Foreign buyers tax in the Okanagan

[Urban Cowboy]

I know a couple that bought a mobile needing work for $25k in Westbank and they are more than happy to spend the summers in it. I still see them for sale for $50-75k and these would be a good option for people to get a first home.

I see a lot of young people turn their noses up at mobiles, or leased land and other affordable options. Too much DIY television where they all expect granite counters and hardwood flooring as a first home.

And with that post I'd say you nailed it squarely on the head.

Far too many think they are entitled to have from the start, all the things their parents worked a lifetime to achieve.

I've watched some of those house hunter type shows on HGTV, and my goodness the expectations some of these newlywed wives have are just flat out ridiculous. In fact many of them view the term "starter home" as an insult.

How much you want to bet, these are the same types that complain about affordability in the Okanagan?

Maybe it's not a housing crisis at all, but more of an outrageous expectations crisis.

I've met some folk who are quite happy in a mobile as a permanent home, and they'd rather save their money for travel, or other things.

[LANDM]

What if we were talking about absent people buying and holding downtown parking lots unusable for 6 months of the year?

We aren’t.
But, it happens all the time where land in town becomes vacant and is not used for anything for a long time and you have no idea who owns it. Your point?

[sublime]

I know a couple that bought a mobile needing work for $25k in Westbank and they are more than happy to spend the summers in it. I still see them for sale for $50-75k and these would be a good option for people to get a first home.

I see a lot of young people turn their noses up at mobiles, or leased land and other affordable options. Too much DIY television where they all expect granite counters and hardwood flooring as a first home.

I guess in the same breath this would be ideal for someone on the other end of the spectrum too? You know the about to retire and or the person that currently owns a 6,7,800k vacation/to retire in home that doesn't want to pay all that tax? I guess that means there's plenty of options for both sides or are retirees too superior for a mobile? It works both ways.

[sublime]

Your home is your own private domain, and as long as you pay your taxes, and behave as a law abiding citizen, no one should have the right to tell you, what you have to do with your property, at risk of penalty for non compliance.

I feel like your opinion below then is a bit hypocritical.

Whereas these Air BNB's are nothing more than a revolving door commercial operation. If one wants to run a hotel/motel then build or buy a hotel or motel.

-

Create zones where tiny homes are allowed, and create some more mobile home parks. Housing problem solved!

Techie I do appreciate some constructive alternatives you proposed, so lets dive deeper. So whats the incentives then for these developments? The ones that aren't making 700k presales? We aren't talking the Ellas or Westcrops... Tax incentives? Government purchased land? Either way the tax payers will be paying for it, so are you ready to contribute to help alleviate the housing issue via taxes? If there's no incentives the money hungry will keep building these overpriced developments that do nothing to fix the long term issue. Honest questions...

[Urban Cowboy]

I know a couple that bought a mobile needing work for $25k in Westbank and they are more than happy to spend the summers in it. I still see them for sale for $50-75k and these would be a good option for people to get a first home.

I see a lot of young people turn their noses up at mobiles, or leased land and other affordable options. Too much DIY television where they all expect granite counters and hardwood flooring as a first home.

I guess in the same breath this would be ideal for someone on the other end of the spectrum too? You know the about to retire and or the person that currently owns a 6,7,800k vacation/to retire in home that doesn't want to pay all that tax? I guess that means there's plenty of options for both sides or are retirees too superior for a mobile? It works both ways.

Yet the ones in that part of the spectrum, aren't the ones crying about lack of affordable housing, so other than an ill conceived pot shot at a demographic you appear to dislike, what's your point?

Additionally, I can also direct you toward quite a number of retirees, that reside in just such a dwelling, hence your remark has no teeth.

[sublime]

so other than an ill conceived pot shot at a demographic you appear to dislike, what's your point?

Additionally, I can also direct you toward quite a number of retirees, that reside in just such a dwelling, hence your remark has no teeth.

I personally didn't even notice your hypothetical mention about pot. I didn't think being hypothetical was constructive to any conversation. Affordable housing is a community investment. If you could care less about the community as a whole rich, poor or otherwise then you appear selfish.

I'd beg to differ about having "no teeth." It's another option for those that don't want to pay so much tax. Just like its another option for people looking to enter the housing market. All constructive as this is not a black and white issue. We are stating through conversation that there is options for both sides of the spectrum. Not the end of the world as some sensationalists are making it out to be.

