PROPOSED SHORT TERM RENTAL CHANGES

Isn't this just an opt-in on the new BC laws around these? (As those laws don't apply to resort municipalities)

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/short-term-rentals/sh...

Most towns in BC are dealing with these restrictions now..

Hopefully this strong legislation will allow suites/properties to return to the long term rental pool, and cool the housing market.. (and yes..I own properties and a rental)

But MJones, do you have a STR that will be affected by the proposed changes?

Council has proposed only bedrooms in Old Town, this is much more strict than what the Provincial Government is doing. In fact, Rossland is already more strict than the new Provincial rules by allowing only 1 per block. 

I have spoken with many who will be affected by the proposed rules and have not heard from one, including ourselves, who will turn their suite into a long term rental for various reasons.

We too have a long term rental in Rossland.

Even in the STR survey, 70% of the respondents said that bedrooms, detached suites and suites should be allowed everywhere in Rossland. What was the point of the survey?

Not any more

The proposal for rossland includes grandfathering an eisting an STR as non-conforming under local gov act...

https://rossland.civicweb.net/document/26831

..so business as usual.

We are one of the smallest resort communities in BC, so unique solutions are needed to preserve the lifestyle and town feel we all enjoy.

That's from November 21, 2022, not even going to bother reading it.

I would love for you to show me in the agenda released today where it says they are grandfathering existing and conforming STR's, it's not in there.

My question is, what is the motivation behind this? Why ask for the citizens opinion if you're going to do the opposite?

who benefits from this? There will be more than 100 households that life becomes very unaffordable for because of this.  Who gains?

it's not just the rental suite owners that lose, it's the grocery store, the restaurants, the small businesses in town that also lose when literally millions of dollars are taken out of the economy. (based On avg $20,000 annual income - which is a low ball estimate) by over 100 rental suites, That's 2 million in previous income, taken out of the hands of the hands of Joe Citizen, that otherwise a Significant portion went to lspending on businesses in town, went I bikes, skis, groceries, coffe shops, gifts, restaurants, and puts that money into the hands of the few, or takes it away altogether.  It might seem like a win for the ski hill and surrounding property owners, but it's awfully hard to grow your over I guy visitors when you take 100's of rooms out of the rental pool. It also changes the nature of who can afford to visit rossland? Are the  families that come to stay in the $150/$250/ night air bnb's going  to rent the $400-$800 condos at the hill.

so the question is - What is motivating this change? WhI benefits from this? it's highly unlikely to create new long term rentals - any evidence that supports this at all? - it guaranteed makes life more unaffordable for hundreds of Rosslanders,  makes it more expensive for visiting tourists, decreases the room  night capacity for tourism, and puts a multi million dollar hit on the local economy and businesses in town, it also negatively affects Coty Cohncil and Coty Hall by alienating citizens. When you ask people's opinion, and then do the opposite, it's a sure-fire way to reduce citizen engagement and trust in the local government, making future projects and initiatives that much harder to get buy in.....

Who benefits? Unknown. Who loses though is very clear. 

I look forward to hearing the logic behind this decision.

Apologies for the brutal typos, pounding it out on my phone :)

All fantastic points Freeheeler, many of mine are the same. Please standup at the meeting on Monday and let your voice be heard, us rambling on Bhubble is never enough.

To LM and Freeheeler I brought this up to the city, the fact that 70ish percent of the respondents were in favor of STR and there reply was that 80 percent were home owners, and the city`s role was to represent the general populous.  I looked into the research that has been done around the world of what percentage of STC starts having an affect on long term housing and Rossland is not quite there, what was not factored in when people filled in that survey that the burden of affortable housing would land on our shoulders.  

I certainly can not address the housing issues in canada in a few sentences but I do know that one mid size city in Texas had half the new building starts of the entirety of canada in one year.  I lived in Whistler in the 90`s and many other ski resorts since and such is life, everyone made do and was so happy to be there regardless of.  I definitely agree that this will not aid in adding very much more long term rental, I have no interest in having a full time tenant living in my home and would rather keep it empty.

Moki, does it really matter that 80% of the respondents were homeowners? Maybe thats because the majority of people in Rossland are in fact homeowners, what did they expect. That still doesn't change the fact that most folks, homeowners or not, in Rossland think STR's, not just bedrooms, should be allowed everywhere in Rossland, including Old Town.

