To the Editor, The Island Grapevine
Dear Sir
Re: Capping Short-Term Rentals on Hornby Island
As stated by the late Pat Carney, politician, social commentator and long-time resident of Saturna, one working definition of a Gulf Island is ‘a controversy entirely surrounded by water’. For Hornby Island the perennial issue of short-term rental housing is heading for something of a showdown at the upcoming Islands Trust meeting on May 16, 2025. While HISTRA (a formal grouping of short-term rental property owners) considers the regulation of rentals reasonable and good for Hornby (Islands Grapevine No 1682, May 1, 2025, page 6), the focus of their concern has turned to a proposal from the two Hornby Island Tustees to limit the number of permitted rental units. Unsurprisingly, (this is a Gulf Island) there is an alternative point of view alive on Hornby that strongly endorses the concept of reducing and capping the number of short-term rentals.
Both sides in this conversation use arguments to support their opinions based largely on economic and environmental impacts (both positive and negative). Both have clear personal concerns. Property owners are vested economically in various ways. Residents describe their personal space as invaded and/or degraded by the presence of short-term rental properties. This can, and sometimes does, pit neighbor against neighbor.
Trustee Alex Allen has described short-term rentals as the elephant in the room, the 800lb gorilla on Hornby Island (First Edition, May 2025, page 29), and has outlined his perspective on the positions adopted by the main parties involved. He also tackles the question of capping how many short term vacation rentals should be allowed on Hornby by looking at the situation on Orcas and Lopez in the San Juan Islands, Pender and Gabriola in the BC Gulf Islands, and, by way of interest, in the city of Nelson, each of which attracts a number of tourists each year. This approach links rental cap imposed in each of these jurisdictions with the land area involved and apparently is the basis for the Trustees suggestion that rentals be capped at 67 on Hornby.
From a social practitioner perspective, the Trustees have applied an environmental approach, of relative intensity of rental units within the landscape, which is relevant to such considerations as fresh water availability and use and management of waste water. On the other hand, the short-term rental is, behind the economic and environmental arguments put forward by proponents and opponents, very much a social issue. As such, social indicators should provide a greater insight to the reasons for the controversy, its persistence and perhaps offer a solution.
One social indicator (there are others but this one is easy to assemble with publicly available data and similarly easy to understand) is the relationship between the number of short-term rental units and the size of the permanent resident population. This can be expressed as a ratio, 1:X, where X is the number of permanent residents present for each short-term rental unit. The result is a number that can be related to the experience of the resident population. The higher the ration number defined by X the presence of rental units become progressively more diffuse and diluted with respect to the permanent resident population. Conversely, the smaller the ration number defined by X, the more concentrated and proximate to the permanent resident population.
Applying this formula to the examples quoted by Alex Allen (and using population census data from Wikipedia) yields the following relationships. Orcas Island – permanent population 5387, rental cap 211, ratio 1 rental unit :25 permanent residents. Lopez Island – population 3156, rental cap 135, ratio 1:23. Pender Island (North and South), population 2250, rental cap 10, ratio 1:225. Gabriola Island – population 4500, rental cap 10, ratio 1:450. City of Nelson – population 11,198, rental cap 110, ration 1:102.
Applying the same approach to Hornby Island’s permanent population of 1225 (2021 census) is made complicated by the lack of agreement as to how many short-term rental properties are presently active on the Island. However, using the numbers most commonly quoted yields the following pattens. 165 rentals – ratio 1:7; 135 rentals (the number quoted by HISTRA) – ratio 1:9; 67 rentals (number proposed by the Trustees) – ratio 1:18.
The data are revealing. The low ratios of 1:7 and 1:9 under the current situation (regardless of absolute numbers) show that permanent residents are highly exposed to the presence of short-term rental properties. Residents perceptions (both positive and negative) are backed by physical proximity and probable frequency of interaction. There is reasonable suspicion that the ratio would be smaller (lower number), indicative of even closer and greater frequency of interaction, if the calculation were based on the number of permanent households, which is normally lower than the total number of residents in a population. The proposal of capping rentals at 67 and shifting the ratio up to 1:18 reduces this exposure and potentially at least some of the associated social tension.
For the sake of argument (we are on a Gulf Island and this is a cultural norm) it is informative to see how the Hornby picture would change if we use the rental cap ratios applied at other locations. For example, what if the situation on Orcas and Lopez were applied to Hornby? – a not unreasonable idea given that, just like Hornby, Lopez is a tourist destination community with a tourism-based economy dependent on a seasonally fluctuating population of visitors. If Hornby were a San Juan Island, the rental cap would be 50 for a ratio of 1:24.5. Moving along, apply the Pender and Gabriola numbers and you get rental caps on Hornby of 6 and 3 respectively. Apply the Nelson ratio and a Hornby rental cap would be set at 12.
Food for thought and input to the conversation ahead over the ‘right’ numbers for Hornby Island.
Yours truly.
Ian Thomson
Hornby Island
