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
Wow, Clint is right. This policy may sound generous, but it’s completely out of touch with reality in places like Canmore. Our infrastructure is already beyond capacity—sewage backed up during the 2024 Folk Festival, bearproof bins overflow, streets are jammed, and residents are left paying for repairs. Tourism operators and hospitality businesses take the profits, while our taxes fund the infrastructure they rely on. The town calls it vibrancy—I call it aggravation. We’re getting closer to unlivable.
1 2 2
Exshaw just showed what real local leadership looks like—council listened and rejected a density increase to protect community character. In Canmore, it’s the opposite. The town enabled a zoning change (Direct Control) on the LGMS site to push through high-density housing, despite a habendum clause restricting use to education. Years of legal opposition should’ve been a red flag—but the town and CRPS pressed on, even finding a minister to strike the clause. They now support a “for-profit” ISP model on land meant for public education. Meanwhile, our council pushes growth, vacancy taxes, and conformity—policies that erode livability in the name of ideology. Exshaw’s council understood something ours has forgotten: not every solution is worth losing who you are. Canmore used to balance nature and community. That balance is slipping. Kudos to Exshaw. Here’s hoping Canmore wakes up before more damage is done.
1 2 0
Access to health care in Alberta is strained. We all know and experience this. Wait times for essential procedures, diagnostics, and specialist consultations are unacceptably long for most residents. Before expanding public coverage to more individuals — including extended family members of newcomers — the province must ensure the system has sufficient capacity. If Premier Smith is raising questions about how immigration impacts service levels, it’s appropriate to consider the data and discuss solutions. But any reforms must also comply with federal health care obligations under the Canada Health Act. Above all, they must be grounded in facts, respect for all residents, and a commitment to strengthening core services first.
12 5 3
Cathrine’s comment brought Cold War regimes to mind—where underuse was suspicion. So here’s a residency compliance test, written in Cold War computer language. Flush early. Flush often:
C Residency compliance test - Fortran-style (1970s engineer edition)
INTEGER DAYS(365)
INTEGER FLUSH_DAYS, STREAK, MAX_STREAK, I
LOGICAL COMPLIANT
FLUSH_DAYS = 0
STREAK = 0
MAX_STREAK = 0
DO I = 1, 365
IF (DAYS(I) .GE. 1) THEN
FLUSH_DAYS = FLUSH_DAYS + 1
STREAK = STREAK + 1
IF (STREAK .GT. MAX_STREAK) MAX_STREAK = STREAK
ELSE
STREAK = 0
END IF
END DO
COMPLIANT = (FLUSH_DAYS .GE. 183) .AND. (MAX_STREAK .GE. 60)
IF (COMPLIANT) THEN
PRINT *, 'Resident is COMPLIANT. No punitive tax applies.'
ELSE
PRINT *, 'Resident is NON-COMPLIANT. Punitive tax applies Jan 1, 2027.'
END IF
7 4 0
Cathrine’s concern has historical echoes. In the past century, regimes like East Germany’s Stasi, Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, and post-revolutionary Cuba all monitored private life—labeling underuse of property as selfish or subversive. Property wasn’t just taxed; it was politicized. Canmore isn’t a dictatorship, but tracking utility data to enforce the 60/183 day residency test flirts with that mindset. When presence matters more than contribution, we stop building community and start sorting citizens. That should concern every resident—part-time or full-time. Many now joke, “I have to go home to flush the toilet,” just to stay in compliance.
Apologies — I’m just a 1970s-trained engineer still fluent in punch cards and IF-THEN blocks. But the logic holds… flush early, flush often. For those curious — especially anyone on council — please keep an eye out for my second comment on this letter, where I’ve shared the Cold War–era code logic behind Canmore’s 60/183-day residency test.
12 3
I’m a full-time resident, and I oppose this tax because it divides the community instead of uniting us around real solutions. The term “dark homes” reveals a thinly veiled contempt for part-time residents, as if not living here year-round makes someone less committed or less deserving.
Some claim that empty homes during the week are a problem in themselves. I happen to value the quieter times during the week, and frankly...it’s no one’s business how often someone visits, shops in town, or flushes their toilet. We need sound policy, not lifestyle policing or scapegoating.
What’s most troubling is how this tax treats non-voting property owners, many of whom have supported Canmore for decades, as if they don’t count. They have no voice at the ballot box, so they’re being singled out for added costs simply because they’re not full-time residents because they can't vote. That’s taxation without representation, and it sends a clear message about who this Council thinks truly belongs.
18 4 0
Council just handed Town staff the power to make private financial deals with developers — no public votes, no transparency. They called it streamlining. But this shift removes oversight from the officials we elect and hands it to a bureaucratic class that increasingly shapes Canmore from within, not in response to its residents. Meanwhile, Town messaging paints those “born and raised” here as unicorns — implying the rest of us don’t belong. All this while more than $30 million in developer levies remain under legal dispute at the Land and Property Rights Tribunal. Who benefits from sidelining public process now? Real democracy happens in daylight — not behind closed doors and cute slogans.
4 2 1
John, I only engage when I believe there’s someone genuinely open to thoughtful discussion. Rusty isn’t. His comments consistently dismiss, distort, or mock—never to understand, only to oppose. That’s not a conversation, and it’s not worth any of our time.
5 0
This isn’t just about vote counting—it’s about importing distrust-based politics into Alberta. The UCP banned electronic tabulators not because of evidence, but because 36% of people said they “might not trust” them. That’s the same logic that drove voting restrictions in the U.S. after Jan. 6: weaponizing doubt.
The irony here is thick. This council, led by the mayor, has imposed costly decisions on residents without hesitation—like the affordability tax on second homeowners—yet now wants sympathy for a top-down provincial decision that costs them $50K. The principle should be the same either way: governance should be evidence-based, not driven by fear or narrative control.
0 0 0
No listings have been posted by J Pyecroft
TSellers nailed it—Banff/Lake Louise doesn’t need promotion, it needs protection. The Lake Louise parking lot now fills before sunrise, with overflow handled by shuttles. Chateau Lake Louise feels more like a zoo than a retreat. Moraine Lake is just as crowded. What was once peaceful and magical is now traffic-clogged and chaotic. Free park access in summer only amplifies the pressure. Wildlife is paying the price too—trails see increased trampling and fragmentation, and animals are pushed out of core habitats. Reports of human–wildlife conflicts are rising, and avoidance zones around busy trails are growing. This isn’t stewardship—it’s slow erosion of everything that once made these places special.
0 0