Please come to the Council meeting on Monday at let your reasonable voice be heard, this is very important.

What on earth is "Old Town Rossland"? Since when does this exist?

The draft bylaw for first reading on Monday night specifically notes that there will be no grandfathering of existing short term rental zonig

https://rosslandtelegraph.com/2023/07/11/council-matters-rossland-city-c...

Interesting discussion in council (Delegations #1 and #2) promoting the importance of SRT's, did they mean both towns though? (Old town and New town)

IairBnB's in an owners home are usually great ...have stayed in many..  They run a tight ship to keep neighbours happy (lest they lose their license).  No crowded/busy resort vibe, you have everything you need, and you often get to meet a local and experience a community from a different perspective.  You can make your own breakfast whenever you wish and get outside to play or to your race start long before a standard B&B has breakfast ready.  I would much prefer to stay in the "old town" and walk to shops than be stuck outside of town at a busy ski resort.  

We have one of the best (arguably THE best) networks of mtn bike and groomed nordic trails in the country.  This type of tourism often attracts people who don't want a corporate run hotel/resort vibe.  

If Rossland chooses not to allow this type of AirBnb  (owner occupied property with tight restrictions to ensure no disruption to neighbourhood), then a portion of the tourism could be lost.  And I'm guessing resort and hotels would have less competition and raise their prices.  

And families in "old town" who are trying to pay their high mortgages and save for their children's education will be left without this option for income boosts. Or empty nesters on a fixed pension.  Longterm tenants are often not worth the bother with various issues and the loss of privacy, flexibility and freedom to host other guests in your home. I really can't see how this will address a  LTR housing shortage.  We can't assume that the people who want to operate STRs would take longterm tenants.

Thanks Dorothy, you make many of the same arguments I continue to make, especially those of us just trying to make ends meet to be able to continue to live in Rossland, not to mention recoup the significant amount of money we put into our property to have the STR, a STR the city said we could have.

Please come to the Council meeting on Monday and stand up and let your voice be heard!

To clarify-the STR to which I am referring (that I would favour) is homeowner-occupied, with strict enforceable licensing restrictions for accountability....and with a separate private suite, or bedroom in home.

I'm really sorry I can't make the meeting :(.  I really hope others can.  I think I submitted comments when I did the survey.  Figured it can't hurt to add a voice here too...

I would love to know whether the 80% cited is 80% of respondents or 80% of the total population of Rossland...I would wager it's the former or we will have made the Guiness Book of Records as being the only ones where everyone in town has responded to a survey......I have had much experience with surveys of various types by various organizations for various purposes, and there is a lot of truth in the adage that "you can make the numbers say anything you want" if you are the person / organization that has put out the survey. And,people do lie on surveys (!!) to make themselves feel good about the topic, or be obstinate, or because sometimes  they don't fully realize / understand the consequences of what they are putting their vote for or against. Survey questions are often worded to lead to a particular answer. Some don't answer surveys just because they see them as a waste of time, or just plain aren't interested in the topic. I remember one gent during an election say he allowed the opposing party's sign to be put on his lawn because he was just being fair and it was the "nice" thing to do....but he wasn't voting for them (!)....and that several of his neighbours felt the same way, so that if someone was driving around that neighbourhood trying to guage support for one party or another, they would totally not have come to the right conclusion. The same is often the result with surveys.

So, rather than repeating numbers, I would like to ask if any neighbourhood in Rossland (call it what you will, Rossland is Rossland and Red Mountain area is Red Mountain) is prepared or even structured to accept the increased number of residents some see as flooding to the area (according to the dollar amounts that would be forthcoming, as per other posts). There are several roads that are dead end, one way in, same way out.....if everyone on the street has someone staying in their STR  (it's indicated the "majority" want STRs to be allowed  "everywhere" in town, so it would be a possibility) , I'm not sure the added congestion of more vehicles trying to enter/exit would put smiles on people's faces. I already have fun getting out of my driveway on holidays as neighbours' families visiting next door / across the street  from me already have no where to park but on the street and a major back and forthing is needed just to exit my carport so I don't back into someone's bumper...and this is exacerbated in winter months by icy conditions and plowed snow on the easements.....but it's only usually on the special occasions, and for neighbourhood families, so we all work with it. STRs present more people, more frequently, taking up space that should be first and foremost be given to actual residents, as it is scarce and not easily maneuvered in a lot of areas of town. I have seen people parking even next to fire hydrants, or in a places that, in winter conditions, are asking for an accident....like at the end of a hill and just around the corner because that's the house the STR is at (they always have different out of province plates), and  where the person coming down said hill gets a surprise if they turn too close, but turning wide also puts you at risk to encounter the driver coming the other way...and there's always an out of town car or two parked on the small stretch, on easements, in winter, but hey they have to park somewhere, and city hall doesn't seem to be bothered by it so perhaps some people on council aren't concerned about the inconvenience to locals, only about how much money can come into the coffers and the more STRs there are, the more dollars they get.

