5 ms·

No, I'm pretty sure you have to either declare it as a principal residence or you have to rent it out for at least 6 months a year with leases of at least 30 da

No, I'm pretty sure you have to either declare it as a principal residence or you have to rent it out for at least 6 months a year with leases of at least 30 days. Enforcement isn't based on whether the lights are on or not. And I'd assume that if you're declaring it as your principal residence but you're registered elsewhere for little things like voting it may trigger investigation that could get Very Expensive if you are determined to be lying.

rsync 10y ago
"No, I'm pretty sure you have to either declare it as a principal residence or you have to rent it out for at least 6 months a year with leases of at least 30 days. " I don't understand - what if it's neither ? What if you are a plain old canadian who has a home in Vancouver and (for instance) a home in Golden ? It's not at all unreasonable to have a home that: a) is not your primary residence b) you live in for 2-3 months of the year c) you have no intention of renting out because you go there regularly or sporadically What does one do in that circumstance ?
- caylus 10y ago
  Pay the tax. Owning a home in a crowded city, not living in it the vast majority of the time, and refusing to rent it out to people who desperately want to live there imposes a negative externality on the city, which you need to pay for.
  - rsync 10y ago
    "Owning a home in a crowded city, not living in it the vast majority of the time, and refusing to rent it out to people who desperately want to live there imposes a negative externality on the city" It is proposed that doing so imposes a negative externality. That proposal is not without counterpoints, however. Specifically: that the owners of those homes not only pay their full property taxes already, but they impose fewer costs on the infrastructure of the city while not being present. They don't drive on the roads or walk on the trails or use the public restrooms, etc. Look, I proposed a hypothetical situation[1] that has nothing at all to do with Chinese speculators buying up housing assets in a safe haven market. I proposed an unintended consequence on an otherwise innocent, well meaning actor. It's very interesting to note that the response is, basically, "too bad for them". [1] I don't live in Canada.
    - echlebek 10y ago
      My parents are in this very position, having bought a condo in Vancouver to live in part time. Their principle residence is in a small town in the BC interior. They're pretty upset about the tax, and it's not hard to see why. They could declare the condo their principle residence, but then they would encounter complications regarding their vehicles, which are typically not used in the city. (They prefer transit, and trucks don't fit into condo parking spots well) They aren't participating in property speculation and have owned the condo for around 5 years now. So, I think they are a good example of innocent, well meaning actors who are being unfairly taxed by a law that is well-intentioned but not quite properly formulated.
    - kspaans 10y ago
      I'm suspicious of statement [1] given that you know where Golden is and why people would want to live there. ;) I think you're right there is probably isn't a loonie cost to the city that can be recouped with this vacancy tax. But I also think your counter-point is moot. Vancouver isn't trying to keep revenues up, it's trying to encourage a certain behaviour, namely more housing and rentals on the market. While I do think this vacancy tax is a good idea that could help out affordability in Vancouver, I agree with you that it's far from the best that Vancouver could do and is really only addressing the symptoms rather than the cause.
      - rsync 10y ago
        "I'm suspicious of statement [1] given that you know where Golden is and why people would want to live there. ;)" I'm a skier :)
  - pmontra 10y ago
    No, sell the house quickly before prices go down too much. Rent a house for the 3 months you stay there. It's going to be cheaper than the tax and you cash in some money. Or AB&B the house all the time you're not there. Would that count as renting?
- chris_7 10y ago
  If you own two homes, you're definitely pretty rich, pay your taxes.
  - ar15saveslives 10y ago
    He already pays taxes.
    - orthecreedence 10y ago
      You know, you're right. I payed sales tax on my last Amazon purchase, so I don't think I'll be paying my income tax this year. Why pay twice?
      - ar15saveslives 10y ago
        Are you sure you've paid enough taxes on your purchase? May be you need to pay twice, or triple because a) you don't really need this thing b) there are people that need it more than you c) you've bought it online d) you're privileged white male in IT.
        orthecreedence 10y ago
        I'll be sure to donate my assorted set of DIP IC sockets to the next homeless person I see. They definitely need it more than me. > you're privileged white male in IT You got me there.
        ar15saveslives 10y ago
        Go ahead.
  - pmontra 10y ago
    Why? With two parents one child inherits both of their family houses. This is especially true in low natality countries. The heir will not necessarily be rich and with a high salary job.

