Brooklyn Bernard Block

[Giardinera1]

Is anyone else surprised to learn most of the new high rise developments downtown will not be eligible for the proposed short term rental (AirbnB) regulations? All year we've been hearing about the so called benefits these buildings will bring to our 'healthy housing' strategy... Density = green, Development = solution to our housing shortage.

Yet it turns out AirBnB bylaws will not apply to Central Green, The Madison, One Water, Ella, the Brooklyn... any commercially zoned building. Basically, strata and hotel type regulations for the big guys, while home owners renting out their primary residence (ie, people who occupy the house and rent single rooms, or else rent the whole house when out of town) will be the ones paying short term rental fees.

Doesn't seem fair, considering it's rapid growth that's caused our alarming infrastructure deficit.

The Mission Group is even selling these units on the basis of short term rental investment, according to an email I got from their mailing list. The site is even available in Mandarin. They're already claiming it's C7 (restriction free) zoning, even though the zoning decision goes to public hearing July 31st. I think the zoning it's in now is already free of restrictions, but even so, something feels very wrong here.

The notion these tourists and retirees are going to reduce the pressure on our infrastructure, by walking and cycling up to the wineries and hillside attractions is hard to accept.

[CapitalB]

I'm sure that has nothing at all to do with the various donations to mayor and council from real estate companies.

Honestly though it could have nothing to do with that. It could have something to do with the mayor and his (or the last mayors) cronies being straight out of the real estate industry.

[Giardinera1]

It may not be something so sophisticated as red string collusion. I think many City Staff members and council members genuinely subscribe to the flawed ideological believe that the development and business community will make decisions that advance the greater community good. Yet at every turn developers advance their own economic interests, at greater cost to the median and lower income residents.

They debated this project, as well as the short term rental report back to back on July 16th, and not one council member considered the correlation, or double standard of regulating home owners, while not even considering the impacts of this project being short term rental purposed. Did they really not miss the relationship?

I miss BargainBargainBargainBargain :(

[CapitalB]

Maybe they missed it. I lean more towards they're greedy and want to (or want some family / friends to) buy some condos to rent out. But thats just generally how I view wealthy people in government (I know a couple of the council aren't from wealthy backgrounds).

[Queen K]

Fascinating!

Thanks for posting this.

Of course the prices for those units will reflect their cough cough,short term rentability.

[Olivia]

Who is going to get a view like that from the Brooklyn??

[abraham]

developers aside, if a individual buys a single family house as a investment they should have the right to do as he/she wishes with the home they purchase! If they choose to rent it short term, long term, Airbnb or use it as a summer home leaving it vacant for 10 months of the year they should be entitled to do so with out any backlash! It takes a lot of hard work to save enough for a down payment just to be able to go to the bank and get a mortgage! Is it the individuals fault for for the 1% rental market because they wanna make a few bucks as they just spent all their savings just to be able to purchase a home and get into the housing market? There has been a shortage of rentals in the Okanagan far before Airbnb has been around!

[northglenmore2012]

I agree 100% and no , I don't own a rental or have strangers stay at our townhouse . I suspect it's the city (staff or council) looking after their commercial buddies. They couldn't care less about renters in Kelowna, that's a red herring.

[Giardinera1]

developers aside, if a individual buys a single family house as a investment they should have the right to do as he/she wishes with the home they purchase! If they choose to rent it short term, long term, Airbnb or use it as a summer home leaving it vacant for 10 months of the year they should be entitled to do so with out any backlash! It takes a lot of hard work to save enough for a down payment just to be able to go to the bank and get a mortgage! Is it the individuals fault for for the 1% rental market because they wanna make a few bucks as they just spent all their savings just to be able to purchase a home and get into the housing market? There has been a shortage of rentals in the Okanagan far before Airbnb has been around!

I am a recent homeowner downtown, and I do Airbnb. We rent the whole house on long weekends during the summer, and we go sleep in the woods at free rec sites no one knows about.