Another issue is water supply. We have already been told that the water supply / source in Rossland is not a never-ending source that we can rely on without careful management. All those extra people in everyone's houses / suites / lane houses etc. etc. (they are wanted "everywhere", remember) will be drawing water for showers (and most come with a partner, friend, or family members, so multiply that water usage X2 or more), and add laundry usage and kitchen usage on to that.

There is nothing wrong with money, but if money or not having of enough of it is the only thing  threatening any of our lifestyles, then IMH opinion we all have to start making choices about our own circumstances and not force others to change in order to accommodate our preferences. This is something some of us have had to do several times over in life. "We can't always have what we want" but it seems a certain percentage of residents are trying to force the issue here when the end result has the potential for problems they are ignoring for the sake of the dollar.

Those are good points JJR, definitely need careful consideration.  Every AirBnB I have stayed at had carefully managed designated off street parking areas and noise rules.  They can pre-screen guests based on reviews, etc.   the owners living on site I think is key to keeping control - because they have to live with the consequence of a bad guest.  I'm not sure what the answer is...but whatever the policy, there needs to be strong enforcement and accountability to prevent these nuisance issues.   

Good food for thought JJR, good addition to the conversation. One note, all current liscencard / zoned Short Term  Rentals, must have at least one off-street parking spot dedicated to the rental. so the current parking challenges are not coming from licensed, zoned STR's.

JJR, the City told me that "only 8.7% identified themselves as renters" with regards to the survey. 

I don't think STR's should be allowed anywhere in town. A home unoccupied the homeowner should never be allowed to be a STR. The current bylaw says 1 per block, up to 5% of the homes in Rossland. I don't think the 5% was a bad number. The proposed rules are significantly stricter than the Provincial Governments new rules. 

To your last paragraph, what I see as totally wrong is for the city to tell me before I start building my home that I am qualified to have a STR on my property. I then invest several hundred thousand dollars to build the suite into my home and furnish it, then 6 years later for them to say, oh sorry you can't have the STR any longer. At anytime of day is this "fair", the word Council used time and time again in the late November Council meeting. 

 I made a "choice" to invest that money, money that came out of our retirement nest, I'm 65, that is gone and is no longer available to be invested otherwise unless we sell our home.

How about a vacancy tax in Rossland? I never hear this discussed. Maybe this would open up homes to the LTR market, I don't know.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Are there any statistics on housing vacancy rates between the ski season and all other times of the year?  Is housing a seasonal issue?  Does Rossland have a housing shortage or is it just being lumped in with the rest of the country?  Is that the thrust of this amendment? 

Selfish side note from the main chatter, which I mostly have the view that the way it is right now prior to any change seems to be the compromise most would and already had accepted. (I understand a few exceptions for example those that built under one rule and then got excluded which I do agree seems unfair)

Does anyone have a line on what is being defined as a secondary suite by Rossland standards 

We currently are listed as R1-GS but our "suite" does not have separate entrance nor does it have a kitchen which is part of the broader BC definition so by all means we rent a lounge bathroom and two bedrooms out.

I'm wondering how this is to change things for us, as we have been listed in specific as loosing our R1-GS zoning but feel we don't meet that bill. 

If this about long term housing we wouldn't rent that area long term without a kitchen so all it's doing is now leaving valuable tourist rentable space vacant if we are to be included. 

Matt J-I suggest you pull up Monday's Council Meeting agenda and see if your address is one of the lucky ones, that should answer your question for now.

