I’ve lived in Canmore since 2010. I've seen changes compromising town character. My focus is addressing commercialization by developers and town leadership. The LGMS redevelopment, pursued despite opposition, highlights the need for better oversight
Thank you, Greg, for your continued reporting — without it, residents would have little insight into how these decisions unfold. What’s troubling isn’t just the tax, but how council behaves as though its success is guaranteed. The court found the Town had legal authority, but that its 2025 process was flawed. Broader legal challenges on fairness, discrimination, and governance remain unresolved.
Yet council is spending revenue it doesn’t have, drawing from reserves, and hiring staff. They’ve now confirmed what many feared: a sizable portion funds administration and overhead — nearly $1M in costs this year before collecting a dollar. That’s not fiscal discipline.
Council is so determined to advance this tax that it’s lost sight of prudent financial management. That should concern every taxpayer — whether you support the tax or not.
1 0 0
Peter Quinn’s letter shows how misinformation feeds local echo chambers. No one in the Alberta government — including Premier Smith — has proposed separation. She’s been clear: stronger autonomy within Canada, not leaving it.
It’s the NDP, Nenshi, and their echo chamber who keep spinning this into a separation crisis, twisting Smith’s push for Alberta’s autonomy into something it’s not. Nenshi isn’t offering leadership — he’s fueling outrage to cover for the fact that, so far, he’s delivered no serious policy vision. Fear is easier than ideas.
If Alberta politics are going to improve, we need to reject these manufactured fears and focus on real issues: energy, affordability, healthcare, and infrastructure — not fantasies about Banff and Canmore leaving Alberta.
Reading through the comments here, you see how easily political myths echo. The claim that only the privileged value unity says more about the argument than reality.
3 2 1
Exactly!
8 2
I’ve had further thoughts after last Tuesday’s council meeting. Councillor Graham argued that South Canmore has become “less vibrant” because single-family homes were replaced with quads — suggesting that densification undermined community feel. Councillor McCallum countered that many of those older homes were simply aging and needed replacement, framing it as normal housing evolution. Yet both Graham and McCallum voted in 2022 to approve 2nd and 3rd readings of the LGMS redevelopment — allowing 120 high-density units on former school land, despite 3-to-1 public opposition. If quads reduced vibrancy, what does Graham think 120 new high-density units will do? This isn’t about vibrancy — it’s about institutional expansion, more strain on infrastructure, more crowding, and a steady erosion of livability — which is what originally drew many of us to South Canmore. We don’t need developer slogans. We need long-term stability, genuine affordability, and livable neighborhoods.
0 0 0
Well said, Geoff. What’s being sold as “affordability” is often just institutional expansion dressed up in virtuous language. We’ve seen it not only with council’s vacancy tax, but also with CRPS converting surplus education funds into real estate development — including stripping public school lands of long-standing protections. It’s the same pattern: policies justified under “need” that quietly serve financial self-interest. Legal, yes — but increasingly divorced from genuine public service.
0 0
Excellent point, KO. What’s rarely discussed is how many remain silent on the vacancy tax simply because they see it as found money. Councillor Graham says people are telling him they support it — of course they do, because pocketing windfall tax dollars feels easy when someone else pays. But that doesn’t make it right. In moral terms, it’s like finding a lost wallet and convincing yourself you deserve the cash inside. In places with higher standards of integrity, the wallet would be returned. Legal doesn’t mean ethical — and this tax reflects institutional opportunism, not real affordability policy.
0 0
Excellent points. While council blames others, CRPS holds $3.1M in surplus from its international program — funding real estate projects on former school lands instead of classrooms or addressing staff recruitment. They claim affordability makes it hard to attract teachers, yet sit on surpluses rather than raising salaries. The town may have been blindsided by the 2015 provincial policy change because it failed to anticipate fiscal risks. Likewise, South Canmore residents were blindsided when CRPS removed the educational covenant on LGMS lands — stripping a community asset to fund staff housing and real estate ventures under the guise of affordability. These 20 below-market units allow households earning up to $250K — pricing well above workforce needs — while offering no guarantee they won’t later be flipped for windfall profits. The Fraser Institute is correct — taxes won’t fix housing, and CRPS’s shift from education provider to land developer won’t serve residents.
3 0
Jay ignores that education tax is based on assessed property value, not income. High assessments drive higher provincial requisitions. Meanwhile, CRPS quietly generates millions in surplus from its international student program — funds they control entirely. Blaming only the province while ignoring the school board’s profitable side business distorts the real picture. The real issue isn’t how much we pay, it’s how our own institutions choose to spend what they collect.
3 0
An 18% education tax hike lands on residents, yet CRPS quietly held a $3.1M surplus from its international student program. They claim difficulty attracting teachers to this beautiful mountain town in the Canadian Rocky Mountains with so many benefits due to affordability. World-class skiing, hiking, cycling, climbing, mountain scenery, and a vibrant school community make this one of the most desirable places in Canada to live and work. If true, why sit on surpluses? Use those funds to raise salaries, strengthen classrooms, and support students directly. Instead, surpluses fund real estate ventures that strip public land — originally deeded for education — from the community and future children. CRPS operates more like a business than a public school board, yet remains shielded as a nonprofit while accumulating reserves. These choices deserve far more public scrutiny.
3 0 0
No listings have been posted by J Pyecroft
As in any additional property tax is not the solution. I am opposed to all additional homeowner tax. The town has many other options that do not depend on reducing affordability of all to support affordability a few. It’s an oxymoron.
3 0