Canmore’s Housing Crisis Needs Solutions, Not Penalties.
We all want affordable housing. Let’s work together for fair, practical solutions that unite Canmore and protect all Albertans. The Vacancy Tax isn’t the answer.
About the New Tax
Canmore’s vacancy tax, also known as the Livability Tax Program, is a new tax on second homeowners that aims to raise funds for housing initiatives in the community. The proposed tax claims to address the town’s housing challenges, but it misses the mark by unfairly targeting non-resident property owners who contribute significantly to the local economy.
The Cost of Division: What’s at Stake?
All Albertans – A Dangerous Precedent
The proposed vacancy tax risks setting a harmful precedent, worsening housing challenges across the province. By deterring investment, it limits housing supply in a region already struggling to meet demand, with Canmore lagging in housing starts. Policies like rejecting major projects (e.g., Three Sisters Mountain Village), excessive permit delays, and contentious measures like the Off-Site Levy Bylaw further discourage developers and drive up costs. If adopted elsewhere, such measures could reduce housing investment province-wide, increase costs, and require provincial intervention to stabilize the market.
Full-Time Residents – Canmore Divided
The proposed vacancy tax divides the community and fosters resentment while failing to address core issues like housing shortages and rising costs. By discouraging investment and alienating non-resident homeowners, who support the local economy, it risks deepening the crisis. This policy threatens Canmore’s unity and vibrancy, hindering efforts for a collaborative and sustainable future.
Second Homeowners – An Unfair Target
The proposed vacancy tax unfairly targets second homeowners, portraying them as outsiders despite their significant contributions to Canmore’s economy and community. These homeowners already pay taxes while using fewer services but now face added costs without representation or solutions to the housing crisis. Many feel devalued and discriminated against, risking alienation of a group vital to local businesses, job creation, and Canmore’s inclusive spirit.
Builders and Major Landowners – Discourages Investment
The proposed vacancy tax discourages builders and developers, undermining investments critical to addressing Canmore’s housing challenges. By reducing market demand, it hampers new housing projects, slowing progress on affordable solutions and limiting economic growth. Punitive measures like this tax push away key players, stalling collaboration and innovation needed for sustainable, inclusive housing.
Fairness & Equity:
The proposed tax unfairly targets contributors without giving them a voice.
Community At Risk:
The proposed tax is divisive and harms Canmore’s unity and growth.
Real Solutions Over Band-Aids:
The proposed tax doesn’t solve root issues like supply shortages and affordability.
The Numbers Speak for Themselves
- 26%: Households in Canmore directly targeted for a raise in taxes. (Stats Can Census – Canmore – 2021)
- $841,000: Tax administration cost. (Expenditures excluding grants & transfers – Town of Canmore 2024)
Frequently Asked Questions
Why oppose the tax?
It unfairly targets specific groups, fosters division in the community, and fails to address the root causes of Canmore’s housing crisis, ultimately harming the town’s unity and economic sustainability.
How will the tax impact local businesses?
The proposed vacancy tax in Canmore is likely to have a detrimental impact on local businesses by discouraging second home ownership, which plays a vital role in the town’s economy. Many second homeowners support local businesses through their spending on goods, services, and tourism-related activities. By targeting these owners, the tax reduces their incentive to invest in and maintain properties in Canmore, potentially leading to fewer visitors and less economic activity. Additionally, with reduced housing investment and development, fewer workers may be able to afford to live locally, exacerbating labor shortages and further straining businesses reliant on a stable workforce. The combined effect threatens the vitality of the local economy and the sustainability of small businesses that depend on both residents and visitors.
Why doesn’t the tax solve the problem?
The proposed vacancy tax does not solve the housing problem because it fails to address the root causes of housing affordability and supply shortages. Instead of incentivizing the construction of new housing, the tax targets second homeowners, discouraging their investments without creating mechanisms to increase the availability of affordable homes. This approach reduces the pool of potential buyers and investors, which in turn discourages developers from pursuing new projects in the area. Canmore already faces challenges with delayed or denied housing developments and lengthy permit processing times, further limiting its ability to meet housing demand. By focusing on punitive measures rather than fostering an environment conducive to development, the tax exacerbates supply constraints and raises housing costs, ultimately making affordability issues worse.
Who is involved in FFC?
FFC represents a diverse community of members concerned about fair taxation principles and protecting the fabric of Canmore’s community, they include primary and secondary homeowners, business owners and builder/developers. While some members may own second homes, our primary concern is establishing tax policies that are legally sound, effective, and don’t divide our community. The Livability Tax violates provincial legislation by targeting property owners rather than property characteristics, setting a concerning precedent for all Alberta property owners.
Why does FFC oppose the Livability Tax?
Alberta’s taxation system is designed to tax properties based on their characteristics, not on how owners use them. The Town of Canmore changing their approach on this fundamental principle creates inconsistency and could potentially create inequity across the province. Additionally, evidence from other jurisdictions – as highlighted by the Fraser Institute and others – shows vacancy taxes don’t significantly increase housing supply or affordability. They just increase taxes.
Why is FFC pursuing legal action?
Similar vacancy taxes in other jurisdictions have failed to meaningfully increase housing supply or affordability. Additionally, the tax’s implementation raises serious legal concerns regarding the Town’s interpretation of the Municipal Government Act and includes the Qualifications of Assessor Regulation, AR 233/2005 and the Matters Relating to Assessment and Taxation Regulation, 2018, AR 203/2017. Rather than waiting years to discover its ineffectiveness – and watching Canmore Council spend that time putting a rift in our community, we’re advocating for an immediate focus on solutions with proven track records.