Maybe this will work...

https://rossland.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/16368/?expanded=33634

Taking anything from the existing STR pool in Rossland makes no sense when you consider we are a tourist town. To say we have enough STR's at RED and we don't need them in town is ludicrous. Who wants to stay at RED in the Summer, certainly not any of our guests as they continually tell us.

I wonder how the downtown merchants feel about this proposal.

If you are on the cut list, I strongly urge you to come to the meeting on Monday and voice your comments and concerns. Even if you aren't on the cut list and you feel their proposal is unfair to the other 28 approved legal and conforming STR's in Old Town Rossland, please come stand up for us!

Freewheeler, if you're asking who benefits from getting rid of STR in Rossland: we all do.  Including businesses probably.  It's getting increasingly hard to find any LTR in Rossland, affordable or not.  This affects businesses - like the ski hill if they can't hire enough seasonal employees, but also local businesses. And you can't look at STR rental economic benefits without comparing that to the benefit of LTR rentals.  Long term tenants may spend less on the accomodations, but they might spend more in local businesses, specially on businesses that aren't specifically targeting tourists.  I for one do not want a bunch of tourist shops on the main street, or things selling at tourist prices. 

I appreciate that not every STR rental will become LTR, but considering that some people, like LM, are building specifically for the STR market, you have to agree that this is a clear disincentive to build or adapt buildings to create LTR stock.  I think the last 10 years has shown that the STR market is much more profitable than LTR and hence has driven a market to cater specifically to the detriment of LTR development, unfortunately.  And one could make the argument it has taken the wind out of hotel development.

I think at this point the city is probably right to focus on providing LTR, otherwise we'll never attract young workers to the area, who are quite necessary.

Phil, To your point about the ski hill and seasonal employees, they have no problem hiring seasonal employees, there is just not enough winter housing for seasonal employees and that is not up to the full time residents of Rossland to solve, that is up to the ski hill.

Do you really think the merchants in Rossland don't benefit from tourists who come to town, we are a tourist town are we not? Let's ask the merchants that question.

How about if the cty is going to take the STR away from me, a STR they said I could have and invested heavily in, they give me an incentive to turn it into a LTR? My property taxes are pretty darn high and that is in large part because the City said I could have the STR.

Again, if this is about uping the LTR stock, why then has there been absolutely no discussion about a vacancy tax in Rossland? Who is council representing, the full time residents of Rossland, people who give back to the community every day, 365 days a year, or the folks who are here only a few months a year? 

I should add to the Last paragrah...

Again if this is about uping the LTR stock, OR MAKING HOMES AVAILABLE TO FULL TIME RESIDENTS......

LM, I'm not sure exactly how your investments into your property or properties to make a STR mean you have to invest more money to turn them into LTR, but if that's true then that would be the argument for not allowing STR in residential areas. Clearly, it means residential investments were turned into commercial investments.  We don't want to turn Rossland into one big spread out hotel. 

That said, I do think it would be a rash decision on the part of council to take away a STR business license from people that have already got one.  Perhaps a better solution would be to grandfather the current STR's, perhaps for a limited time - say 10 years or until the sale of the property, whichever is shortest.

As for a vacancy tax - what would be the criteria?  How would it be enforced?  It's one of those idea that is good on paper, but not so easy to administer in practice.

Phil-I have never suggested I would need to invest more money to turn our suite into a LTR.

We would not have a LTR WITHIN OUR home for various reasons. First and foremost, when we were granted the aility to have the STR in our home I designed our home with the idea our extra bedrooms for friends and family to visit would be the ones within the suite, no need to spend more money to have other bedrooms in other parts of the home uneccesarily. Consequently, we need to access the bedrooms that are within the suite for friends and family to use at various times throughout the year.

Thank you for understanding that it would be rash and unfair for Council to take away existing legal and conforming STR's.

And, thank you for the productive conversation. I truly wish we could sit down with all of council at one time and actually have this same kind of productive conversation, not just be limited to standing in front of them for 2 minutes to spout our concerns, then have to sit back and just listen to them debate.

My selfish take:  If a loss of STR revenues can in any way bring down property values in Rossland then I'm all for it.  But we've been trying to get into this community for 5 years now and prices have balooned out of our reach (blue collar working family with young children).

