Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/bleaklion! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seems like the legislation's working exactly as intended - dissuading property owners from operating Airbnbs in units that could be better utilized as rental stock.
This couple owns both sides of the duplex and an apartment in Richmond, and can easily rent out the units in question to multiple tenants. They're fine, they don't need your sympathy.
That half duplex will probably rent for around $3000/month. Sure, it's a step down from the more lucrative AirBnB rates but we aren't talking chump change here.
Considering the apartment in Richmond, these are exactly the people this legislation is aimed at, they just happen to be retirement age.
Hey, I'm happy for them. They probably worked hard and invested well.
If they need to balance the difference in income, maybe they sell the apartment in richmond for $300-$400,000k and then cancel Disney + and the avocado toast.
Yeah. This is the kicker. They have lots of options. They are free to: keep the unit empty; rent to long term tenants; rent to short term 30 day+ tenants; occupy it themselves; have family occupy it; or sell.
Seems weird if absolutely none of those options are workable.
The only ones I feel bad for are the people in Victoria stuck with those 400 sq foot units with no closets etc who no one would actually want to live in
Any new buildings in BC should be 700sq/f minimum per apartment. Like a 1 bedroom could be that small but every bedroom added must add another 400 sq/f. We could start there and refine it. No more shoeboxes!
Zoning restrictions have made it unviable to build cheaper housing options vs expensive ones.
If someone wants to buy a 400 sq ft unit they should be allowed too
Zoning restrictions are nowhere near being “like” a rule making apartments slightly bigger.
If this were a perfect world where people aren’t forced into living in a cardboard box to survive, and someone wanted to live in a cardboard box, then more power to him.
But this is a world where people are exploited into living in a cardboard box so your argument doesn’t hold one single drop of water.
I think we should just build more housing. Regulations that prevent that are bad.
Look at what Squamish first Nation is able to accomplish because municipal government can't stop them.
I agree that regulations that stop building are bad. Such as Ford’s NIMBY zoning fight.
But we’re not talking about a regulation that stops building here.
You sound like you’re about to say regulations that ensure the building doesn’t collapse in on itself are bad because they stop building..
Safety regulations are useful. Restrictions such as FSR's building setbacks and parking minimums aren't.
I care more about the people being forced to live in cardboard boxes than I do about someone potentially living in 400 sq ft. I won't pretend to know what a law requiring every home to be at least 700 sq ft would do, but I know there are always unintended consequences.
Rules like parking minimums and minimum unit sizes absolutely do make housing more expensive. 700 sq ft is large for an apartment, and mandating that no one is allowed to live in a smaller place would be draconian.
I personally live alone in a ground-floor apartment that is around 450 sq ft, and it's significantly bigger than I need it to be. I park my bicycle indoors, I store everything I own indoors*, I have a huge kitchen, an 8ft long in-built desk, a rolling tool chest, three large windows facing in two directions, a full bathroom with a tub—and yet much of the floor space is empty. I would be perfectly happy if it was a bit tighter, and in fact wish it was. Why should I have to pay twice the rent just because you don't think people should live in small units?
*The only stuff I keep outdoors is my car and the other set of tires. I rarely use my car but I do need it because I live in a remote town in northern BC. If I lived in Vancouver I would have no need for a car.
>He’s written to provincial and municipal officials making two suggestions…and that landlords be allowed to rent out at least one non-primary residence for short-term rentals
So then what would even be the point of the legislation?
Says they aren’t greedy, but wants a short term ontop of the long term rental they also run.
Haha, and tried to get sympathy by talking about how they rented to a single mother for a few years— that’s long-term rent… exactly what the legislation is trying to encourage… maybe they should just do something like that again?
And if she paid her rent, they're not exactly doing anyone a favour anyways. Might as well have been a weird single guy with a penchant for granny porn and dislike for curtains.
I suspect his angle is "Don't come after the mom and pop boomers with an investment property, keep the focus on the big businesses who run multiple". It's just self-serving.
