Rental situation a conflict between haves, have-nots

Re: “City plan for vacation-rental regulation, fees faces criticism,” Nov. 21. The short-term rentals situation is another conflict between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” People who can afford to own or purchase a home and then rent them short term become “have-mores,” and the have-nots become more so as a result of a reduction in long-term rental inventory.

At one time, bed-and-breakfasts were innocent, mostly mom-and-pop offerings that had no effect on area rentals. Essentially, short-term rentals are taking residentially zoned properties and converting them to commercial. Motels and hotels pay commercial property rates. If I were to invite a steady stream of customers to my driveway for vehicle repairs, it wouldn’t be long before bylaw officers would shut me down, and understandably so.

A short-term rental is not an owner’s home office or starting a mail-order business in your basement. They also aren’t little mortgage helpers as claimed, but profitable businesses with some individuals operating multiple listings.

Homeowners and renters both want the same thing — a home. Let’s not permit the owners to radically change and disrupt our rental stock in order to line their pockets. Tax them and hit them with fees, just like any other legitimate business.

This problem isn’t unique to Victoria, but our city politicians have it right implementing fees to short-term-rental business people.

I’m just not sure if it will result in help for the renters. Kevin Norman View Royal