Editor:
I chuckled reading Al Dodimead’s letter (Coast Reporter, Feb. 24) imploring the SCRD to take the “long-term” view with vacation-rental bylaws, to address his short-term desire to generate revenue from his mostly empty second home.
For the record, I am not an Airbnbophobe. I’ve used it regularly, with acceptable results, one notable exception being three nights next door to a cat-urine-odour-emitting California crack shack. Why, some of my best friends are Airbnb hosts! (I assure my wife that they will still welcome her, if not me, for dinner, should they read this.)
The many benefits of Airbnb-like accommodations for travellers and owners are well understood. However, it should be obvious that it’s senseless to have regulated industries, such as motels and long-term rentals, competing with unregulated vacation rentals. (The same goes for Uber versus taxis.) Either regulate all of it, or none of it.
Moreover, to the extent that housing must be regulated for the common good, it’s obvious that Airbnb-type rentals are (1) taking concerning amounts of housing out of long-term rental inventory, (2) driving up prices on remaining inventory, and (3) encouraging incremental speculation. Without actually creating anything (save housecleaning jobs), while negatively impacting the social cohesion of neigbourhoods. A regrettable misallocation of capital driven by years of poor government fiscal policy, resulting in now necessary local regulation. More unintended consequences.
Al, by all means, monetize the value in your second home, in accordance with the rules the community adopts. But if you really want to contribute to the “stimulation” of your future community, then you will have to try harder. Perhaps rent your home to a full-time local – one raising a family, working locally and contributing to the community, here and now.
As is often said, people who own multiple dwellings shouldn’t throw bricks at bylaws.
Alan Donenfeld, Gibsons
