Pay the tax. Owning a home in a crowded city, not living in it the vast majority of the time, and refusing to rent it out to people who desperately want to live there imposes a negative externality on the city, which you need to pay for.
"Owning a home in a crowded city, not living in it the vast majority of the time, and refusing to rent it out to people who desperately want to live there imposes a negative externality on the city"
It is proposed that doing so imposes a negative externality.
That proposal is not without counterpoints, however.
Specifically: that the owners of those homes not only pay their full property taxes already, but they impose fewer costs on the infrastructure of the city while not being present. They don't drive on the roads or walk on the trails or use the public restrooms, etc.
Look, I proposed a hypothetical situation[1] that has nothing at all to do with Chinese speculators buying up housing assets in a safe haven market. I proposed an unintended consequence on an otherwise innocent, well meaning actor. It's very interesting to note that the response is, basically, "too bad for them".
My parents are in this very position, having bought a condo in Vancouver to live in part time. Their principle residence is in a small town in the BC interior. They're pretty upset about the tax, and it's not hard to see why.
They could declare the condo their principle residence, but then they would encounter complications regarding their vehicles, which are typically not used in the city. (They prefer transit, and trucks don't fit into condo parking spots well)
They aren't participating in property speculation and have owned the condo for around 5 years now.
So, I think they are a good example of innocent, well meaning actors who are being unfairly taxed by a law that is well-intentioned but not quite properly formulated.
I'm suspicious of statement [1] given that you know where Golden is and why people would want to live there. ;)
I think you're right there is probably isn't a loonie cost to the city that can be recouped with this vacancy tax. But I also think your counter-point is moot. Vancouver isn't trying to keep revenues up, it's trying to encourage a certain behaviour, namely more housing and rentals on the market.
While I do think this vacancy tax is a good idea that could help out affordability in Vancouver, I agree with you that it's far from the best that Vancouver could do and is really only addressing the symptoms rather than the cause.
No, sell the house quickly before prices go down too much. Rent a house for the 3 months you stay there. It's going to be cheaper than the tax and you cash in some money.
Or AB&B the house all the time you're not there. Would that count as renting?
