To answer Frank's question...
In today's Langley Times, editor Frank Bucholtz wonders: "Is it possible for the City and Township to levy a small property tax on any business that benefits from tourism, for example?"
The answer is no, it's not. Under the Community Charter, municipalities have a very specific set of taxation tools. The 2% hotel tax is the only mechanism allowed by the provincial government (other than general property taxes, of course) for raising money for tourism. So there are three choices--do nothing, spend residents' dollars, or tax visitors as they are taxed in more than 30 other BC municipalities. We can dream about all sorts of ticket taxes and winery taxes and whatever else, but it simply isn't legal... neither we nor the province would be able to collect it.
I also have to take exception to the following statement: "The initial decision to go ahead with the tax, while not allowing for any meaningful input, was hasty."
I disagree. At the time we gave the tax its first three readings, five of the nine hotels (representing 79% of the rooms) had signed ballots endorsing the tax, and two others had refused to respond. Ballots are very meaningful input in a democracy. Just ask any politician: votes matter! After our vote, some of these hotels apparently flipped. But our votes were guided by the information we had at the time. When that information changed, we changed our votes.
The answer is no, it's not. Under the Community Charter, municipalities have a very specific set of taxation tools. The 2% hotel tax is the only mechanism allowed by the provincial government (other than general property taxes, of course) for raising money for tourism. So there are three choices--do nothing, spend residents' dollars, or tax visitors as they are taxed in more than 30 other BC municipalities. We can dream about all sorts of ticket taxes and winery taxes and whatever else, but it simply isn't legal... neither we nor the province would be able to collect it.
I also have to take exception to the following statement: "The initial decision to go ahead with the tax, while not allowing for any meaningful input, was hasty."
I disagree. At the time we gave the tax its first three readings, five of the nine hotels (representing 79% of the rooms) had signed ballots endorsing the tax, and two others had refused to respond. Ballots are very meaningful input in a democracy. Just ask any politician: votes matter! After our vote, some of these hotels apparently flipped. But our votes were guided by the information we had at the time. When that information changed, we changed our votes.