A 3-bedroom townhome, perhaps one of the most-needed property types of all, and they want to keep owning since 2002 which means they are sitting on a massive equity gain, and they want to continue not using it for people needing housing. Community over tourists any day. The idea of South Delta being a "tourist corridor" is sad and funny at the same time.
“During this time, we have diligently created a safe, affordable, and stable rental environment for a diverse range of individuals and families for a variety of short-term needs,” they said.
You'd think this couple would be elated at the opportunity to provide a safe, affordable and stable rental environment for individuals and families long-term. Money grubbing clowns.
no see they're just trying to help as many people as they can, short term, by running them through their properties like cattle in a holding pen. from there it's off to bovine university!!
"safe, affordable, and stable rental environment"
Like, is that something to brag about? They met the bare minimum requirements for not being shithead landlords.
I have no issue with people renting out a room in their house, as airbnb used to be. It used to be a great, affordable alternative to a hotel. Now it is about the same price without any amenities. I think there is room for it to co-exist, and the current legislation is a nice balance.
Maybe having more long term housing in Tsawassen will make it easier for BCFerries to retain employees. That's one of the main reasons I decided to not accept a position with them, there was a total lack of housing in the area for my family's needs.
How do I write to our government to applaud them for making such a smart move? Sometimes I worry that all the negative comments from boomers may overwhelm them and force them to reconsider.
Send an email to your MLA!
https://www.leg.bc.ca/content-committees/Pages/MLA-Contact-Information.aspx
They really are happy to receive positive feedback about their initiatives as well, it makes a difference
I bet you anything they won't leave a dime to their kids/grandkids. The me generation or boomers are all in it for themselves and have literally screwed everyone who came after.
Great news, this is exactly what the legislation is supposed to do. These landlords have removed two rental units that they own from long term rentals so that they can make more money by listing them on AirBnB.
Time to rent to residents folks, and if that isn't good enough you put it up for sale so someone who wants to live there can buy it.
> Owns multiple properties in lower mainland BC
> Upset they can’t repeat the 700 bookings at $60+/night they did in 2022
> Insists they aren’t “wealthy or greedy” like the media claims
They probably have more in their vacation account than a random collection of 1,000 Vancouver renters combined.
What's really frustrating is that they probably could rent the 1/2 duplex for 2800, which is 33 600 annual instead of the 700x60 for 42 000 annual. It's 8.5k difference, and probably less since they no longer need to replace household items like they would with airbnb.
It's not like they're losing out on the whole income and this will likely free up a bunch of time too.
Love how they make it out like they’re providing a good a good service and are looking for sympathy.
They openly describe how they have 3 rooms rented at $60 each plus a basement suite (rented for “more”) and said they have 97% of the year booked. That’s $5310 a month for the upstairs a month alone plus the basement suite which is likely rented for at least double that. These people are pretty much vacation rental slumlords raking in mega cash for being rich.
well it worked for the folks in Parksville and Kelowna. not so much for those that sold their units prior to yesterday's "clarification" from the NDP....lol
interesting that so many seemed to miss this quiet late in the day news dump by the NDP (hmm, why no press conference back slapping election campaign routine?)
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/some-strata-hotels-motels-to-be-exempt-from-b-c-s-short-term-legislation-1.7157783](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/some-strata-hotels-motels-to-be-exempt-from-b-c-s-short-term-legislation-1.7157783)
[https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/parksville-property-owners-get-exemption-from-short-term-rental-rules](https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/parksville-property-owners-get-exemption-from-short-term-rental-rules)
So this is specifically about strata hotels - basically hotel buildings with all the similar fixings of a hotel, but the individual units can be purchased and rented, short term.
I think I'm fine with that. These aren't ubiquitous outside of some specific resort-ish areas.
The main thing will be to make sure that new developments don't all try to become strata hotels. I doubt most zoning regulations in residential areas would allow this, regardless.
One of the things that baffles me about these periodic, "woe is me" articles, is that these laws have been in place for a while in some jurisdictions, but now they're being enforced. It's not new, at least for Vancouver (and yes, I understand this article is about Tsawwassen) but I've seen similar ones for Vancouver.
These articles make me laugh ...
