LETTER: Oro-Medonte council has ‘run out of time’ on STRs

This file photo shows a sign created by the Oro-Medonte Good Neighbours Alliance. | Supplied photo

From BarrieToday, August 21, 2022
A Letter to the Editor

The following letter is in response to a story titled ‘Local residents air grievances at short-term rental forum,’ published Aug. 12.

Ratepayers in Oro-Medonte have been told that the township has been working hard on short-term rentals (STRs). Who has the township been protecting? Is it the interests of the STR operators or the homeowners?

Background facts:

• Township legal counsel and staff agree. Since 1997 STRs are not permitted in residential zones.
• At least 190 STRs have been carrying on business in Oro-Medonte.
• Over 35 (17 per cent) of these have been repeatedly reported as very disruptive.
• In 2020, STR operators in Oro-Medonte made more than $10 million while neighbours suffered.
• Since 2017, despite hundreds of calls for help, not one STR operator has been brought before the courts and shut down.
• Not even members of council want to live next to an STR.

Given the last six years of the public record including emails from senior township officials, let’s look at who has benefited from the township’s actions. Is it the 190 or so STR operators, or is it the homeowners living in over 9,000 households? To help you decide, try the “who benefits” test.

The “who benefits” test:

Q1. In 2017, at least 12 disruptive short-term rentals were reported to the township. A senior township official told homeowners “there isn’t much the township can do. STRs are a grey area of the law. They aren’t bed and breakfasts and they aren’t rooming houses.” In fact, STRs are a form of a bed and breakfast that carry on business without any restrictions. STRs have been prohibited since 1997. This isn’t a grey area of the law. It never was. The township could have shut them down. The City of Burlington did. Who benefits from the “grey area” misstatement used to excuse the township’s lack of prosecutions? Score one for the STR operators.

Q2. Staff presented three STR planning reports to council between February 2018 and November 2019. Not one of the reports stated that STRs were not permitted in residential zones. Keeping some councillors and ratepayers uninformed favoured whom? Score another one for the STR operators.

Q3. In the spring of 2018, an election year, the mayor told homeowners that the township would have to wait for the outcome of the Toronto Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) case before regulating STRs since there was no sense passing bylaws that might not stand up in court. Awaiting the Toronto LPAT outcome was the next excuse used to rationalize the lack of enforcement. The LPAT excuse favoured? The STR operators. STR operators three, homeowners no score.

Q4. In the summer of 2018, council passed an interim control bylaw (ICBL) that was supposed to stop new STRs from starting up. Poorly drafted, it allowed existing illegal STRs to continue, something an ICBL cannot do in law. As drafted, it created a partial prosecution shield for the STR operators. So, who did the ICBL favour? The STR operators. STR operators four, homeowners no score.

Q5. In July 2020, after the township finally told the public that STRs were not permitted, it was evident there never was a need for the ICBL. All it did was stop new STRs in only one zone where they were permitted, the V1 zone at Horseshoe Valley. Homeowners asked, but the township refused to withdraw the ICBL. Despite numerous complaints, the township never prosecuted five of the most blatant and disruptive new start-up STRs using the ICBL. Who did the failure to withdraw or even enforce the ICBL favour? The STR operators. STR operators five, homeowners no score.

Q6. Some council members did not know that STRs were illegal when they voted to pursue licensing STRs. In May 2019, township staff presented an STR draft licensing bylaw at a public meeting. An overwhelming majority of outraged homeowners rejected the draft licensing bylaw. Council did not pass the draft licensing bylaw. Who benefits? Score one for the homeowner team when they pushed back.

Q7. Despite the public’s rejection of licensing, in October 2019 senior township officials continued to insist STRs were a grey area of the law and the best way to control STRs was to license them. Frustrated homeowners obtained independent legal and planning opinions and found out what they had long suspected. STRs were not a permitted use in residential zones. They were illegal. The best way to control them was to enforce the existing zoning bylaw like Carling and Clearview townships. These findings were presented to ratepayers at the Lakehead information session organized and paid for by homeowners. The best question to come forward at the Lakehead session was, “If STRs are illegal, then what are we even doing here?” It would be another eight months before the township finally told the public that STRs were illegal. The eight-month delay favoured? The STR operators. STR operators six, homeowners one.

Q8. In July 2020, the mayor said an iron-clad zoning bylaw was needed before prosecutions could begin, so a bylaw amendment was passed that clarified the meaning of ‘commercial accommodation.’ The amendment was appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) by some STR operators. This appeal became an excuse to delay prosecutions for another two years. This was a two-year reprieve for the STR operators who continued to make millions. Homeowners had some hope that enforcement would finally begin in two years if not sooner. So, who benefits? Let’s call this a draw since both sides benefited. Score one point for each side. The score: 7-2 in favour of the STR operators.

Q9. At the OLT hearing in March 2022, the township surprised homeowners with an 11th-hour amendment. If accepted, it would have legalized all short-term rentals operating at the time of the hearing. The surprise amendment completely undercut the reason for the clarifying amendment. The township had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars seeking an ‘iron-clad’ zoning bylaw, and had accomplished nothing. Homeowners spent thousands of hours supporting the township, while incurring legal costs. They had been blindsided and betrayed. The beneficiaries of undercutting the OLT hearing? The STR operators. Illegal STR operators eight, homeowners two.

These facts, this score, and the lack of enforcement can’t be excused. Are you wondering why the score is so lopsided? Is it because the township wants to allow short-term rental operators to continue to carry on business in residential neighbourhoods? If you ignore what senior township officials have been telling homeowners, and just look at what the township has actually done these last six years, it is clear that the township has not been on the side of the homeowners. This is inexplicable. No one wants an STR as a neighbour, including members of council.

Six years and the township has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and not one short-term rental operator has been shut down. The township recently disclosed that 14 charges are outstanding related to STRs. Campaign puffery? You might be impressed until you consider that there have been hundreds and hundreds of calls for help from homeowners and only 14 charges. It would be interesting to know how many of these charges involve STR visitors who violated COVID emergency measures. When homeowners reported illegal STR ‘guests,’ it was the OPP who came to the rescue, not the township. Don’t be surprised if you learn at least 10 of the 14 charges have nothing to do with the township but with the good works of the OPP. It would also be interesting to know how many STR operators have been charged for violating the zoning bylaw that prohibits STRs. Don’t be surprised if the answer is none.

Council recently received but didn’t adopt a 27-page draft licensing bylaw. Déjà vu May 2019? If candidates come campaigning at your door and claim they are not in favour of licensing STRs, be careful. Not in favour of licensing doesn’t mean they aren’t in favour of legalizing STRs. Ask the candidates if they are in favour of legalization.

Currently, a draft Official Plan is coming before council. It contains some policy provisions that could help keep STRs out of lower-density residential neighbourhoods. Unfortunately, if these provisions are adopted, they will be appealed by some STR operators and we will be right back where we were in 2020. Another opportunity for another unsupportable excuse for delaying zoning bylaw prosecutions because an appeal is pending. Two more years’ delay in prosecutions and hundreds of thousands of dollars will be wasted again. Homeowners were blindsided at the last OLT hearing. Will they be blindsided again?

It has been six years and the township has consistently failed to protect homeowners. Enough is enough. There can be no more excuses. This council has run out of time. Something has to change, and it begins with the election. The score should never have been 8-2 for the STR operators.

By voting, you can help change the path we are on. You can help build the kind of neighbourhood you expect and need for your family, for your neighbours, and for all those that follow. Together, we can build better communities.

Kim Pressnail
Oro-Medonte

Read the letter here