I can appreciate your frustration Blue Marley, our 30+ year old son was fortunate to finally get into the real estate market in Rossland, not cheap and needed, and still needs, lots of work.

Rossland is no where near reaching the max STR's currently allowed in Old Town, so clearly STR's in town are not driving up prices in Rossland, the driving force is classic supply and demand.

Rossland  city council doesn't care about long term rentals. They have never offered any level of incentives to bring in Long Term Rentals. The process is long, and expensive and they don't maintain standards for such things as parking across the board.  I have a studio apartment attached to my house and I was told that I needed two additional parking spots despite having the corner lot ($2000-6000).  The two houses beside me do not have any parking despite one being a new build in the last 7 years. The house across from me has everyone parking on the lawn. My suite has been in my house since at least the 1950's, but yet there is no easy support to grandfather it in and at least provide space for once seasonal worker. So the suite will sit empty because the cost is to high to turn it into an LTR. 

I was lucky enough to arrive in Rossland "back in the day" when houses were cheap and I had a middle-class income. Now I am a low income senior. Even if I left for the winter, I would not rent my house out. Why? Because all the tenant-landlord laws highly favor the tenant. Yes, there are some rotten landlords in the world, but most people who rent their actual homes or a room in it are fair-minded and responsive. Our homes are often our biggest asset, so not only do we want to take care of the renters, we want to maintain the home. Yet owners like me (and even middle class people) cannot afford to take the risk of winding up with an awful tenant who stops paying rent, vandalizes the home, and can't be evicted for months to a year. We can't cover these kinds of costs. Even "good" tenants do not take care of a property the same way an owner would, especially if they have never owned a home: they have no idea what it costs to fix, re-paint, or replace things, and their idea of "reasonable wear and tear" is sometimes unreasonable.  For example, I once had a house mate who thought it was OK to come home and sit on the couch in the work clothes he'd been tearing roofs off and painting in all day, instead of changing first. He did not understand that when I bought something at my income level, it had to last, and things last by taking care of them. It would cost me more to replace or recover that sofa than an an entire year of his rent, in addition to his security deposit, would cover. This was not reasonable wear and tear: it was disrespectful. Even though I was providing him a place to live at a very low rent, he, like other tenants, often seemed to harbor some resentment toward the owner for taking their money, as though renting (even at a below-market price) was somehow taking unfair advantage of them. I never could afford to recover or replace that sofa, so I live with a paint stain on it and threadbare cushions due to his dirt grinding into it. This is just one of numerous examples I could provide. Pet owners have no idea how much damage their pets cause, even if the owners consider themselves responsible and the pet well-behaved. (I could tell you some stories!) It is different if the landlord is a giant corporation with lots of rental units that can cushion the loss of something like this, but the risk/reward ratio, given current laws, is simply too weighted towards the renter for low to middle-class income landlords. So as others have said in this thread, assuming that cancelling STRs will create more permanent housing is not necessarily true. Many would rather leave their units empty than go through the hassle and risk of renting on a long-term basis. To this day, I know people who leave Rossland for the winter who do not rent out their homes for this very reason. I won't do it unless tenant-landlord laws change to be more fair to small-time owners like me who are trying to provide housing to someone who needs it while softening their personal cost of living.

Appeal to Council to recognize ONE ROSSLAND

We passively let the Old Town thing happen but now it needs to stop. The core problem is Council arbitrarily divided the community geographically and is now applying different rules to different areas based on this perception. It is an absolutely terrible precedent that will lead to divisions in our community. We all need to appeal to Council to recognize ONE ROSSLAND and drop the division. 

Whoever came up with this idea and the ridiculous name Old Town should resign. Vote for ONE ROSSLAND

ONE ROSSLAND no Old Town

bsolutely right

ONE ROSSLAND no Old Town

Is anyone going to City Hall on Monday at 5:30 pm?