rsync 10y ago

"No, I'm pretty sure you have to either declare it as a principal residence or you have to rent it out for at least 6 months a year with leases of at least 30 days. " I don't understand - what if it's neither ? What if you are a plain old canadian who has a home in Vancouver and (for instance) a home in Golden ? It's not at all unreasonable to have a home that: a) is not your primary residence b) you live in for 2-3 months of the year c) you have no intention of renting out because you go there regularly or sporadically What does one do in that circumstance ?

caylus 10y ago
Pay the tax. Owning a home in a crowded city, not living in it the vast majority of the time, and refusing to rent it out to people who desperately want to live there imposes a negative externality on the city, which you need to pay for.
- rsync 10y ago
  "Owning a home in a crowded city, not living in it the vast majority of the time, and refusing to rent it out to people who desperately want to live there imposes a negative externality on the city" It is proposed that doing so imposes a negative externality. That proposal is not without counterpoints, however. Specifically: that the owners of those homes not only pay their full property taxes already, but they impose fewer costs on the infrastructure of the city while not being present. They don't drive on the roads or walk on the trails or use the public restrooms, etc. Look, I proposed a hypothetical situation[1] that has nothing at all to do with Chinese speculators buying up housing assets in a safe haven market. I proposed an unintended consequence on an otherwise innocent, well meaning actor. It's very interesting to note that the response is, basically, "too bad for them". [1] I don't live in Canada.
  - echlebek 10y ago
    My parents are in this very position, having bought a condo in Vancouver to live in part time. Their principle residence is in a small town in the BC interior. They're pretty upset about the tax, and it's not hard to see why. They could declare the condo their principle residence, but then they would encounter complications regarding their vehicles, which are typically not used in the city. (They prefer transit, and trucks don't fit into condo parking spots well) They aren't participating in property speculation and have owned the condo for around 5 years now. So, I think they are a good example of innocent, well meaning actors who are being unfairly taxed by a law that is well-intentioned but not quite properly formulated.
  - kspaans 10y ago
    I'm suspicious of statement [1] given that you know where Golden is and why people would want to live there. ;) I think you're right there is probably isn't a loonie cost to the city that can be recouped with this vacancy tax. But I also think your counter-point is moot. Vancouver isn't trying to keep revenues up, it's trying to encourage a certain behaviour, namely more housing and rentals on the market. While I do think this vacancy tax is a good idea that could help out affordability in Vancouver, I agree with you that it's far from the best that Vancouver could do and is really only addressing the symptoms rather than the cause.
    - rsync 10y ago
      "I'm suspicious of statement [1] given that you know where Golden is and why people would want to live there. ;)" I'm a skier :)
- pmontra 10y ago
  No, sell the house quickly before prices go down too much. Rent a house for the 3 months you stay there. It's going to be cheaper than the tax and you cash in some money. Or AB&B the house all the time you're not there. Would that count as renting?
chris_7 10y ago
If you own two homes, you're definitely pretty rich, pay your taxes.
- ar15saveslives 10y ago
  He already pays taxes.
  - orthecreedence 10y ago
    You know, you're right. I payed sales tax on my last Amazon purchase, so I don't think I'll be paying my income tax this year. Why pay twice?
    - ar15saveslives 10y ago
      Are you sure you've paid enough taxes on your purchase? May be you need to pay twice, or triple because a) you don't really need this thing b) there are people that need it more than you c) you've bought it online d) you're privileged white male in IT.
      - orthecreedence 10y ago
        I'll be sure to donate my assorted set of DIP IC sockets to the next homeless person I see. They definitely need it more than me. > you're privileged white male in IT You got me there.
        ar15saveslives 10y ago
        Go ahead.
- pmontra 10y ago
  Why? With two parents one child inherits both of their family houses. This is especially true in low natality countries. The heir will not necessarily be rich and with a high salary job.