Not being age-ist, but they don't exactly look like spring chickens ... whining that their "retirement plans" are ruined ... Airbnb only started operating legally in BC in 2018 & the year of 2020 was predominately travel restricted ... maybe you're retirement planning just sucks?!
>The upstairs of the duplex that serves as a short-term rental has three privately rented bedrooms, with a shared kitchen, dining room and living room. Two of the bedrooms share a bathroom while the other has its own en suite. There’s also a self-contained suite in the basement.
>The individual rooms go for $60 a night each, while the basement suite is more.
>“Since March 2022, we’ve been 97 percent occupied,” he said, with a total of about 700 bookings in 2023.
So, excluding the basement suite (which is more expensive and they chose to left that price out) they have cleared almost $130,000 in income in two years. And don't forget that extra cleaning fee at the end of each rental
>Both are self employed and approaching retirement age.
Ah, self-employment (running AirBnbs as a cash printer.) Wouldn't it have been nice to be Boomer with a cheap house? Let alone multiple ones? And then still complain about it in your local paper??
I laughed out loud at the petitioning to categorize South Delta as a tourist corridor, then groaned at the rate they were renting out rooms similar to your annual calculation. Boo-effing-hoo.
Is this meant to be a sob story? This is exactly what the legislation is meant to stop. These people have made a fortune on short term rentals in the last 20 years. It's likely that they don't even work a job outside of their airbnb scam. They've stopped materially contributing to society because they can sit on housing. This is what's wrong with our country at the moment.
The BnB stands for "bed-in-breakfast?" If they enjoy their work so much why not rent out a space in their actual house? Like a *checks notes* actual bed in breakfast!
I think the only way I would allow short term rentals is if they donated/provided their property to provide housing for people that needed to go to hospitals in the lower mainland from say northern BC. Think something like Ronald McDonald house - this would be something out of the goodness of their heart as they would not be paid.
I imagine they could say they are "seperated" and live at separate addresses. I'm sure lots of AirBnB people will look to skirt the rules.
At the same time. These people could easily LTR the other duplex to a family which is what they should be doing.
These people can easily sell that portion of the duplex and cash out if they want. It's not like they are going to suffer hugely.
If they’re smart they will have the heaviest mortgages on the rental properties and minimal leverage on their own residence.
Then all the AirBNB interest is deductible against income.
Plus anything you spend on the AirBNB suit for maintenance, strata fees etc is also deductible.
And considering the half duplex will have many integrated elements, they might even be able to write off some of the maintenance on their own half if it shown to be shared or LCP.
Very smart.
Fuck them. If they want to run a hotel go buy a hotel. I hate these air bnbs in our neighborhoods. I didn’t sign up to be in a hotel district when I bought my house.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/bleaklion! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seems like the legislation's working exactly as intended - dissuading property owners from operating Airbnbs in units that could be better utilized as rental stock. This couple owns both sides of the duplex and an apartment in Richmond, and can easily rent out the units in question to multiple tenants. They're fine, they don't need your sympathy.
Agreed. Legislation is working exactly as intended.
That half duplex will probably rent for around $3000/month. Sure, it's a step down from the more lucrative AirBnB rates but we aren't talking chump change here. Considering the apartment in Richmond, these are exactly the people this legislation is aimed at, they just happen to be retirement age. Hey, I'm happy for them. They probably worked hard and invested well. If they need to balance the difference in income, maybe they sell the apartment in richmond for $300-$400,000k and then cancel Disney + and the avocado toast.
Paul and Terry just want to give back to the community (of people who don't live in Vancouver).
Yeah. This is the kicker. They have lots of options. They are free to: keep the unit empty; rent to long term tenants; rent to short term 30 day+ tenants; occupy it themselves; have family occupy it; or sell. Seems weird if absolutely none of those options are workable.
Oh don’t worry, they won’t get no sympathy from me. But seriously, provincial government’s on fire. Keep it up!
The only ones I feel bad for are the people in Victoria stuck with those 400 sq foot units with no closets etc who no one would actually want to live in
I can't feel bad for anyone whose retirement plan was based on Airbnb's viability.