[Snowbound]

I know a couple that bought a mobile needing work for $25k in Westbank and they are more than happy to spend the summers in it. I still see them for sale for $50-75k and these would be a good option for people to get a first home.

I see a lot of young people turn their noses up at mobiles, or leased land and other affordable options. Too much DIY television where they all expect granite counters and hardwood flooring as a first home.

I guess in the same breath this would be ideal for someone on the other end of the spectrum too? You know the about to retire and or the person that currently owns a 6,7,800k vacation/to retire in home that doesn't want to pay all that tax? I guess that means there's plenty of options for both sides or are retirees too superior for a mobile? It works both ways.

Sublime,

Many retirees in fact already live in mobiles. Many of the parks are 55+ just for that reason.

They are not "superior" to anybody. But if they can afford a more expensive place, they earned it and punishing them through taxes is not something I support. What's next, start taxing people who have 2 cars? Some people can't even afford one car!

This is the New Left mentality. Punish those that have more than themselves because it's not "fair". God forbid you work hard for something and earn it for yourselves.

[eires37]

Lol I've lived her for 13 years, I just love getting a rise out of the occasional D-bag... truth hurts most to those green with envy.

Only D-bag I see here is some moron saying that the whole OK serves Ab masters. At this point, all you white sunglasses wearin *bleep* have retreated back across the Rockies and the new wave is from Van. I’ll take a hippy over a rig pig any day.

There's that jealousy again. You're not smart enough to realize that there's a lot of locals that are oilfield workers and rely on that industry... My bad for playing mindgames with someone who clearly holds no cards.

[Urban Cowboy]

Your home is your own private domain, and as long as you pay your taxes, and behave as a law abiding citizen, no one should have the right to tell you, what you have to do with your property, at risk of penalty for non compliance.

I feel like your opinion below then is a bit hypocritical.

Whereas these Air BNB's are nothing more than a revolving door commercial operation. If one wants to run a hotel/motel then build or buy a hotel or motel.

Only hypocritical if you fail to compare apples to apples, or disregard the part where I specifically said "law abiding" citizen. My opinion on AirBNB's stands, as these are people running commercial enterprises in residential areas, and more importantly directly competing with legitimate hotels/motels, who have to adhere to stricter rules, and contribute more to the municipality by means of taxes attached to what they do.

By contrast Air BNB's are flying under the radar, quite possibly in many cases operating for cash, and negatively affecting their neighborhood in a number of examples, as in noise issues, parking issues, quite possibly permitting issues too, though city staff have been working on addressing loopholes in that regard.

In most residential areas, though one can conduct a business from home, there are quite a lot of regulations in play that dictate just what is and what isn't acceptable, and make no mistake Air BNB's are a business, so if everyone was law abiding and behaving like a good neighbor, there wouldn't have been such a stink raised about these places.

By accounts given, it appears at least on the surface, that a number of these operations aren't exactly law abiding.

Had it been a court of law articulating my thoughts, rather than me, I believe the term that would have been included in explaining a home owners rights, is something along the lines of "reasonable enjoyment". For someone to save up for years and then purchase a summer home is reasonable, as is their reluctance to risk what might happen to their investment upon renting to strangers, whereas having a leftist government, dictate to these same folk, that either you rent your place out when you are gone, or we'll tax the pants off you, is the epitome of unreasonable.

Create zones where tiny homes are allowed, and create some more mobile home parks. Housing problem solved!

Whereas these Air BNB's are nothing more than a revolving door commercial operation. If one wants to run a hotel/motel then build or buy a hotel or motel.

Techie I do appreciate some constructive alternatives you proposed, so lets dive deeper. So whats the incentives then for these developments? The ones that aren't making 700k presales? We aren't talking the Ellas or Westcrops... Tax incentives? Government purchased land? Either way the tax payers will be paying for it, so are you ready to contribute to help alleviate the housing issue via taxes? If there's no incentives the money hungry will keep building these overpriced developments that do nothing to fix the long term issue. Honest questions...

Well one possibility I mentioned already is perhaps the province and feds could work together and set aside some crown land for such an endeavor.
Another incentive is that there is a market for such a product, and generally where there's a market, someone is willing to provide the product. Problem is tiny homes don't conform to current building requirements, thus the first step is those would have to be changed to allow them is specific locations only.

