After the Mayoral Candidate’s STA Debate: What Problem Is Prince Edward County Trying to Solve?

The question landed differently from the others at Monday night’s mayoral debate in Picton. When the moderator asked Brad Nieman, Terry Shortt, and Ernie Margetson about short-term accommodations, a long “ooooh” rolled through the Regent Theatre. It sounded like tension leaving the room and building again at the same time. People were ready to hear the answers.

The three candidates largely defended the County’s current approach, though each found a possible adjustment. Nieman said the regulations were “solid” and raised the possibility of allowing an STA when its owner lives elsewhere on the same property. Shortt said he would maintain the moratorium, pursue operators he believes are unlicensed, and continue to distinguish owner-present rentals from what he called “lockbox houses.” Margetson said the bylaw’s density provisions had been effective, but suggested a different fee or rule might be appropriate for an unheated cottage rented only a few months each year.

Those answers sound similar from a distance. Up close, they raise different questions. Is the concern an empty house, an absent owner, a concentration of visitor rentals, a shortage of housing, or an operator who ignores the rules? A policy can work against one of those problems while doing little about another. 

Before deciding whether the current approach is working, we need to be clear about what we expect it to accomplish. Let’s explore that, together.

What the moratorium actually does

Prince Edward County stopped accepting new secondary-residence STA licences after September 20, 2022. These are rentals where one or two dwelling units on the property are occupied by guests and the property is not the owner’s primary residence. Existing licensed secondary-residence STAs can continue operating and renew their licences. 

The rule does not amount to a ban on all STAs or all rentals where guests have a dwelling to themselves.

The distinction matters because the County also permits primary-residence STAs, including arrangements where a host rents part of the property while living there or rents their own home for a limited time while away. Bed and breakfasts are another category. When someone says “whole-house STA,” they may be picturing a year-round visitor rental, a family cottage, or somebody’s primary home rented during a trip. Those properties do not necessarily have the same effects on housing or neighbourhood life.

“I think the regulations that are in place, it is solid.” Brad Nieman, mayoral debate, 38:07

The County did not arrive at these rules without study or debate. Its review considered housing impacts, enforcement, different licence categories, and alternatives for regulating secondary residences. A McGill-led study commissioned for that review found that STAs were an important contributor to the County’s medium-term housing affordability problems, while cautioning that they were not the primary cause of the pandemic-era price spike. That finding deserves serious attention, but so does the question of what has happened since the rules changed in 2022.

The numbers onstage do not yet add up

Shortt described approximately 700 licensed STAs and another 300 operating “under the table.” Margetson cited 845 licensed STAs and said 300,000 room nights were rented in 2025. Those were statements made during the debate, not figures we can presently treat as a reconciled, current count.

“We have approximately 700 STAs approximately in the municipality and approximately 300 that are operating under the table.” Terry Shortt, mayoral debate, 39:14

At an April 2026 council meeting, a County spokesperson reportedly put the licensed total at 814, including 285 primary-residence and 515 secondary-residence licences. Those categories add up to 800, leaving 14 licences unexplained in the reported breakdown. The figure is also from April, not debate night in October. We need a dated County count that identifies every category before declaring either candidate’s number correct. For this, PEC Connect has reached out to Visit the County for further information about the statistics surrounding STA licensing.

The alleged 300 unlicensed STAs require an even more careful distinction. An online listing may be inactive, appear on more than one platform, or represent a unit whose licensing status needs further checking. Some properties may indeed be operating illegally, and finding them matters to neighbours, compliant hosts, and the County’s tax collections. But a suspected listing, an investigated property, and a confirmed violation are three different numbers. We do not yet have a verified current figure for each.

“We have 845 licensed STAs in this municipality.” Ernie Margetson, mayoral debate, 40:28

Nor should room nights be waved through because they sound plausible. The County’s 2025 municipal accommodation tax report lists 108,920 rooms sold in its remittance table, a figure that includes a row for previous-year remittances received in 2026. That table covers reporting accommodators and needs interpretation; it does not, by itself, establish what Margetson meant by 300,000 room nights. The source and definition of his figure are questions to put to him and Visit The County.

Tourism and housing are both part of the question

Across the wider debate, the candidates treated tourism as important to the County’s economy. That makes their caution about new secondary-residence STAs worth examining, rather than dismissing as a contradiction. Perhaps the restriction protects year-round neighbourhoods and housing without materially limiting the visitor economy. Perhaps it constrains a type of accommodation that visitors and local businesses rely on. Both propositions call for evidence.

It is also possible to overstate what removing an STA from the market would achieve. A house used exclusively for short stays might become a full-time home if the owner sold or rented it long term. A three-season cottage might remain a three-season cottage. A snowbird’s home might simply sit empty during the winter, as would a summer vacationer’s. Those differences do not erase the housing question, but they determine how many homes a change in STA rules could realistically make available, and to whom.

The neighbourhood question has similar layers. A noisy guest can disrupt a street, and a host who is nowhere nearby may be harder to reach when something goes wrong. Yet an STA is not automatically the source of every disturbance attributed to it; permanent residents can be disruptive too. An empty seasonal property can make a street feel quiet and disconnected without ever being rented to visitors. We need to understand which effects residents are experiencing before assuming one rule will resolve them all.

The questions this series will pursue

The debate supplied a starting point, not a complete account. In the coming articles, we will work through eight connected questions:

1. How many licensed and unlicensed STAs are there? 

   We will separate confirmed licence categories from estimates, suspected listings, and enforcement outcomes.

2. Do people judge STA guests differently from neighbours? 

   We will examine noise complaints, repeat problems, and what complaint records can and cannot tell us about perception.

3. What creates a “dark neighbourhood”? 

   We will look at visitor rentals alongside seasonal homes, vacant properties, and the loss of year-round neighbours.

4. Would restricting more STAs create attainable housing? 

   We will investigate what owners would likely do with different kinds of properties and what homes local residents could afford.

5. What does STA tourism contribute, and what does it cost? 

   We will clarify accommodation and tax figures while examining the effects on businesses, public services, and residents.

6. What other rules could address the problems?

   We will compare the moratorium with approaches based on density, ownership, rental days, property type, and enforcement.

7. What would help create more homes? 

   We will examine the costs and approval steps involved in adding second and third dwellings.

8. How should the County tell whether its approach is working? 

   We will ask which measures Council should track, what results would justify a change, and when the policy should be reviewed.

Each question affects the others. A reliable licence count is needed to examine concentration. Complaint totals mean more when we know whether incidents were confirmed and how often a property was occupied. A housing policy needs to account for what would happen to a property after its STA use ends. Tourism’s benefits need to be considered alongside its pressures.

The audience’s reaction at the Regent suggested this is a question many people have been waiting to see answered. There is no shortage of strong views, including among people who share the same goal of keeping Prince Edward County a place where residents can live and visitors can come. The useful next step is to test the claims with records, research, and the experiences of people affected.

The standard for any proposed change should be straightforward: What problem does it solve, what evidence shows it will help, and what else might it change? If the current rules are delivering their intended results, residents deserve to see that clearly. If they are falling short, residents deserve to know where and why. Let the evidence lead.