Editor:
Many of us taxpayers in Canmore are strongly against the livability tax program because instead of taxing all homeowners equally, it targets only those who are already unable to afford to live in Canmore full-time as their prime residence.
Part-time residents put less strain on the infrastructure of Canmore than full-time residents, but they could suddenly be required to pay significantly more tax than full-time residents. The Town already required tourist homes to pay far more in taxes than residential homes in the past.
Imagine, if you stood quietly by, and did not speak up to council about your opposition, thinking that it would hopefully not affect you personally. However, in the future, for unexpected reasons, perhaps you must spend time away from Canmore, due to employment, health or medical reasons, a relative becomes sick or dies, or any reason whatsoever. If suddenly higher taxes forced you to sell or rent, would it be at below-market rates?
The livability tax program will not create below-market housing.
Could you even afford to alter your home to accommodate a renter and would you want to be forced to do so?
Is there potentially anyone in the community who might be tempted by the opportunity to inform on you if they suspected that you suddenly needed to be away from Canmore, such that you might no longer qualify for the standard taxation rate without renting to someone who can claim your home as their primary residence for more than half the year?
Would you be pleased if you had stood by and let this tax plan go into effect without speaking up, and if necessary, supporting legal action to stop it if the council members did not withdraw it on their own knowing they could risk being voted out of office in the next election?
If the council members want to create more low-cost housing, they should instead put all their attention on doing whatever it takes between Canmore and the provincial government to simply require all future developers who wish to profit from building any new projects in Canmore to be required to include an appropriate portion of permanent low-cost housing in their proposals in order to get approval. That is the preferable solution.
Richard Harkness,
Canmore