Legal action was our last resort after attempting to engage constructively with Canmore Town Council. The judicial review focuses on whether the tax complies with provincial legislation. We believe working within Alberta’s legal framework is essential to creating fair and equitable property tax system and sustainable, effective housing solutions.
Why are the funds raised by the tax not guaranteed to be exclusively for housing?
There is no guarantee that the tax revenue will be used effectively. There is no requirement in Canmore’s Bylaw that the money raised from the Livability Tax be used on new housing. The bylaw establishing the tax contains no binding commitment requiring these funds be used exclusively for housing solutions and funds could be redirected to other municipal priorities at Council’s discretion. Funds raised are often used for administration costs rather than actual housing solutions. In the case of Canmore there is a projected administration cost of $848,000.
Moreover, other cities have shown that vacancy taxes generate far less revenue than expected. (Fraser Institute, 2018; Michael Geller, 2023). A tax is not a housing plan, building more homes and increasing rental options are. This is already the case in Canmore, the Town initially projected $12 million dollars of revenue and today that projection has dropped to $10.3 million.
Have similar taxes in other cities have affected housing costs or increased supply?
Evidence from cities with vacancy taxes shows minimal effectiveness. Vancouver’s Empty Homes Tax, implemented in 2017, converted less than 1% of housing stock from vacant to occupied, with negligible impact on overall affordability. Housing prices continued to rise despite the tax. (Michael Geller, 2023) Similar results have been seen in Toronto and Australian cities with vacancy taxes. These taxes fail because they don’t address fundamental supply constraints, and the number of units converted is too small to meaningfully impact the market. The data consistently shows that tackling supply issues directly is more effective.
What role does second home ownership play in housing prices?
While second homes are one factor in Canmore’s housing market, the main factors limited developable land, geographic constraints, high construction costs, regulatory hurdles, and strong demand for mountain living. Simply targeting second homeowners doesn’t address these structural issues. Rather than implementing ineffective, punitive taxes, we should focus on increasing housing supply through streamlined development, leveraging Canmore’s assets, like tourism, to benefit affordability and partnerships with provincial and federal housing programs.
What should we do about Canmore's housing crisis?
We support working with federal programs like the Housing Accelerator Fund, addressing the shortcomings in Canmore’s unsuccessful application, streamlining development processes, incentivizing appropriate housing development, and collaborating with provincial authorities on regional housing strategies that increase supply without unfairly targeting specific homeowners. We would also support reopening the discussion on Resort Municipality Status subject to a wider discussion with Town wide stakeholders. The Town should engage in comprehensive targeted stakeholder discussion towards Resort Municipality status, leading to a more favorable context in which to address housing issues. This solution could directly tie economic development and revenue growth as a result of tourism to affordable housing outcomes.
How does this tax affect permanent residents of Canmore?
The tax affects many permanent residents through its complex classification system. Some full-time residents may face higher tax burdens if they don’t meet specific criteria. Beyond direct impacts, the tax diverts resources from effective housing solutions and creates division within our community.
How does this tax set a precedent for other Alberta municipalities?
If Canmore can implement taxation based on property owner characteristics rather than property characteristics, contrary to the Municipal Government Act, other municipalities might follow with similar discriminatory taxes and use this precedent to develop other taxes that are based on a characteristic of the owner rather than a characteristic of the property. This precedent undermines Alberta’s consistent taxation principles and could threaten the province’s low-tax advantage.
Has the Town of Canmore erred by creating a tax subclass by owner characteristics instead of the property characteristics?
Alberta’s Municipal Government Act (MGA) Section 297 and the Matters Relating to Assessment Sub-classes Regulation (Alberta Regulation 202/2017) specifically require that residential property subclasses must be based on physical characteristics of the property itself, not on owner characteristics or usage patterns. The Livability Tax creates classifications based on h owners use their properties rather than the properties’ inherent characteristics, which appears to contradict this provincial framework. This distinction is fundamental to Alberta’s property taxation system.
Why is this tax unfair to second homeowners?
This tax impacts both part-time and full-time residents, as many full-time residents risk being classified as ‘vacant’ simply for traveling for work, health or family reasons. It’s not a fair or effective policy, and more than that, it requires homeowners to declare how often they are in their homes – in our view, this is a violation of privacy and not the right way to treat Canmore’s homeowners.
This isn’t about avoiding taxes; it’s about ensuring taxes are fair, legal, and effective. The current tax violates the Municipal Government Act by targeting owners rather than properties. All property owners already pay property taxes based on their property’s value. We support fair taxation that complies with provincial legislation and actually addresses housing challenges.
Is FFC against all forms of progressive taxation?
FFC supports fair taxation within the framework of provincial legislation. We believe any tax should be legally sound, demonstrably effective, and implemented with clear criteria. The Livability Tax fails on all these counts, violating provincial legislation while failing to address the fundamental supply challenges in Canmore’s housing market.
Join the fight for a fair Canmore
Join the many Albertans who have already added their names and voices to this vital cause. Please also share with friends and your community, how this proposed tax will impact you or anyone you care about. Thank you for your support.
"*" indicates required fields