The Kootenay region has been undergoing a significant transformation over the last decade. The primary focus for economic development has been on resort and residential development, focussed on the outdoor activities available in beautiful mountain, lake and river resources we have here. Places like Revelstoke, Golden,Fernie, Kimberley, Radium, Invermere, and Rossland are well down this path, and new development is proposed for the Nelson area. The province supports this type of development with its own BC Resort Strategy and Action Plan.
One of the consequences in the Kootenay region has been a significant increase in construction activity. Between 2001 and 2008, for example, construction related employment increased from 3,600 in 2001 to 9,200 in 2007, with a drop to 8,000 in 2008. Over the past decade, resort and recreation related residential development and construction have become a major new economic driver in this region.
But what has this resort and recreation focus for residential development – what folks in the research community call amenity migration – meant at the community level?
Studies from around the world are consistent in identifying some common issues related to amenity migration such as:
- increasing property values and housing price;
- displacement of both local people and parts of the local economy;
- social and economic change resulting from the pattern of non-resident ownership.
As part of my work as the Regional Chair in Rural Economic Development at Selkirk College I was recently involved in a study of housing affordability for the Columbia Basin and Boundary regions. research findings at posted online here, at Selkirk College. the housing data we gathered we found that non-resident ownership – that is, property titles held by people whose mailing address was outside region – increased from 21.8% to 29.9% of all titles from 2001 to 2008. On residential property titles only, non resident ownership in 2008 ranged from 13% for single family dwelling properties to 14% on acreage properties to 66% in strata titles, especially in the ski resort and Windermere Lake areas.
In some of the higher amenity rich areas, non-resident ownership was much higher – 60% in the Radium Windermere area, over 40% in the Boundary, Slocan/Arrow Lakes and Kaslo regions, and over 33% in the Valemount and Elk Valley areas. Although these areas saw development over this period, they saw little population growth. In some cases, despite development and construction activity, communities experienced decline in permanent residents.
Non-resident ownership of undeveloped land is even higher. In the Columbia Basin Trust and Boundary regions in 2008 there were 12,544 titles assessed as vacant residential and 7,186 titles assessed as vacant acreage lots 2 acres or larger. Non resident ownership of these titles was approximately 50% across the region and 60% in the 6 higher amenity areas noted above.
What does all that mean for communities and planning? There are far more questions than answers. For example, what does it mean to have 50% to 60% of the residential development potential owned by people who don’t live in the region? I suspect it means opportunities for development of housing on those lands that focuses on the needs of the regional housing market and communities is very limited. I also assume that most of those owners have not taken the time to get involved in local planning processes, and may have very different ideas about the future of their properties than the community, so there will be lots of future challenges managing development applications.
Beyond the short term benefits of the construction phase, if the growth trend in non-resident ownership continues, what will the future of these areas look like? How does non-resident ownership result in an economic base, jobs, and in a functioning volunteer sector that provides some basic services such as fire protection? And 15 years down the road, with an aging population, who will be interested in owning these properties, especially the fractional ownership strata titles for example?
The recent economic downturn has added another set of questions to the value of amenity migration based development. The fragility of this economic development strategy has become quickly and dramatically very apparent: residential building permits virtually disappeared in the resort areas in the first 3 months of this year. What will construction related employment figures look for 2009? How will the permanent resident population deal with inflated property taxes now that the boom of recent years appears to have busted, at least in the short term?
The biggest question for me, however, has to do with the vision for the future of these communities. Has that future of this part of BC already been “sold” to those folks in Alberta, the lower mainland, and other parts of BC who own such a big piece of this region, but who do not play a part in the year-round lived experience of these communities?
– 30 –
About the author:
GEORGE PENFOLD is Regional Innovation Chair (RIC) in Rural Economic Development at Selkirk College in Castlegar, BC and Adjunct Professor at theSchool of Business and Economics at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC. InReal Estate Foundation contributed $100,000 to the RIC endowment fund at Selkirk College as part of its support for sustainable community planning and informed development in the greater Kootenay region.
©Real Estate Foundation of BC/ 2009. We encourage the reproduction of articles on this website non-profit educational purposes. Please notify the Foundation and the author of all reproductions, including in-house uses.
I would be interested to know more about the future of the Kootenays, and what if any thoughts have been given to co-management with First Nations. As a member of the Ktunaxa First Nation, I think that this sort of discussion should be taking place. The Aboriginal Recognition and Reconciliation Act, which has been proposed is something that we have to think about in the now for we are all here to stay.
ReplyDelete