Not sure about tax incentives as the miniscule size of the dwellings already makes property tax negligible. If it has to be then sure I'd be willing to contribute, if it helps get someone homeless off the streets.

Either way we end up paying anyway. With this current ill conceived plan, we'll simply be paying by way of lost income, as the NDP do everything in their power to disrupt the natural economic landscape of BC. In the end lining their pockets, but not making any headway in regards to the problem anyway. In fact many suggest it will do the opposite and make things worse.

Bearing in mind that many of the homeless have mental issues, another approach could well be for government to provide a community of tiny homes here and there where needed, with someone put in place to supervise and keep and eye out for these damaged ones. That would probably still be cheaper than having them institutionalized, and put them in a safer atmosphere yet at the same time give them freedom.

I have no issue with taxes that are proven to be constructive, but when it's some doomed to failure, blatant attempt to pick the pockets of honest hard working folk, under some pretense of helping the needy, well then it just doesn't fly.

No government is perfect, but most competent ones, run the numbers, then sit down and mull over how any proposed plan might affect other things, or have unintended consequences, before putting it in motion, whereas time and time again, the NDP demonstrate ineptitude, by implementing policies that are drowning in consequences, they were too dumb to foresee. Once in a while can be excused, but constant repetition of the same lack of foresight, not so much.

[alanjh595]

Jealous of what? I’ve worked in the patch, it’s not some holy grail. Luckily I’ve got multiple red seals and I wasn’t some nitwit rigging in/out. If it’s money you think I’m jealous of, odds are I got you beat. Anyways, you choose to live here yet you *bleep* on the locals, that’s precisely the attitude we hate in BC. If AB is so awesome, go home and stay home. We don’t need your holier than thou, money trumps all attitude here. You’ll never fit in holding on to what you left and why you left it, so in AB speak- fit in or *bleep* off.

Wait a second....are you telling us that you are one of those that earned your money out of province and are now here in the OK ?? Isn't this latest tax aimed at people that have done the same?

[Triple 6]

I've deleted some posts (without warning) their over the top and personal. Discuss the topic. not the member. thx.

[kgcayenne]

What if we were talking about absent people buying and holding downtown parking lots unusable for 6 months of the year?

We aren’t.
But, it happens all the time where land in town becomes vacant and is not used for anything for a long time and you have no idea who owns it. Your point?

I’ve simply noticed people here are more apt to protect places to park cars than they are to protect housing for people.

Let’s face it: A secondary dwelling is unnecessary, you can be the most affluent person on the planet, and you will still only be able to plant your *bleep* on one sofa in one house at a time. A secondary vacation home is a luxury; luxuries are often taxed as such.

I’m wondering why the government isn’t going after Air B&B condos to tax the snot out of them. I bet they outnumber vacation homes.

[dle]

What I'd like to know is where all this "foreign tax" money is going after it is collected??? What about our health tax money we've been paying every month for decades (BC MSP - which they didn't eliminate as promised but rather just shifted the burden to business - slick move that was), or the carbon taxes every time we fill up out vehicles? Literally Billions and Billions of tax dollars coming in yet we have ICBC bleeding to death with rates continually going up at all levels of government yet services continue to be cut. I know I'm generalizing, but *bleep* me, something has to give!

Article on Castanet addresses your point on where will the tax go.....City of Kelowna is proposing that if they are going to tax us, we should get to keep the tax money in Kelowna to be used for the affordable housing initiatives. I am all in agreement in that. AS LONG as it doesn't end up getting siphoned off to other uses .... (remembering MSP, ICBC..) I would like to see absolute transparent bookkeeping on this - published once a year for the public - accounting for every thin dime of tax that was collected and where it went regarding the affordable housing initiative INCLUDING using some of it for AFFORDABLE RENTALS for families (not so much condos - kids need grass!)

I do agree with the tax to a certain point. I know housing is bought to launder money, bought to sit empty for spec and flipping for profit etc and that those uses have driven the prices up to ridiculous heights in Vancouver (and heading that way here - some would say we have already arrived there) That needs to be curbed. Housing needs to be used, not sit empty, by the owners for holidays etc (great! Welcome!) but rented (or taxed when NOT IN USE OR RENTED ONLY) so perhaps a proportional tax on occupancy could work in that situation for our Alberta friends. Owners can figure out how they want to do that but I do believe it has to be done. I believe that would be more fair.

