Whistler condo owners are speaking out against a bid by municipal planners to rejig the terms under which owners of some tourist-accommodation units operate.
Whistler’s new official community plan (OCP), due to return to municipal council this month, would impose restrictions on the use of Phase 1 tourist-accommodation units. Owners enjoy unlimited use of the units, but must make the units available for use by Whistler visitors when not in use. Units are assessed at residential tax rates.
Phase 2 units, by contrast, are located primarily in the village core and use by owners is limited to a maximum of just 56 days a year. They’re also subject to a centralized management system and pay non-residential tax rates.
There are about 2,000 units in both phases. Phase 1 units are primarily located outside the village core. The units currently command a premium because of the lack of restrictions on their use. Phase 2 units sell at a discount, and even then are a hard sell, on account of restrictions.
“In exchange for liberal rental rights and personal use rights, and their residential tax status, Phase 1 unit owners paid a huge premium purchase price, extremely big – we’re talking hundreds of thousands of dollars,” said Sue Chappel, CEO of AlluraDirect.com Vacation Rentals Ltd. and a Phase 1 owner. Allura typically lists between 500 and 525 tourist accommodation units in Whistler.
Chappel said the proposed OCP changes will also hit Phase 1 owners with commercial property tax rates proportional to the number of nights their units operate as tourist accommodation. This will require them to keep records documenting the exact number of nights their units were rented to guests. Plans for a central check-in service would help eliminate this, but she says this will create an extra step for guests who now deal directly with owners.
The higher property taxes and record-keeping costs that could hit Phase 1 owners would diminish the value of units and ultimately be borne in part by Whistler visitors.
“It impacts the whole community,” she said of the proposed changes.
Meanwhile, in Vancouver, last week’s consideration of the Shannon Mews rezoning at Granville Street and West 57th Avenue triggered a public demonstration by citizens upset with what organizers characterized as chronic disregard for community opinions when it comes to planning endeavours.
CityHallWatch.ca, a site co-ordinated by Randy Helton of the West End Neighbours Association, says Mayor Gregor Robertson has stepped away from his pledge made as a newly minted mayor in December 2008 that citizen engagement is, “more than just us being out in the community, it’s about the community being in City Hall.” CityHallWatch says Vision Vancouver councillors have been too developer-friendly.
“The voting record of Vision Vancouver on significant planning decisions that affect neighbourhoods shows Vision voting as a bloc – and almost always siding with developer interests, not with local communities,” the site claims.
The demonstration attracted more than 100 people (by a rough, walk-by estimate) in front of city hall prior to public hearings regarding the rezoning of Shannon Mews and 105-167 West 2nd Avenue.
The mixed crowd was a cross-section of Vancouver residents, and while skewed to the 50-plus age group, many arrived on foot, bike and transit for the rally.
The shift the rally targeted predates Vision Vancouver’s term, however. While placards voiced the ongoing concern of how the Norquay neighbourhood plan was handled, this columnist recalls the comment made by planning director Brent Toderian during a Simon Fraser University City Program lecture in fall 2006 regarding his mandate as a public servant. The best decision is not always the most popular decision, he said, but he pledged to listen to all sides of an issue before staff made its recommendation to council.
“Listening is key,” Toderian told his audience. “Agreeing is, certainly, a different thing.”
With the civic election coming up in November, there will definitely be much to hear, and resolve.
An update is in order on that other contentious issue affecting local property owners – the economic impact of bike lanes.
A city-commissioned study undertaken by the Vancouver Economic Development Commission and presented to council last week pegged the net drop in sales due to the Hornby Street bike lane at 10%, while the Dunsmuir lane reduced sales at local businesses by 4%. The report estimated the combined loss at $2.4 million annually – “relatively moderate based on industry standards and, in general, insufficient to create persistent vacancies.”
Strategies to mitigate the effect in the stretches of each street that were particularly affected, including the 500, 600, 900 and 1000 blocks of Hornby and the 600 block of Dunsmuir Street, focus on improved signage to the closest parkade.
Report author Iona Bonamis of Stantec Consulting noted that the study suffered from a lack of significant participation by the business community and the absence of sufficient data to support perceptions of the lanes’ impacts.
The report closes with an assurance that city staff will examine the study of the bike lanes’ impact “in order to modify both its consultation and monitoring programs in regard to the planning and introduction of new facilities, and on-going monitoring programs such as separated bike lanes that relocate road space.”
The report does not mention when the lanes, originally introduced temporarily, will become permanent or be removed.