That being said, I'm cool paying a business licence, because as City Staff's report recently demonstrated, growth and tourism put demands on our infrastructure that end up costing the general public anyways. When we come back, we have 3 times the garbage and recycling we normally do. We just stuff it as far into the bin as we can. People are not biking and walking around when they visit, they are on power boats on the lake and zipping around to all the wineries. This incurs costs, which eventually will result in higher property taxes for homeowners.

So yes, I will pay a licences fee, fine, but it should go directly back into the capital fund for LOCAL infrastructure (roads and park improvements). Airbnb fees should absolutely not go to Tourism Kelowna and their friends. And Airbnb fees should be applied fairly. Actually, Airbnb condo-hotels should pay higher fees than someone who does short term rentals of their primary residence. Locals first!

[TMBOkanagan]

The C4 and C7 zones (which apply to most of downtown) have always allowed short term rentals. This is nothing new.

[Giardinera1]

The C4 and C7 zones (which apply to most of downtown) have always allowed short term rentals. This is nothing new.

Yes, absolutely. But converting a C4 to C7 adds height, which makes these buildings more profitable for the AirbnB model. The Mission Group knew C4 and C7 were already zoned for short term rentals... Did all the Councillors? How about the general public? When they said yes to all these new buildings was it clear they would be for Airbnb?

It seems odd no mention of C7 and C4 came up in council meeting re: Short Term Rental regulations.

[Scrobins94]

Honestly I don't think this building is a bad place for Air-B-n-B or short term rentals. It's centrally located, will be a nice new building, tall and away from the waterfront, will help revitalize that end of Downtown and is a solid step towards gentrification of that area. Tourists bring money which in turns benefits businesses and appreciates the area for even further development (hopefully so it's not used for shelters and the likes). This is one of the few towers I would not object to. Curious to see what Mission group tries to build on the same site but on the side fronting Bernard. Seems like a good candidate for a low or mid-rise, but they'd probably go for another tower or two is my guess. 170ish units for the Brooklyn phase. I bet there's 500 units when the entire site is developed. I wish they'd build it higher here and stop building high near the waterfront though.

[Giardinera1]

Honestly I don't think this building is a bad place for Air-B-n-B or short term rentals. It's centrally located, will be a nice new building, tall and away from the waterfront, will help revitalize that end of Downtown and is a solid step towards gentrification of that area. Tourists bring money which in turns benefits businesses and appreciates the area for even further development (hopefully so it's not used for shelters and the likes). This is one of the few towers I would object to. Curious to see what Mission group tries to build on the same site but on the side fronting Bernard. Seems like a good candidate for a low or mid-rise, but they'd probably go for another tower or two is my guess. 170ish units for the Brooklyn phase. I bet there's 500 units when the entire site is developed. I wish they'd build it higher here and stop building high near the waterfront though.

The location is good for a profitable Airbnb hotel. It will lessen some strain on infrastructure and bring tourism & property tax revenues. But charge them a business licence too, if you're going to charge me.

I will pay development and tax fees if I want to build a carriage house in the same postal code. I will pay a business licence for Airbnb. So should they. When you look at the net value the City fo Kelowna earns (minus revenue going into private pockets) the tourism these units will bring is not enough to compensate for the 1) loss in affordable/urban housing for locals who work at the major employers they moved downtown such as Innovation Centre and Interior Health (therefore will continue to drive) 2) continued pressure on infrastructure caused by growth we can't keep up with unless we pull from reserves / continue borrowing.

I say, make them pay a bit more of their share.

[Giardinera1]

Growth - Main driver of new costs. is the tourism/dev fees enough to cover this? I think we should bulken that up by charging the same fees a home ower in a residential zone would get. Or on some sort of scale. At least something.

[TMBOkanagan]

I would imagine the short term rentals in this building would require a business license, same as how the ones at Waterscapes require a business license. Or the ones at Playa Del Sol.