A full ban on STRs seems totally radical. Tourist dollars don’t just go the the STR owners. What would be the impact of reduced tourism on all local businesses? Have you estimated these impacts? I agree with restrictions and limitations on STRs but a total ban would be ridiculous.
Thank you for raising this important concern. Your point about the broader benefits of tourism is valid—visitor spending indeed supports many local businesses. However, the conversation around Short-Term Rentals (STRs) in Prince Edward County isn’t about ending tourism, but about managing it responsibly to restore housing balance and protect community sustainability.
This means they are not shared spaces but entire dwellings removed from the long-term housing market. This also means that the owners may not live in the County and/or own multiple STRs. So they are less likely to spend their income from their rentals in the County – an average of over $8000 per STR and over $100,000 per year in some cases. Where is that money being spent? Most likely where these owners have their principal residence- in Toronto.
A very conservative estimate is $30 million of that STR income being spent elsewhere and not in our local businesses. Also keep in mind many of these STRs are heavily mortgaged. So these owners are essentially making the rich banks richer. If they spent it locally, we would not see the precipitous dip in business activity in the winter months in the County.
Evidence-Based Context:
1. Scope of STR Conversions
According to Prince Edward County’s 2023 Short-Term Accommodation (STA) report:
- Over 1,200 properties were operating as STRs.
- 92.9% were whole-home rentals, not owner-occupied.
2. Housing Crisis Impact
Since 2008, average home prices in PEC have increased by more than 400%—faster than nearly any other rural municipality in Ontario.
- Rental vacancy rates have dropped below 1%, a level typically defined as a severe housing shortage.
- Meanwhile, over 40% of residents now spend more than 30% of income on housing, according to CMHC.
3. Impact on Workforce and Economy
PEC has a labour force participation rate of just 49%, among the lowest in Ontario.
- Businesses in food, retail, and services (which rely heavily on local youth and seasonal workers) now struggle to staff operations—not due to a lack of people, but a lack of affordable local housing.
- A 2022 survey by the Prince Edward County Chamber of Commerce showed that over 70% of businesses reported hiring difficulties due to the housing crisis.
4. STR Revenue Distribution
While STR owners benefit directly, studies from similar jurisdictions (e.g., Kelowna, Banff, and Halifax) show:
- The majority of STR revenue flows to absentee or out-of-town owners, not reinvested locally.
- Many local businesses see no proportional rise in off-season tourism, while residents experience rising property taxes, traffic congestion, and overuse of local infrastructure year-round.
5. Policy Precedent
Other jurisdictions facing similar pressures have implemented:
- Caps on STRs per ward or neighbourhood (e.g., Niagara-on-the-Lake).
- Principal residence requirements (e.g., Vancouver, Toronto).
- Targeted phase-outs in residential zones (e.g., Tofino and Barcelona).
In summary:
No one is advocating for the end of tourism. But the STR model as it currently exists—unregulated, sprawling into residential zones, and heavily investor-driven—is destabilizing PEC’s housing market. A data-informed, balanced approach that prioritizes residents while still supporting tourism is both possible and necessary. Will hotels and cottage resorts pick up the demand resulting from an STR ban? Likely. Will it spur interest from Hotel Chains to consider building resorts in the County. Highly likely.
If STRs were banned, 324,000 room nights per year would be freed up. This represents the equivalent of 324,000 nights of accommodation that would have otherwise been rented to short-term visitors but could now be available for long-term residents. Will this create new construction jobs? Certainly. Would we want a large network resort chain like the Hilton or Marriott to consider opening a resort in PEC? Definitely. That would be a game changer for both residents and tourists with year round employment at scale.
We welcome a community-wide conversation on how to get that balance right—with real numbers and long-term vision.
A few comments about this article. You have correctly categorized the editorial policy of each of the Gazette and the Times. The focus of the Gazette is on economic development, and it’s good for people to know that it’s not providing a balanced viewpoint. The Times is more like traditional journalism – looking at both positives and negatives, obtaining the views of people, directly involved and not. It’s acceptable for each publication to pursue its own approach. Regarding the Gazette, you might want to focus more on their research and analysis, which I’ve found to be often lacking and sometimes just plain wrong. Re your offer to do a five year audit, there is no point in including anything for the Gazette prior to the date of the purchase by the current co-publishers. The previous iteration of the Gazette was notable for avoiding County issues. Finally, on the topic of the Gazette’s staffers publishing on Facebook. Meta’s prohibition on publishing articles from news organizations on Facebook, is because they don’t want to participate in the federal program of paying those organizations for use of their content. I think it’s fair game for them to get around Meta’s restrictions in any ways they can.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. You raise several valuable points that help further the conversation around media accountability and transparency in Prince Edward County.
1. Editorial Bias and Journalistic Approach
We agree that acknowledging the editorial stance of both the Gazette and the Times is essential for readers to critically evaluate coverage. The Gazette’s focus on economic development—particularly in relation to development interests—is well documented, and your note about the Times engaging more traditional journalistic norms (such as sourcing a range of views) is consistent with what we’ve observed in our audit so far. You can read some of our insights in our Media Watch section.
2. Quality of Research and Analysis
Your suggestion to more rigorously examine the Gazette’s research and fact-checking practices is timely. In several cases, we’ve noted that articles published under their editorial banner rely heavily on unverified claims or reproduce developer narratives without scrutiny. A deeper analysis into accuracy, sourcing, and data use would help substantiate concerns about imbalanced or misleading content. We will incorporate this dimension into the next phase of our coverage audit.
3. Audit Scope and Ownership Timeline
Your point about excluding Gazette content prior to its acquisition by the current co-publishers is well taken. We have clearly define the timeframe of analysis to begin with their ownership, which appears to correspond with the shift in editorial tone and coverage priorities. That will ensure fair and relevant analysis.
4. Circumventing Meta Restrictions
Regarding the Gazette’s use of staffers’ personal profiles and link workarounds on Facebook: while we understand the challenges posed by Bill C-18 and Meta’s response, the issue is not just about platform policy—it’s about transparency and accountability. If a publication criticizes “anonymous” actors and the use of social media to spread disinformation, but then engages in similarly opaque tactics itself, that contradiction should be noted. Readers deserve to know when official content is being distributed under the guise of personal commentary. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong to share articles, but that the standards for disclosure and ethical communication should be consistent.
In sum, your comments help sharpen the lens through which we examine local media influence and community discourse. We welcome continued feedback and collaboration on this effort to promote a more informed and balanced civic conversation.