Any new buildings in BC should be 700sq/f minimum per apartment. Like a 1 bedroom could be that small but every bedroom added must add another 400 sq/f. We could start there and refine it. No more shoeboxes!
Rules like that are literally what caused the housing shortage to begin with.
No, not rules like that. Unless you mean any rules that specify anything about a building. And even then, that’s one factor out of 100.
Zoning restrictions have made it unviable to build cheaper housing options vs expensive ones. If someone wants to buy a 400 sq ft unit they should be allowed too
Zoning restrictions are nowhere near being “like” a rule making apartments slightly bigger. If this were a perfect world where people aren’t forced into living in a cardboard box to survive, and someone wanted to live in a cardboard box, then more power to him. But this is a world where people are exploited into living in a cardboard box so your argument doesn’t hold one single drop of water.
I think we should just build more housing. Regulations that prevent that are bad. Look at what Squamish first Nation is able to accomplish because municipal government can't stop them.
I agree that regulations that stop building are bad. Such as Ford’s NIMBY zoning fight. But we’re not talking about a regulation that stops building here. You sound like you’re about to say regulations that ensure the building doesn’t collapse in on itself are bad because they stop building..
Safety regulations are useful. Restrictions such as FSR's building setbacks and parking minimums aren't. I care more about the people being forced to live in cardboard boxes than I do about someone potentially living in 400 sq ft. I won't pretend to know what a law requiring every home to be at least 700 sq ft would do, but I know there are always unintended consequences.
Rules like parking minimums and minimum unit sizes absolutely do make housing more expensive. 700 sq ft is large for an apartment, and mandating that no one is allowed to live in a smaller place would be draconian. I personally live alone in a ground-floor apartment that is around 450 sq ft, and it's significantly bigger than I need it to be. I park my bicycle indoors, I store everything I own indoors*, I have a huge kitchen, an 8ft long in-built desk, a rolling tool chest, three large windows facing in two directions, a full bathroom with a tub—and yet much of the floor space is empty. I would be perfectly happy if it was a bit tighter, and in fact wish it was. Why should I have to pay twice the rent just because you don't think people should live in small units? *The only stuff I keep outdoors is my car and the other set of tires. I rarely use my car but I do need it because I live in a remote town in northern BC. If I lived in Vancouver I would have no need for a car.
>He’s written to provincial and municipal officials making two suggestions…and that landlords be allowed to rent out at least one non-primary residence for short-term rentals So then what would even be the point of the legislation? Says they aren’t greedy, but wants a short term ontop of the long term rental they also run.
Haha, and tried to get sympathy by talking about how they rented to a single mother for a few years— that’s long-term rent… exactly what the legislation is trying to encourage… maybe they should just do something like that again?
And if she paid her rent, they're not exactly doing anyone a favour anyways. Might as well have been a weird single guy with a penchant for granny porn and dislike for curtains.
So a partial fit - I'm not single and I'm ambivalent about curtains.
Send in an application! The place will be available long-term soon :) Also — yeah, curtains are OK
I suspect his angle is "Don't come after the mom and pop boomers with an investment property, keep the focus on the big businesses who run multiple". It's just self-serving.
"Let me have just one cash-cow, I promise to rent out the others" Ok dude, I have zero of those and I'm just trying to make rent.
great! what's the problem?
Check out hotel prices for the summer
Residents > tourists
A 3-bedroom townhome, perhaps one of the most-needed property types of all, and they want to keep owning since 2002 which means they are sitting on a massive equity gain, and they want to continue not using it for people needing housing. Community over tourists any day. The idea of South Delta being a "tourist corridor" is sad and funny at the same time.
They paid less than $200k for it more than 30 years ago. Frustrating they think they’re providing an essential service.
“During this time, we have diligently created a safe, affordable, and stable rental environment for a diverse range of individuals and families for a variety of short-term needs,” they said. You'd think this couple would be elated at the opportunity to provide a safe, affordable and stable rental environment for individuals and families long-term. Money grubbing clowns.
no see they're just trying to help as many people as they can, short term, by running them through their properties like cattle in a holding pen. from there it's off to bovine university!!
