This house at 748 Creekside Crescent in Gibsons has been empty since it was sold at the beginning of October 2016. The neighbours have never seen a soul. It doesn’t have a stick of furniture, the lights are never on, the yard has not been maintained, and nobody ever comes to the door. Information obtained from the Land Title Office suggests the owner is a foreign investor.
Meanwhile, the Coast suffers from a shortage of affordable rental accommodation.
What are the possibilities of such a house being rented?
In many countries in Europe, if an owner leaves a property empty for a specified period of time, usually a number of months, squatters may move in. Subsequent legal eviction takes a long time. Or the municipality can give the owner of an empty home a fine of, for example, $14,000.
To prevent this kind of trouble, owners of empty premises call on organizations that help people seeking temporary accommodation. The landlords offer contracts in which the tenants promise to look after the place, not to complain about the state of the building or amenities that don’t work, and to leave within two weeks if the owner needs the building.
In return, the rent is low, usually around $400 a month. Each time a tenant does a good job, he or she earns a higher spot on the list—perhaps a nicer building or a place to stay for a longer period.
The owners are happy, too. With their buildings occupied, they can obtain insurance. They pay a fee to the organization for the service.
This temporary rental system works well in Europe.
Since January 1, Vancouver has taken a different approach to the problem of empty homes. Unoccupied houses are subject to a yearly tax of one per cent of the property’s assessed value. There are exceptions, but in principle, houses sitting empty must be rented 180 days of the year for periods of at least thirty consecutive days. Since the new regulations came into effect only recently, the results are still unknown. Is one per cent enough? Should it be higher? Fifteen per cent, perhaps?
How would a town or district know that not a living soul has been occupying a certain address for a certain period, say three or six months?
Neighbours can notify a bylaw officer, who can investigate. The property may be vacant for a good reason: the owner is travelling or in a medical facility or even deceased.
But why not require house sitting or a short-term rental? It’s good to have somebody look after the house, it maintains the insurance, and somebody has a temporary place to live.
The principle should be that no property may be empty for reasons of investment or speculation.
How do we make sure the lights stay on here on the Coast?
We look forward to your input
I recall when the first Habitat for Humanity house was being built in Sechelt neighbours complained about the possibility that the new owners wouldn’t maintain the grounds–on the assumption that anyone who can’t afford a house without help is likely be irresponsible. Well, more and more perfectly respectable citizens can no longer afford to buy a home without help these days. And here we see an example of someone, probably very wealthy, buying a house, leaving it empty, and letting the grounds go un-maintained. So, let’s get over the classism, people or the idea that big bucks = respectable citizen!
I think that this article presents a very viable solution to this empty house problem.
I am not at all comfortable telling people they can’t leave their home unoccupied regardless of the vacancy rate. Should we also call out people who only use their cars on weekends? There are lots of people who could be using that car to get to work on weekdays. A home is a huge purchase for people and for most people it is the single most expensive asset they own. I don’t think we should be making moral judgements about their choice to rent or not.
I also think it is pretty cheap to mark that the person “thinks” that it is a foreign owner. I can’t believe how irresponsible that is even in a peice marked opinion. Firstly its just wild speculation with no evidence provide other then an empty house. Second what does the status of the owner have to do with anything? Perhaps you could dig up some stats about how many empty homes overseas are owned by Canadians? There are thousands and thousands in Arizona alone that are empty half a year while snow birds are home to visit their grand kids.
But snowbirds aside, Canadian’s are prolific international investors. Privately and through our corporations Canadians own businesses and properties around the world. Are you suggesting that Canadian’s shouldn’t own property abroad, or if they do that they should never leave it empty?
The program you describe in Europe sounds like a nice system that people could be encouraged into.
But I find this statement to be rather offensive:
“The principle should be that no property may be empty for reasons of investment or speculation.”
Your use of the word “may” to mean that you feel that ought to be laws that compel home owners to rent or others have their homes occupied.
Part of living in a free country is the freedom to buy a house and leave it empty for a few years in the hopes of making a profit. If you think otherwise perhaps I could stop by and use your internet when you are not using it, or watch your TV when you are not watching it, or drive your car when your not driving it.
There are many things we can do to deal with the low vacancy rate. Fundamentally changing property rights is not a good one to consider.
I agree with the comments in the article and find the options discussed reasonable possibilities. Anyone who has seen the dismal effects of multiple empty houses in Vancouver, making dead neighbourhoods that once were pleasant viable communities, would not want that here. Property rights are not irrevocable, unchanging principles. They are and should be subject to community scrutiny and input, and subordinate to community values. And if Canadians are doing something similar – speculating in foreign countries and leaving empty properties to the detriment of those neighbourhoods – then Canadians should also be subject to local rules to remove this harm.
“Property rights are not irrevocable, unchanging principles.”
Jo, Are you aware of those cases where towns invoke eminent domain to buy houses from poor people who don’t want to sell. The justification is that they can sell that property to developers who will build more expensive condos and thus increase tax revenue which is in the public good.
I just want to understand if your opinion is the same in both cases. Do you believe that property rights should be ” subordinate to community values”? Or do you only think that they should be “subordinate to community values WHEN THEY ARE YOUR VALUES” ?
I would hope that your opinions are consistent. Either property rights are subordinate to the whim of changing community values, or they are not. So far I hear you loud and clear saying that towns should be allowed to force owners to sell their houses to developers to increase tax revenue if that is the community will.