Editor:
The multiple letters to the editor and article “Canmore vacancy tax could bring in $9 million in 2025” in the Nov 28 edition of the Outlook spelled out some of the ongoing drama concerning Canmore’s new vacancy tax.
I have written about this before in the Sept. 26 edition of the Outlook “Canmore vacant home tax program leaves many questions” and none of the subsequent information that the Town administration has released nor the letters to the editor has led to my reassessment of my opinion that this is a bad bylaw that sows division and mistrust.
The idea that some homeowners must pay considerably more property tax than others simply because they do not meet some arbitrary standard of residency is blatantly unfair. It is also a misconception that all those homeowners who do not meet this standard of residency are rich and therefore by definition must pay “their fair share.”
But the biggest problem with this bylaw is the arbitrarily set standard of what constitutes a full-time resident. You or a renter must reside in your property for a cumulative minimum of 183 days in a calendar year. Compounding this standard is a requirement that within those 183 days, you or your renter must spend 60 days living there without a break.
Now Town administration has spelled out on the website that this 60-day requirement is not as onerous as it seems. However, for anyone who has been audited for any reason in the past, the onus is always on the person being audited to provide documentary proof to the satisfaction of the auditor. Now the Town has proposed two part-time and four full-time staff to this program with a cost of approximately $560,000 per year.
What are these extra staff going to be doing? Well, my guess would be, conducting a robust and exhaustive audit program, the presence of a municipal enforcement officer on that staff should give you a pretty good hint. After all, they have to justify their existence and what better way than having a 100 per cent success rate when they audit
I will end this letter by commenting that depending on what the audit requires in the way of proof of residency, a lot of residents of Canmore who have always considered themselves full-time residents may be quite surprised to find out that the Town does not think so and is quite willing to make you pay for your misconception.
Don G. L. Rees,
Canmore