Anysnowisgood's comment above posted Feb 27th is entirely accurate.  I agree 100%

One of the main drivers of a reduced supply of long-term rental housing in BC in particular, but also in a few other provinces, is the unbalanced residential tenancy rules that lean incredibly heavily in favour of tenants.  BC, is in fact, among the most tenant-friendly jurisdiction in all of North America when it comes to residential tenancy rules.  This is scaring off potential small-scale residential landlords in droves, and governments have been and continue to be unable to build and provide enough replacement housing to fill that growing gap.  Add in other factors such as increasing population, and STR as a better alternative to those small-scale landlords in particular, and voila...you have a long-term-rental crisis, and increasing initial rent costs for long-term tenants.  If a small-scale landlord does still choose to take the risk of taking on a long-term tenant, you'd better believe they will mostly likely ask top dollar in order to mitigate those risks that Anysnowisgood mentioned above.  They'll also do so because they know that they will be unable to increase the rent in any meaningful way annually if the tenancy runs for many years.  Nowhere near the actual inflation rate.  As the poster mentioned, the only ones willing to take the risk currently in the province of BC are the large-scale corporate landlords.  Is that who the provincial government wants controlling the long-term rental supply?  Because that is what is happening and that ratio will continue to get worse if the provincial government doesn't see the light and fix the residential tenancy rules to be more balanced between tenants and landlords, and also address the length of time it takes to resolve disputes between those parties while they are at it.  The rules need to find a new and fair middle ground for the benefit of everyone.  Doing so will put more LTR supply on the market, creating more competition and drive initial rent costs down for tenants as well.  A win-win that works in many other jurisdictions around the world.

Looking to see if anyone has input on this. 

We are one of the previous STR without a full suite, but we have built a bachelor style space in our basement to STR (which will be included in the new rules as a bedroom in our owner occupied home). 

We bought the property knowing it had STR zoning and that it added value to the property. I've gotten a bit behind on following this , but am reading the Rossland telegraph article about the last council meeting which I was unable to attend. 

https://rosslandtelegraph.com/2024/02/06/council-matters-rossland-city-c...

What's concerning me here is the discussion that this is a "starting point" and may be revisited in the future after the Housing Needs Assessment is completed. At that point we will be a R1-infill zoning and would be back at square one with regards to any new regulations. Following addresses are in the same boat as us:

Residential Short term Rental

Residential Short term rental use has been added to all single family zones in "old town". Residential Short term rental use means an accessory use of a principal residence, or a portion of one, as temporary accommodation for a paying guest for a period of less than 30 consecutive days, and is prohibited in conjunction with a Secondary suite or detached secondary suite. The following properties had previous short term rental zoning, have a principal resident and do not have a secondary suite so their STR use can continue under the newly proposed zoning regulations provided they continue to show proof of principal residency and other business license requirements.

1760 Second Ave

1973 Second Ave

2234 Fifth Ave

1827A Leroi Ave

2330 St Paul St

1983 Kirkup Avenue

1615 Victoria Avenue

2194 Park Street

1633 Second Avenue

941 Redstone Drive

1725 Black Diamond Drive

2807 Happy Valley Road

1810 Planer Crescent

2075 Thompson Avenue

1889 Nevada Street

2242 Leroi Avenue

2565 Columbia Avenue

2324 Columbia Ave

Sorry for the wall of text! If anyone else on this list wants to chat, let me know. 

"This is scaring off potential small-scale residential landlords in droves"

Good. Sell your extra properties. Some people are trying to live while y'all think you're playing monopoly.

It's a anti Newcomer thing. Guarantee that there's anti inclusion anti Kindness behind this whole thing. Population of Kotts including Rossland is going to Double in next decadel I'd bet the Kitchen Sink sone really High Level Karen in Old Towns Mad cause two Queers from Victoria have built a infill house n her block so too get rid the Rainbow Couple let's go after that Air BnB they have. It's what they do here GangStalk and passive aggressive attck newcomers who look different late from Gay City's,are Gay. Inclusion  not in my Complex o Block! Red Village is even Worse 98% Narcissistic Klan. Shocked how here we are best qualities of life in BC and Towns chalk full of Narcissistic miserables Who nothing but roadblock and attack anybody and anything that's not Bent like they are. Be grateful if your one the ,any many many who are here for the Right reasons and are able to feel Empathy and Joy. Narcissistic? Don't feel Empathy and are Bent on Gossiping and Drama. 

Isn't the new complex at city hall still half empty? This is only town I e seen that never had seeking Rental ads. People moving here? Are buying and building. 2000+ new residents coming too Red Village all are buying. Lots of rentals in Trail a short Commute and there's even a Transit Setvice. Highest taxes in BC if not Canada? I can definitely see why one needs to get all they can from suites. Taxes are 500 a month. Intrest rates have quadrupled gas,food...

