British Columbia

1361 readers

9 users here now

News, highlights and more relating to this great province!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

TruckBC@lemmy.ca

LimpRimble@lemmy.ca

19,000 homes are permanently listed as short-term rentals, B.C. government says (www.cbc.ca)

submitted 7 months ago by TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world to c/britishcolumbia@lemmy.ca

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A provincial rule to limit short-term rentals to a homeowner's principal residence plus one secondary suite or accessory dwelling comes into force in British Columbia on May 1 in 60 communities, while 17 additional communities have chosen to opt into the rules, despite being exempt.

An update for the province's Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act was provided by Premier David Eby and B.C. Minister of Housing Ravi Kahlon at a media event on Thursday in Langley, B.C.

May 1 is the deadline for many changes telegraphed in October when the province introduced the act.

The government's hope is to limit housing from being rented through platforms like Airbnb, VRBO, Expedia and FlipKey, when they could instead be used for stable, long-term homes in cities where residents struggle to find appropriate housing.

"Balanced new rules to crack down on speculators who are effectively operating mini hotels, while also ensuring homeowners can still rent out spaces in their principal residence," said Eby on Thursday.

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

OMG! An outbreak of common sense!

Won't somebody think of the parasites

[–] zcd@lemmy.ca 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The parasites prefer the term “Landlords”

[–] ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca 7 points 7 months ago

Owners of short term rentals seem closer to innkeepers or hoteliers to me. Landlords implies long term rental of homes IMO.

[–] TheRaven@lemmy.ca 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I wonder what would happen if we did the same to long term rentals. Would the lack of rentals hurt those who need to rent? Would the influx of homes for sale overcome that?

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

For us, home ownership isn't a goal at all. We'd be starting late, and we're 1%ers, but our advisor consistently recommends Renting, Stocks, and no maintenance. Our guy expects to beat the growth value over a house (with carry and maintenance costs) by a few percent, and when we hate this place we just move.

And the density means we're in a spot where a lot of services and shops are nearby. We're really satisfied with our plans, but the point is Rentals are our choice and I'd be happy if that pool weren't shrunk.

[–] jadero@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

We also much preferred renting over ownership after trying both. And we were far from 1%.

[–] John_McMurray@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I don't understand that, considering the insanely high rental prices of the lower mainland. Its not like you save money by not paying a mortgage. I've heard of this stategy before but it only works when rent is far cheaper than mortgage over a decade. Anyways it doesn't matter cause when the 300 year earthquake hits nobody's gonna have nothing out there

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

Yeah it made sense before, especially when southern Ontario was cheap rent. Rent was close to half the cost of owning and you put the saved money into RRSP or other inveatments for retirement, but now it is the opposite..owning is was less outgoing cash

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I certainly save money by not getting into debt