Canmore Locals Split on New Vacancy Tax for Part-Time Owners

What’s Happening? Canmore’s vacancy tax—officially the Livability Tax—has cleared a legal challenge and is set to launch in 2026, aiming to address the town's housing affordability crisis.

Tax Details. The tax imposes an additional 0.4% levy on the assessed value of homes not used as primary residences. For instance, a median-valued home assessed at $1.043 million would incur an extra $4,172 annually in municipal taxes.

Residency Criteria. To qualify as a primary residence, a property must be occupied for at least 183 days per year, with a minimum of 60 consecutive days. Owners must declare their property's status annually by December 31.

Legal Ruling. The Court of King’s Bench upheld the tax, confirming it falls within Canmore’s authority under Alberta’s Municipal Government Act. However, the court delayed implementation to 2026, citing concerns over retrospective application for the 2025 tax year.

Impact and Opposition. Approximately 26% of Canmore homes are owned by part-time residents. The tax is projected to generate $10.3 million annually, funding affordable housing initiatives. While town officials hail it as a step toward housing solutions, some property owners and developers argue it unfairly targets second-home owners.

Locals Vote: Should Homeowners Pay Extra For Leaving Them Empty?

We asked locals where they stand on Canmore’s upcoming vacancy tax.

Out of 570 votes, 55% said the tax is unfair and intrusive, while 45% supported it as a step toward housing solutions.

Below are some of the strongest responses we received.

Community Comments

• “It’s a busy town and homes should have townspeople living in them, for safety’s sake and the well-being of the community.”

• “Many of these homes will become the permanent residents when people retire… The homes become a business and they should pay more.”

• “Affordable housing is a chronic problem… those who can afford to have a second home should assist the residents who can't afford even one.”

• “A huge tax to expect property owners to pay extra for. Money grab like photo radar.”

• “This is an unfair tax on citizens that have only supported the economy of Canmore and are being penalized. I will vote in November to remove this town council.”

• “How do you prove which is your primary residence? I’ll bet it’s going to be a pain.”

• “How can a municipality dictate how to use one’s home?... Council has never shared why they targeted a portion of our community.”

• “This is a divisive tax imposed on property owners who do not have a vote in municipal elections. Taxation without representation.”

• “When people buy vacation homes… it’s unfair to the residents who work there… deters housing availability for locals.”

• “There should be extra tax for owners that are not Canadian.”

• “This tax is ridiculous… now you are penalizing me.”

• “They are already subsidizing full-time residents… this perpetuates the locals vs. the rest mentality.”

• “There have to be better models that don’t pit people against each other…”

• “It’s simply going to be passed on to renters. Great outcome – NOT!!!”

• “Why should the uber wealthy be allowed to eat up homes…?”

• “We want to retire in Canmore, but this tax puts a sour taste in our mouth.”

• “If you have second (and third) homes, you can afford the tax!!”

• “The tax will likely go to general revenue… this sets a dangerous precedent…”

• “Council is the most uncreative and corrupt group…”

• “If you only have one home but travel for work, you could still get hit… The 60-day rule is problematic.”

• “There should be a tourist service tax instead. This town can’t keep asking residents to pay for everything.”

• “As long as the town does a good job with the money to create affordable housing…”

• “Second homeowners use fewer municipal services. Why are they being charged more?”

• “They own the property and pay taxes—they should be able to use it as they wish.”

• “This is just government finding a group to tax. Shows lack of effort and creativity.”

• “I’d rather spend my $4,000 supporting local businesses than give it to the government.”

• “With the current housing crisis, we need to discourage part-time homes.”

• “Nice to see this law… but enforcement will be interesting.”

• “Our property is already heavily taxed. Adding more is unreasonable.”

• “Part-timers already pay full taxes… A surtax is brutal.”

• “Tax revenue won’t solve housing… It’ll just fuel more poor spending.”

• “If you use your property less, you should pay less—not more.”

• “This is taxation without representation.”

• “Second homeowners contribute economically to the community.”

• “They use fewer services but spend more locally. It’s a money grab.”

• “If homeowners rent to locals for 6+ months, they avoid the tax.”

• “Some vacation homeowners only use it twice a year… this might push them away.”

• “How will it be enforced? Bylaw or nosey neighbours?”

• “Need to allow seasonal workers to live in Canmore.”

• “Longtime Albertans should be exempt. Tax BC, Quebec, and Ontario residents instead.”

• “We’re already paying taxes. Isn’t that enough?”

• “This is discrimination… just because someone has a second home doesn’t mean they’re super rich.”

• “This won’t solve affordability. It’s a policy based on optics, not outcomes.”

• “The tax might encourage better housing use… but is it the right way?”

• “If they can afford a second home, they can afford the tax.”

• “This is just a tax grab on second homeowners.”

• “It’s a luxury to own a second home… pay the luxury tax.”

• “Why is ‘leaving it empty’ treated like a crime?”

• “An empty home is a missed opportunity for a local. This helps solve that.”

• “The town caused this issue with poor zoning in the past… now they're punishing owners.”

• “It’s expropriation without compensation… Grandfather current owners at least.”

• “This is authoritarianism disguised as housing policy.”

• “If Council really wanted solutions, they’d address short-term rentals and zoning—this is lazy.”

• “Canmore encouraged second-home ownership. Now they’re punishing those who came.”

• “The town’s punishing people who helped it transition post-mining.”

• “It’s just a tax. No real housing solution here.”

• “There are better ways—like building suites or incentivizing rentals.”

• “The 60-day rule is unjustified. Many people were encouraged to buy here.”

• “I’d support a tax on foreign owners, but not fellow Albertans.”

• “This is invasive and punitive. It’s nobody’s business when someone uses their home.”

• “Inefficient use of housing should cost extra. That’s fair.”

• “Everyone should share the cost of the housing crisis.”

• “If you have a home here, live in it. Don’t let it sit empty.”

• “This will divide the community and create unintended consequences.”

• “If you can afford a second home, you can contribute more.”

• “Their property, their choice. This is overreach.”

• “A second home is a luxury. It affects others, so the tax makes sense.”

• “If you can afford a $1M home, you can afford $4K in taxes.”

• “Whether someone stays in their home is no one else’s business.”

• “This unfairly targets people who have long contributed to the town.”

• “Taxes don’t encourage affordable housing—they scare away investment.”

• “The town relies on tourists and second-home owners. Why alienate them?”

• “Very unfair way to generate revenue. These owners already pay their share.”

• “All homeowners should be taxed at the same rate.”

• “Second homeowners already pay high taxes and use few services.”

• “Canmore needs affordable housing, but not through this tax.”

• “This is extortion. Longtime owners are being squeezed out.”

• “We need affordable housing, but this tax punishes people who’ve done nothing wrong.”