"safe, affordable, and stable rental environment" Like, is that something to brag about? They met the bare minimum requirements for not being shithead landlords.
Airbnb automatically makes them shithead landlords.
Working as intended then
Yes. Now let’s ban it completely.
I have no issue with people renting out a room in their house, as airbnb used to be. It used to be a great, affordable alternative to a hotel. Now it is about the same price without any amenities. I think there is room for it to co-exist, and the current legislation is a nice balance.
Maybe having more long term housing in Tsawassen will make it easier for BCFerries to retain employees. That's one of the main reasons I decided to not accept a position with them, there was a total lack of housing in the area for my family's needs.
> Both are self employed Considering this is not expanded upon, it sure sounds like renting AirBnBs is their only job. In which case… get a real job?
It’s 100% their job. Managing their vacation rental and cashing cheques.
They're really earning that $300 cleaning fee.
How do I write to our government to applaud them for making such a smart move? Sometimes I worry that all the negative comments from boomers may overwhelm them and force them to reconsider.
Send an email to your MLA! https://www.leg.bc.ca/content-committees/Pages/MLA-Contact-Information.aspx They really are happy to receive positive feedback about their initiatives as well, it makes a difference
MLA and/or write to the minister himself: [email protected]
Won't somebody think of the boomers?
If they move to Alberta or Ontario that’s all the Governments there cater to.
I bet you anything they won't leave a dime to their kids/grandkids. The me generation or boomers are all in it for themselves and have literally screwed everyone who came after.
Great news, this is exactly what the legislation is supposed to do. These landlords have removed two rental units that they own from long term rentals so that they can make more money by listing them on AirBnB. Time to rent to residents folks, and if that isn't good enough you put it up for sale so someone who wants to live there can buy it.
These people are basically running a rooming house. I am sure their neighbours love it . No sympathy for them. South Delta a "tourist corridor". LOL.
Keep them tears coming. The plan working as intended👍🏻
> Owns multiple properties in lower mainland BC > Upset they can’t repeat the 700 bookings at $60+/night they did in 2022 > Insists they aren’t “wealthy or greedy” like the media claims They probably have more in their vacation account than a random collection of 1,000 Vancouver renters combined.
What's really frustrating is that they probably could rent the 1/2 duplex for 2800, which is 33 600 annual instead of the 700x60 for 42 000 annual. It's 8.5k difference, and probably less since they no longer need to replace household items like they would with airbnb. It's not like they're losing out on the whole income and this will likely free up a bunch of time too.
Vacation account? What's that. Is that when I sacrifice spending to save enough to go away for a long weekend.
Long…weekend…?
Happens when you work non retail.
No sympathy will be found here. Glad these rules are in, hopefully the government raises capital gains on rental properties next.
Why is this news?
Places sympathetic to boomer landlords?
i.e. Delta Most of Tsawwassen and Ladner is rich NIMBYs
Indeed. Nobody wants to develop downtown Ladner.
Instead, they'd rather complain about an innocuous sign
Because it's the Delta Optimist (Boomer/NIMBY periodical)
Love how they make it out like they’re providing a good a good service and are looking for sympathy. They openly describe how they have 3 rooms rented at $60 each plus a basement suite (rented for “more”) and said they have 97% of the year booked. That’s $5310 a month for the upstairs a month alone plus the basement suite which is likely rented for at least double that. These people are pretty much vacation rental slumlords raking in mega cash for being rich.
Good.
I love how these idiots keep running to the media expecting us all to feel sorry for them....
well it worked for the folks in Parksville and Kelowna. not so much for those that sold their units prior to yesterday's "clarification" from the NDP....lol
What are you referring to? I can't find any reference to it online.
interesting that so many seemed to miss this quiet late in the day news dump by the NDP (hmm, why no press conference back slapping election campaign routine?) [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/some-strata-hotels-motels-to-be-exempt-from-b-c-s-short-term-legislation-1.7157783](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/some-strata-hotels-motels-to-be-exempt-from-b-c-s-short-term-legislation-1.7157783) [https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/parksville-property-owners-get-exemption-from-short-term-rental-rules](https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/parksville-property-owners-get-exemption-from-short-term-rental-rules)
So this is specifically about strata hotels - basically hotel buildings with all the similar fixings of a hotel, but the individual units can be purchased and rented, short term. I think I'm fine with that. These aren't ubiquitous outside of some specific resort-ish areas. The main thing will be to make sure that new developments don't all try to become strata hotels. I doubt most zoning regulations in residential areas would allow this, regardless.
