Editor's note: Nathan Colquhoun's recent column, "Churches, taxes, and a way forward for Rainbow Park", prompted a response from Christopher Cooke. In this letter, Nathan offers his reply.
"Some" churches in Sarnia are doing real work to address homelessness. Most aren’t. Yet every church in the city benefits equally from tax-exempt status, whether they’re opening their doors to the unhoused or just sitting on empty, untaxed warm shelters with running water.
Developed property and housing are intimately connected. Churches have a lot of developed property, and the public needs a lot of housing. This isn’t complicated.
If churches are serious about their mission, they should have no problem proving it by a simple form to submit each fiscal year that the city would require for tax exemption status to be renewed. Those actively housing people, supporting housing initiatives, and providing public services? Keep the tax break. Those that can't show much beyond their own buildings and budgets than the community around them? Time to start paying their share.
Since Municipal Tax seems to be some scary thing to have to contribute to, we can call it The Church Landlord Fee—a way of recognizing that, in practice, many churches function more like landlords than places of refuge. They hold prime real estate, demand tax-free status, and often lock their doors to the very people Jesus spent his time with. If they want to keep their privileges, they should act accordingly.
The Halo Project argues that churches provide economic benefits, but the math never works the other way. The city loses around $3 million a year in tax revenue from churches (I didn't even include other religious institutions in my estimate)—money that could build off-market apartments and permanent housing. If churches are as essential as they claim, let’s see it reflected not just in Sunday sermons, but in how it benefits the public that is subsidizing their real estate holdings.
James 2:16 asks plainly: If one of you says, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? If churches exist for more than their own members—which they legally should to maintain charitable status—their actions should prove it. Otherwise, why should the public keep subsidizing them?
This isn’t about government overreach or some anti-religion stance. It’s about power, housing, and who benefits. Churches enjoy protections and privileges because they are supposed to serve the public good. When they don’t, they become another property-owning institution, profiting off a system where people sleep in the cold while their sanctuaries sit empty.
The Church Landlord Fee isn’t about punishment. It’s about accountability. If churches want to be tax-exempt, they need to stop acting like landlords and start acting like places of refuge.