POLL: 82% Support a Bow Valley Hotel Tax, Debate Remains Over Who Should Pay

A clear majority of Bow Valley Insider readers support a hotel tax to help fund tourism costs in Canmore and Banff, but the comments show a far more divided and emotionally charged conversation about affordability, fairness, and who should pay. Of the 579 locals who voted, 82.56% said yes to the idea. The hundreds of written comments that followed told a deeper story.

While many residents agree visitors should help fund the infrastructure they rely on, a large share of respondents questioned the impact on affordability for Albertans, argued for exemptions, or pushed for a higher fee for international visitors. And behind nearly every comment was a tension that has defined the Bow Valley for years: the region depends on tourism, yet pays heavily for it.

A Clear Appetite for Shifting Costs to Visitors

Many comments aligned with Canmore Mayor Sean Krausert’s argument that the town maintains infrastructure far beyond what 15,000 residents require. One reader wrote that it is “absolutely, user pay. Residents can't cover everything.” Others framed it simply as fairness: “Visitors strain infrastructure more than locals,” one said. Another added, “We pay hotel tax everywhere we visit. Travellers should cover this, not locals.”

Several residents noted that the Bow Valley resembles tourist destinations in Europe, Asia, and the United States, where accommodation taxes are standard. Some even expressed disbelief that Alberta municipalities currently lack this tool. “This tax is common in Europe,” one commenter said. “Many countries have this. Tourism is a business. Locals can’t cover all services.”

These responses closely reflect Krausert’s position that a modest fee could help pay for wastewater treatment, trail maintenance, garbage collection, and parking systems that have scaled upward with visitation. As one comment put it, “Clearly the market can take it. Parks are overwhelmed. Why should Bow Valley citizens pay for all the extra infrastructure needs?”

Affordability Concerns Dominate the Opposition

At the same time, many readers rejected the idea outright, citing already high hotel prices. “It is already so expensive to stay in the area. It should be affordable to everyone, not just the rich,” one wrote. Another said, “Hotels are already insanely expensive. Alberta residents are being priced out.”

Several people said they already avoid Banff and Canmore in peak season and would avoid them further if rates increased. “I’ve seen this tax in other Canadian locations. I won’t go back,” one commenter wrote. Others expressed concern that adding another charge could undermine Alberta’s commitment to keeping parks accessible: “Alberta should ensure all Albertans can stay in Banff. Hotel tax may price out middle-class people.”

A recurring question was whether tourists are already paying enough. One comment read, “Tourism already brings in a lot of revenue. Hotels have increased rates substantially.” Another said, “Hotels should pay sufficient tax through business licences and property taxes. Too many additions.”

A Strong Call for Exemptions for Albertans

One of the most consistent themes was that Albertans should be exempt if towns enable a hotel tax. Dozens of comments raised the idea. “Would be ideal if only applied to non-Alberta residents,” one said. Another wrote, “As an Albertan, I already pay taxes. Maybe people from other countries should pay, not Canadians or Alberta residents.”

This sentiment appeared in both supportive and opposing comments. Even among those who voted yes, many framed their support as conditional. “If it were a non-Alberta resident tax, I’d vote yes,” one reader said. Another echoed that point almost verbatim: “Absolutely needs to be implemented. But out-of-country guests should pay more.”

Several respondents also proposed a tiered model that mirrors international systems, with comments like, “Tax should be higher for non-Albertans too,” and “Show your licence for exemption.”

Calls for Higher Fees for International Visitors

Beyond provincial exemptions, many readers argued that international travellers should pay a higher rate because they do not contribute through Alberta taxes and typically account for longer, higher-impact visits. Some suggested that Alberta should adopt a model similar to global tourist destinations, where non-residents pay a premium to support local infrastructure. Others framed it more directly, saying international tourists place the greatest strain on services and should shoulder more of the cost.

A Broader Conversation About Tourism Pressures

Several of these comments overlap with concerns raised by Banff Mayor Corrie DiManno, who has emphasized that a single accommodation tax may not fully address the pressures facing Banff. The town is confined to a fixed land base, cannot meaningfully grow its tax assessment, and must plan for millions of annual visitors. While DiManno has not endorsed differential fees, many of the public comments echo her broader point that the Bow Valley may need more than one tool to manage the impacts of high-volume tourism.

Transparency and Trust Remain Unsettled

Some respondents raised concerns about how the revenue would be used. “It’s never transparent where the money goes,” one wrote. “Just a big dark hole.” Others said that if a tax goes ahead, the funds must be tied directly to infrastructure and maintenance. “Only if used for infrastructure,” one person said. “Maybe spending is the issue,” another argued.

What the Debate Reveals

The results show overwhelming support for creating a hotel tax, but the written feedback shows residents still weighing its implications on affordability, fairness, provincial responsibility, and long-term planning. While many see the tax as a logical and overdue step, others fear it will deepen the divide between locals and visitors or price out everyday Albertans who want to experience the mountain parks.