Vacant Home Tax Facts
On Tuesday, Burlington City Council unanimously approved the decision to advise Halton Region that the City of Burlington would like to be excluded from the by-law that would implement a Vacant Home Tax within the municipality.
My Take
I have been asked by some residents why we wouldn’t consider implementing a vacant home tax especially during a housing crisis.
Firstly, while the idea behind such a tax is to help address the housing affordability and supply issue, the data shows this type of tax does not compel the majority of owners to sell or rent. Burlington has about 265 vacant homes, and data shows a Vacant Home Tax would cause about 20% of those homes to come on the market, thus not adding to the housing supply in a meaningful way. I believe our efforts are best spent on other initiatives, like the Pipeline to Permit Committee, that will go further in addressing our housing crisis.
Secondly, the vacant home tax would not be a significant revenue generator for the City. As we heard from our finance staff during the September 17 council meeting, the costs of setting up and managing this program would outweigh any potential revenue it could generate. The program would either be break even or operate at a loss. The administrative burden—such as new systems and significant staff requirements for auditing and compliance—would be considerable.
Thirdly, the vacant home tax would become an administrative burden on the 70,000 homeowners who live in their properties, as everyone would have to annually declare their home is not vacant.
In addition, there are already measures in place which are meant to address adjacent concerns of vacant homes, including a significant federal tax targeting foreign investors, and by-laws regarding the appearance and maintenance of vacant properties.
In summary, while I initially supported the idea of a vacant home tax, further analysis and evidence-based research shows it might not be the best approach. We should focus our efforts on other strategies that could offer a greater benefit. I support the recommendation to move forward as proposed but am open to revisiting this if new information arises.
Important Links