Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Vacancy Tax on Airspace Over Restaurant


Recommended Posts

This is is just stupidity....adding insult to injury during COVID when restaurants are already barely staying afloat.

 

The vacancy tax was intended to curb speculation and offshore ownership where homes sit empty as our rental and home ownership rates soar.  NOT to penalize people in the community trying to make a living.


https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/dan-fumano-vacancy-tax-hits-airspace-over-b-c-s-mom-and-pop-businesses-this-year

 

Quote

Dan Fumano: 'Vacancy tax' hits airspace over B.C.'s mom-and-pop businesses this year

Opinion: It's hard to understand the rationale of the province applying its "speculation and vacancy tax" on the airspace above Las Margaritas and other beloved small businesses.

Author of the article:
Dan Fumano
Publishing date:
Apr 05, 2021  •  21 hours ago  •  5 minute read  •   Join the conversation
 

Dan Rodriguez, owner of Kitsilano restaurant Las Margaritas, is one local business hit with the province's speculation and vacancy tax on the air space above his business this year.Dan Rodriguez, owner of Kitsilano restaurant Las Margaritas, is one local business hit with the province's speculation and vacancy tax on the air space above his business this year. PHOTO BY FRANCIS GEORGIAN /PNG

 

Dan Rodriguez recently learned he’ll need to cough up an extra $6,000 in taxes this year for the speculation and vacancy tax, a measure introduced by the provincial government with the stated aim of “turning empty homes into good housing for people who live and work in B.C.”

But Rodriguez isn’t on the hook because of any empty homes — he owes because of the air above his restaurant....

 

  • RoughGame 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

They're getting away with hosting invisible customers on their invisible rooftop patio?!  How could they.

Come to think of it, not sure why they aren't implementing this on the richest parts of our city :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

I think the vacant airspace is in the heads of those who thought this would be a good idea.

Well, in terms of premium real estate, one of these is not like the other...

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxing people the maximum allowable for what your  place will be worth once it is sold and built into highrise condos and office space. Lots of people had  to sell their homes when they first made these changes to the land taxes. This is worse than highway robbery, the service industry is the hardest hit during covid and then to have the government nut kick you is ahole beyond. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ok with the vacancy tax for people who have million dollar houses just sitting there rotting while they wait to flip it to a developer. 

But for a business? WTF?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm at first I was like this is dumb... but now after reading the article I think I agree.

 

The intent is to increase the housing supply and bring down the housing costs by forcing the development of land.

 

The cost is the existing small business due to these triple net leases where the tax is paid by the tenant.  However once developed a new commercial tenant can move in with a lower triple net lease and with more people in the neighbourhood to support the business.

 

Its one tool in the toolbox

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lancaster said:

The problem when you elect morons to public office and have bureaucrats in positions of power who normally wouldn't survive in the private sector.  

Bingo ~ pretty much universal this. A lot of public sector workers (local/county council or similar service provider) in the uk fall exactly into this, and then complain they don’t get a double digit percentage  pay rise annually when those in the private sector are taking pay cuts.

 

it’s especially bad in the jobs for life crowd. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AV's Coin said:

However once developed a new commercial tenant can move in with a lower triple net lease.

 

Do you really believe this?

 

And the reason they need TO develop more is because there is so much speculating and people/numbered companies gobbling up property for Air BnB, etc. and as investments, not "home".

 

It's a good tax but don't go after the wrong targets.

 

I don't agree with sells for development.  At all.   So you want a condo tower on that corner?  Does everything have to become a condo...can we have no quaint buildings with character? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, debluvscanucks said:

Do you really believe this?

 

And the reason they need TO develop more is because there is so much speculating and people/numbered companies gobbling up property for Air BnB, etc. and as investments, not "home".

 

It's a good tax but don't go after the wrong targets.

 

I don't agree with forced sells for development.  At all.   So you want a condo tower on that corner?  Does everything have to become a condo...can we have no quaint buildings with character? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AV's Coin said:

Hmm at first I was like this is dumb... but now after reading the article I think I agree.

 

The intent is to increase the housing supply and bring down the housing costs by forcing the development of land.

 

The cost is the existing small business due to these triple net leases where the tax is paid by the tenant.  However once developed a new commercial tenant can move in with a lower triple net lease and with more people in the neighbourhood to support the business.

 

Its one tool in the toolbox

 

But isn't it a slippery slope though?

What's to stop TPTB to implement a similar tax scheme on people of residential properties?

Government:  "Oh hey, your Vancouver special is on land that can be used for a residential tower.  You will now be taxed on the space about your home.  Hope you have a good realtor to help you sell your house."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with more (and smarter) densification in Vancouver, but this one's just a tax grab. There's no way the businesses can ever really do anything to avoid the tax. Even if they wanted to bring in a new building, its now a 4-5 year process in Vancouver so basically the owner would need to shut down or move for years to save on this tax, which isn't really high enough to warrant the new construction in the first place. 

 

If the NDP waned to really do something about increasing supply they wouldn't be doing this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

 

But isn't it a slippery slope though?

What's to stop TPTB to implement a similar tax scheme on people of residential properties?

Government:  "Oh hey, your Vancouver special is on land that can be used for a residential tower.  You will now be taxed on the space about your home.  Hope you have a good realtor to help you sell your house."

 

actually I could see something like this happen in areas that have been re-zoned to allow for small multiple unit buildings.  It might fuel more land consolidation sales which in some areas might be a good idea but it would also likely be unequally applied around the city, you know the east side would see far more of this kind of thing. 

 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds pretty typical for a left-wing government. Businesses are evil bottomless pits of money; hosing them down for as much money as possible, to buy the votes of the great ignorant unwashed masses, is the main job of government as the NDP politicians see it. The story of the goose that laid the golden eggs was apparently not on their reading list as children.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lancaster said:

The problem when you elect morons to public office and have bureaucrats in positions of power who normally wouldn't survive in the private sector.  

Totally, when has a private business ever failed or done illegal things right? Ugh, public sector dumb.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

actually I could see something like this happen in areas that have been re-zoned to allow for small multiple unit buildings.  It might fuel more land consolidation sales which in some areas might be a good idea but it would also likely be unequally applied around the city, you know the east side would see far more of this kind of thing. 

 

 

Yeah, it wouldn't be those huge properties in Point Grey or Shaughnessy.  

 

If such rule applies, it'll almost always 100% be on the working part of town.  You know, since the suddenly aesthetics, history, and "character" will suddenly be reasons to not to increase density relatively to areas east of Ontario Street. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

 

Yeah, it wouldn't be those huge properties

 

If such rule applies, it'll almost always 100% be on the working part of town.  You know, since the suddenly aesthetics, history, and "character" will suddenly be reasons to not to increase density relatively to areas east of Ontario Street. 

 

no, those folks get personalized bike lanes.

 

I do like what the city is doing on streets like King Ed, with the rows of new low rise buildings, they make a ton of sense and we should have that on all our major routes. Do more of that, leave small business alone. 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...