child benefit, and to support universal healthcare, affordable childcare, modest university/college tuitions and help for low and lower-middle income seniors.

However, I'm not ok w/my tax dollars going to support the home ownership ambitions of a household whose income is higher than my own.

I'd try to explain why parents try to own the home where they live, but I suspect it's hard for somebody who never had kids to actually understand the value of providing stability to a child and where that value ranks relative to cheap college later. Also, most people who have kids have higher incomes than retired seniors. That's needed to provide for those kids.

 

[Northern Light]

I doubt many seasonal resort workers would be living in waterfront vacation properties.

Who said all of these properties were waterfront?

And until they were souped up for STR, how many were resort-style vacation properties either?

I think you're projecting.

The same logic could be applied to Toronto's real estate market.

The above logic would have it that why should we restrict STRs in Toronto? First off, clearly we're denying low income earners the chance to vacation in Toronto if we do. Also, who would actually live in waterfront condo or really any condo, if they were a seasonal, or part-time or low-wage worker?

Oh wait........the point of the restriction isn't making the condo affordable to rent, its making the condo affordable to own, such than renters buy it, freeing up rental units at lower price points.

 

[Northern Light]

I know recent immigrants who live in rooming houses who as a group rented a STR cottage for a weekend getaway. $400 a night is not bad when split between 6 adults for a weekend getaway. Try bringing a family of four anywhere with flight and accommodation for a week for less money.

Anecdotal evidence is fair; but should be supported by something more substantial.

I know a wide range of people in a wide range of incomes having come from a low-income background and been moderately successful.

I can tell you, I don't currently know a single cottage owner, or renter in my entire social circle of hundreds.

 

[kEiThZ]

the point of the restriction isn't making the condo affordable to rent

It's both. Units moving to the STR market increase rents and purchase prices. Renters and buyers have to compete with the cashflow potential of an STR. Heck, there's a whole hidden market where people run STR businesses using rented condos.

The above could be true of cottages. But again, there's really no clear case for why government should intervene. Cottages aren't essential housing.