I see Robinson Robinson is having a Shane event again :)

Ricky LaFleur - rentals are needed, therefore landlords are needed. Would you rather the rentals were owned by big corporations as opposed to small, local landlords who own one or two properties? Do you have another solution in mind?

Would be great if we could stop demonizing all landlords. The hostility towards landlords does no one any favours and may turn off prospective landlords even more. Like the nice lady said at the meeting people invest in property to make money. Home owners should not be obligated to run a charity because the governments of all levels have not invested in social or affordable housing for decades. I could tell a number of terrible tenant stories and until tenancy regulations allow for fixed term leases and a land lord to deal with a problem tenant in a timely manner LTR's will remain very undesirable compared to STR's. 

It does appear that Rossland does not have an LTR shortage when The Yards is at 60% capacity and they are still advertising in order to fill the building. Clearly there is no wait list for this building. Is this because of the restrictions? I would likely have the same resrictions like no smoking no pets and you require a job. I did ask the mayor how much city of rossland contributed to The yards project but he did not know. He indicated the cost of the city hall portion was 3 to 3.2 million But not how much rossland tax payers contributed. 

STR's are low hanging fruit for local municipalities to seem like they are doing something to impact the housing problem. Even if residential STR's are 10% of the problem what are municipalities proposing to do about the other 90% of the problem? The only way to alleviate hosing affordability and availablity to to build more homes. This is true everywhere and not just Rossland.

The city owns property and could apply for provincial grants to build larger scale rental/affordable housing projects on. Maybe even build some affordable senior housing that could entice seniors to be able to move out of their single family homes. These projects are hard for councils that are only in office for such short stretches and have no accountability past their term. It would seem a municipality could benefit from hiring some sort of housing specialist to steer these projects from beginning to end regardless of who is on council. Someone who would be accountable for cost overruns and other such unforseeable events. 

It was good to see so many people at the council meeting. Nothing said at this meeting has been differnt from any of the other meetings I have attended but still important to show up. It does feel like council has made up their minds on this which is too bad. See you all at the next meeting I hope.

Thanks all, for sharing your experience and insights. I have learned a lot in what I have read so far, and by speaking to some people in town who have STR's. There's a lot that I have yet to learn, I'm sure. I admit, when the questionnaire about STRs went out to the community, I filled it out, and have since changed my answers to many of the questions, because I learned new things. It's too bad there wasn't something done prior to distributing the questionnaire that would help educate the average Rossland resident by offering a number of perspectives from current STR and LTR owners. Benefits? Limitations? Challenges? Etc. Thought Exchange probably could have put together something to help consolidate some of the main points. I personally would have benefitted from something like that BEFORE submitting the questionnaire. I did the best I could with what I had at the time. 

Perhaps that could be an approach in the future when it comes to some of the issues that impact the community and take up an awful lot of time and resources. i.e. Offering an opportunity for those most impacted by policy change to be heard before the proposals are put forth - and make it available to the public before asking for general public input.

Just a thought...

Hey all, been following this issue and the meetings for some time. 

We are one of the listed properties and currently away so missed the Monday meeting.

Can anyone share what was discussed and if any meaningful proposals were put forward on this issue. 

I see Rachel's comment above saying few new topics were broached if anyone can add to that if anything new was discussed or if the grandfathering of those current is the only concession proposed? 

https://rosslandtelegraph.com/2024/03/12/rossland-city-coiuncil-meetings...

The  Cnspiracy Pack get what they want by doing what Narcissistic do. Throw hissy fits. That group definitely doesn't see Rossland as a Resort/ Tourist destination. Current Mayor seems too Succumb too the Bullying the Narc-Packs about. Expect more lawsuits and More Narcisstic Insanity.  Wait until the 2000+ new people move in up at Red.Narc- Packs already drooling at the New Supply of Victims they will GangStalk and play passive aggressive games on.Shocking how many Adults in Rossland are stuck in grade 5 mentality but that's exactly what a Narcissistic is a arrested development Chil in a Adult body. Bullies 4 Ever. Proud of it too it seems. 