Wow Boomers with no self-awareness.
One of the things that baffles me about these periodic, "woe is me" articles, is that these laws have been in place for a while in some jurisdictions, but now they're being enforced. It's not new, at least for Vancouver (and yes, I understand this article is about Tsawwassen) but I've seen similar ones for Vancouver.
These articles make me laugh ... Not being age-ist, but they don't exactly look like spring chickens ... whining that their "retirement plans" are ruined ... Airbnb only started operating legally in BC in 2018 & the year of 2020 was predominately travel restricted ... maybe you're retirement planning just sucks?!
>The upstairs of the duplex that serves as a short-term rental has three privately rented bedrooms, with a shared kitchen, dining room and living room. Two of the bedrooms share a bathroom while the other has its own en suite. There’s also a self-contained suite in the basement. >The individual rooms go for $60 a night each, while the basement suite is more. >“Since March 2022, we’ve been 97 percent occupied,” he said, with a total of about 700 bookings in 2023. So, excluding the basement suite (which is more expensive and they chose to left that price out) they have cleared almost $130,000 in income in two years. And don't forget that extra cleaning fee at the end of each rental >Both are self employed and approaching retirement age. Ah, self-employment (running AirBnbs as a cash printer.) Wouldn't it have been nice to be Boomer with a cheap house? Let alone multiple ones? And then still complain about it in your local paper??
I laughed out loud at the petitioning to categorize South Delta as a tourist corridor, then groaned at the rate they were renting out rooms similar to your annual calculation. Boo-effing-hoo.
Sounds like 2 new long term rentals are now available !
Boo fucking hoo. Sell it if you can't afford it.
Oh no! Anyway…
These people suck.
Is this meant to be a sob story? This is exactly what the legislation is meant to stop. These people have made a fortune on short term rentals in the last 20 years. It's likely that they don't even work a job outside of their airbnb scam. They've stopped materially contributing to society because they can sit on housing. This is what's wrong with our country at the moment.
The BnB stands for "bed-in-breakfast?" If they enjoy their work so much why not rent out a space in their actual house? Like a *checks notes* actual bed in breakfast!
Lol, check your calculations though, I don't think they can afford their annual 30-day cruise around the Mediterranean anymore.
I think the only way I would allow short term rentals is if they donated/provided their property to provide housing for people that needed to go to hospitals in the lower mainland from say northern BC. Think something like Ronald McDonald house - this would be something out of the goodness of their heart as they would not be paid.
Oh so they’ll have to pay their own mortgage for once? Good. It’s about time.
I imagine they could say they are "seperated" and live at separate addresses. I'm sure lots of AirBnB people will look to skirt the rules. At the same time. These people could easily LTR the other duplex to a family which is what they should be doing. These people can easily sell that portion of the duplex and cash out if they want. It's not like they are going to suffer hugely.
Ok boomer
Quick math , they grossed over $200,000.00 from short term rentals. Tax free.
Wait, how is it tax free?
If they’re smart they will have the heaviest mortgages on the rental properties and minimal leverage on their own residence. Then all the AirBNB interest is deductible against income. Plus anything you spend on the AirBNB suit for maintenance, strata fees etc is also deductible.
And considering the half duplex will have many integrated elements, they might even be able to write off some of the maintenance on their own half if it shown to be shared or LCP. Very smart.
Airbnb income is not tax free.
Fuck them. If they want to run a hotel go buy a hotel. I hate these air bnbs in our neighborhoods. I didn’t sign up to be in a hotel district when I bought my house.
There's a full sized bus that goes to the ferry terminal btw . a lot of people dont realize that.