Vacant Unit Tax survives, but unintended consequences are revealed
John Best - Bay Observer - October 29, 2025
Hamilton’s Vacant Unit Tax was ratified by a single vote of Hamilton City Council Wednesday, and with a municipal election now a year away, it’s next challenge will likely come at the ballot box, not the council chamber. While the council vote allows the VUT to take effect through 2026, some letters to council from taxpayers demonstrate some unique circumstances that were not anticipated when the bylaw was drafted.
The Cornerstone Association of Realtors challenged a staff estimate suggesting there are nearly 5,000 vacant units and that the city stands to reap a $13 Million windfall as a result. Cornerstone wrote, “homes that have been deemed vacant means the owner did not file a declaration, not that the unit is actually empty. Additionally, the effectiveness of the program remains unclear because we do not yet know how many units were brought to market, either to rent or purchase, because of the tax.” The association also criticized the amount of record-keeping being demanded of landlords as not being reasonable or realistic.
The son of an elderly Stoney Creek widow who had been living in a property for 40 years was automatically charged the 1 percent tax (average just under $4,000) because neither the senior or the son who lives out of town were aware of the program. Because she was on automatic tax withdrawal the city drained her bank account without her being aware creating financial hardship for the woman. Ultimately Councillor Jeff Beattie and his staff were able to get the matter reversed.
Hamilton’s Vacant Unit Tax was ratified by a single vote of Hamilton City Council Wednesday, and with a municipal election now a year away, it’s next challenge will likely come at the ballot box, not the council chamber. While the council vote allows the VUT to take effect through 2026, some letters to council from taxpayers demonstrate some unique circumstances that were not anticipated when the bylaw was drafted.
The Cornerstone Association of Realtors challenged a staff estimate suggesting there are nearly 5,000 vacant units and that the city stands to reap a $13 Million windfall as a result. Cornerstone wrote, “homes that have been deemed vacant means the owner did not file a declaration, not that the unit is actually empty. Additionally, the effectiveness of the program remains unclear because we do not yet know how many units were brought to market, either to rent or purchase, because of the tax.” The association also criticized the amount of record-keeping being demanded of landlords as not being reasonable or realistic.
The son of an elderly Stoney Creek widow who had been living in a property for 40 years was automatically charged the 1 percent tax (average just under $4,000) because neither the senior or the son who lives out of town were aware of the program. Because she was on automatic tax withdrawal the city drained her bank account without her being aware creating financial hardship for the woman. Ultimately Councillor Jeff Beattie and his staff were able to get the matter reversed.
Speaking of Beattie, he told councillors about another loophole he discovered that left unchanged would exempt the owners of monster houses from paying anything.
Staff say they will close the loophole.
Another Stoney Creek resident talked about owners of secondary properties that are not rented because, “prohibitive renovation costs make rentals impossible. Many Stoney Creek homes, bought decades ago, require tens of thousands in upgrades. For seniors and fixed-income families, this is financially ruinous. The tax doesn’t “encourage” rentals—it forces bankruptcy or fire-sale losses. This is elder abuse by policy.”