Calling somebody a child while substituing numbers for words and failing to use basic grammar, really getting your point across.  Why are you still here?  You repeatadly attack this community, the people who live here and the people who keep it running.  If you dislike it so much, do us all a favour and leave already.

Don't let Robinson Robinson's weird wild style detract from his excellent points.

Y'all know this town is an overgrown high school—run on chronyism—rife with bullying, intimidation, exclusion, and vicious gossip. The Paradise Paradox in full bloom. And yes, narcissism abounds, and fuels much of the "culture" here.

Ruh-roh, here come the Mississippi Burning-style "you should leave" posts. ON IT. Maybe Robinson Robinson and I will fall deeply in love and I'll teach him English.

Thank u Macinyes weird wild style? No sorry fact is we're living and always have alowe the bullies (narcissistic) dictate our policys and set our laws etc. They can't stand anyone around thems that's not a narcissist themselves. They are the most insecure people and can't just live lives and accept people are people and most people? Aren't them. Most of us in this world? We have Empathy we're reasonable we do t put on a fake I'm perfect I run , I have a8 grand mountain bike I'm first in line! I'm better than you! That's a narcissist. They are arrested developmet. Most were privatized upbringing so no understanding at all of average people struggle.Narcsitic run on Hate they love drama they love gosthey will smear any they deem worthless cause your not like them is truly why they attck us with Emapthy. They are Void of Empathy. They know it too. They hate seeing how us with Emapthy and real self confidence just up and do things. Especially can't stand serious g the Kids they bullied actually did ok I live and wow that Fat kid we pushed around? Sure had some rough moments even as a adult but look at him? He lost a ton of weight he's out jogging? He's got a wife? Huh... Two kinds people in this world Kind and Narcissistic. When u get into a playground like Rossland
 your gonna notice a ton of Narcissistic. They love coming and casting Shade on us who are here for right reason they are absolutely jealous that we can grow and we're not insecure like they are we don't need a Clique we don't need Phoney friends. As a Town it's time we just  We just accept this towns got a ton of Privelaged spoiled kids who grew up to be Narcissists.  Insecure and Jesus's are a thing only Narcissistic exsperience. It's treatable but not many the, face it causevtofa e it?mis to admit your a terrible person you spent your life bullying. That's why they are always pointing and complaining it's called deflecting. Look at the homeless! God dam junkies! Get a job! Bums! Meanwhile? They are day drinking night drinking drinking 365 days a year...

Yes here still here disterollf? Yep even walking up to my home and being given a naked and disturbing welcome and having that same neighbor lunge at my spouse wasnt enough to chase me off. I figured the guys nutjob? Yep turns out he is he literally spent yeats stalking me he skipped vacations to hang around stalk the guy with THAT thing on his face. Your probably ne the Gangstalkers ( flying monkeys) your taking the Karen's sides means your a Karen. Yeah so cool u live mountain town yeah look at me I ski blah blah I'm a cool dude blah blah. No sorry it's not a costume or a thing u can buy being Real? Is something you just are or not. Narcissistic are absolutely zero real it's a act. Constantly needing to reassure selves and others Me and Susie are so perfect we're the Whitest of whitest blah blah. Misspelled?when I type things in on my broke iPad it comes ou however. Unfortunately I'm a a disabilit pension and have two grandkids that I supertanker with that small pension so Ski? 8 grand bike? First off can't afford second off don't need a 8 grand bike or look at me I ski! Love that stuff and doi. It but o do it for me not you. That's the difference between Real people and Narcissistic.Your insecure your a bully etc. We're not. Have a good day. 

MaVi is obviously not a narcissistic. Most in Rossland aren't. Like anywhere most here are Real people and this is a awesome place. I love it. Sorry Creepy neighbour who welcomed us to our home with a Nude and aggressive handshake and the guy ( we have video) who keys my partners car she worked so hard for? wow Thats a narcissistic though! They are so demonic they attack people in own homes, they attack Neighbors!  The Bibles absolutely right. When it warns us Demons are amongst you. Anyone with no Emapthy? And a constant need to put up signs? No! NO This NO that! What they are really saying? StopStop! Being so secure Stop being spontaneous Stop! I'm in charge! It's about me! I'm the Boss! I'm the Queen. Arrested development Adults with a middle minset. A bullying one at that! The problem in society and in Rossland especially is we let the bullies ( Narcs) dicate.