I do believe the NDP/Ms. James are on the right path but jumped the gun, didn't ask the right people the right questions, has a good idea IN THE MAKING but has a ways to go before implementation. The kinks need to be ironed out.

[dle]

There is some chatter about mobile homes and tiny homes - why can't both have a place in our City? At one point a certain city councillor thought it was beneath us to support any mobile home parks. His full-of-himself self is not on council anymore so why don't the current lot put their heads together and think of a way to incorporate a few NICE NEW mobile home parks, stratified and properly managed, for young families to afford a great place to grow? Mobiles are great starter homes and the parks are friendly communities. Why is it anything we build around here has to be in the vision of "B's B" by Westcorp?

There are some OLD mobile home parks around that have seen better days. They maybe COULD be spruced up with new mobiles and good management BUT it costs a small fortune to MOVE an old mobile off a pad and after that there is the cost of buying the new one. It doesn't seem feasible or cost efficient to do it that way. A new park or two is the way to go. Make a deal with a manufactured home dealer. Surely there are some people with great ideas on this type of housing out there.

I'm sure the City with all it's buying power could secure some nice property for at least one good manufactured home park at a good price. Give some people a sense of community and neighbourhood that the regular Joe & Julie can afford!

And if we get to keep the foreign buyers' taxes - that's a good place we can spend some of it IMHO.

[Urban Cowboy]

What I'd like to know is where all this "foreign tax" money is going after it is collected??? What about our health tax money we've been paying every month for decades (BC MSP - which they didn't eliminate as promised but rather just shifted the burden to business - slick move that was), or the carbon taxes every time we fill up out vehicles? Literally Billions and Billions of tax dollars coming in yet we have ICBC bleeding to death with rates continually going up at all levels of government yet services continue to be cut. I know I'm generalizing, but *bleep* me, something has to give!

Article on Castanet addresses your point on where will the tax go.....City of Kelowna is proposing that if they are going to tax us, we should get to keep the tax money in Kelowna to be used for the affordable housing initiatives. I am all in agreement in that. AS LONG as it doesn't end up getting siphoned off to other uses .... (remembering MSP, ICBC..) I would like to see absolute transparent bookkeeping on this - published once a year for the public - accounting for every thin dime of tax that was collected and where it went regarding the affordable housing initiative INCLUDING using some of it for AFFORDABLE RENTALS for families (not so much condos - kids need grass!)

I do agree with the tax to a certain point. I know housing is bought to launder money, bought to sit empty for spec and flipping for profit etc and that those uses have driven the prices up to ridiculous heights in Vancouver (and heading that way here - some would say we have already arrived there) That needs to be curbed. Housing needs to be used, not sit empty, by the owners for holidays etc (great! Welcome!) but rented (or taxed when NOT IN USE OR RENTED ONLY) so perhaps a proportional tax on occupancy could work in that situation for our Alberta friends. Owners can figure out how they want to do that but I do believe it has to be done. I believe that would be more fair.

I do believe the NDP/Ms. James are on the right path but jumped the gun, didn't ask the right people the right questions, has a good idea IN THE MAKING but has a ways to go before implementation. The kinks need to be ironed out.

If by kinks, you mean admitting that as it stands, this tax is nailing and penalizing Canadians, rather than the foreign speculators they say it's designed to target, then I agree.

If you think it's fair to nail fellow Canadians, who clearly are NOT speculators (easily proven by showing how long they've owned their property), simply because they saved up and wanted a vacation home, then I do NOT agree. That's not how a free country should operate. As far as I'm concerned I'd go so far as to say it infringes upon people's liberties.

I could possibly wrap my head around this tax, being applied to someone who for example, builds, or purchases, a vacation home, then flips it within a given time period, say under two years or so, because in that regard it could be said they are speculating I suppose.

The problem as it stands is we already have examples of owners who have had homes for well over a decade, without even an increase in value, yet they are in line to be hit with this tax. These aren't speculators pure and simple. If we're going to call them such, well then in that case, anyone who owns a home is a speculator, given that they all anticipate that their asset will go up in value.