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.
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 ?
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.
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.
I'm a skier :)
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.
Or AB&B the house all the time you're not there. Would that count as renting?
> you're privileged white male in IT
You got me there.
Real case: the parents family houses are in the mountains, parents moved to city, children (adult now) live in another city. They'll eventually inherit the 3 houses and they won't use them. The city house can be sold or rented. The other ones, not a chance. If taxes on them would be too high (they aren't now) they could rather destroy those two houses. I don't think this is what we want.
There is always the way out of renouncing the heredity. Then you still get an empty house that nobody wants and nobody maintains.