Salt Spring’s housing shortage is not just a physical problem; it’s an economic one.
There is some housing available on-island, just not enough that’s affordable for most workers. Something similar might be said of the labour shortage — the workforce exists, but most aren’t paid enough to afford available housing.
Local government is now responding earnestly to the first issue, but cannot directly affect the second. Increasingly, island businesses struggling to find and retain staff have felt forced to offer unpermitted housing tied to employment — and if, as one trustee has quipped, Salt Spring is a real estate economy with tourism as its marketing branch, then by turning a compassionate blind eye our Local Trust Committee may now be enabling one of the more fraught expressions of market forces, held quite literally over workers’ heads.
Employer-tied housing can artificially suppress wages. It also risks exploiting vulnerable islanders through its inherent power imbalance, giving employers profound influence over both career and home life. It reduces job mobility, and can intimidate workers into accepting unfair conditions out of fear of displacement, if not outright homelessness; with terms fully set by employer-landlords, it avoids many Residential Tenancy Act regulations that otherwise protect tenants.
And it can benefit large employers disproportionately. Small businesses can’t afford to buy housing, nor pay enough to make up for it.
Finally, reducing zoning restrictions via lack of enforcement is a gift of density to landowners, raising real estate value further. This was classic supply-side regulatory policy, and in fairness gave the private sector every reason to invest in unpermitted employer-tied housing. It costs far less than raising wages to match the cost of living here.
No business owner wants this situation. But through well-intentioned inaction, the LTC has encouraged unpermitted rental housing as the best path to achieve full staffing, and perhaps freed senior governments from considering building publicly funded affordable housing at scale.
It’s unrealistic to ask businesses to act against their own bottom line. But blunt solutions that risk exploitation should, at minimum, not be supported by local government.