Hittin' the Trails
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Jasper, Alberta, Canada.
Interest: Hiking & snowshoeing
I am assuming that Waterton has the same situation as other townsites within national parks, like Banff and Jasper, in that all residential leaseholds include the "need to reside" clause in them; that is, the home owner is legally bound to ensure that the property is occupied by someone who meets the legal definition in the clause (i.e. works in the park). The reason this exists is that the national park townsites' boundaries are fixed by the National Park Act; there is a finite amount of land available for residential development and the housing is needed for those who work in the park.
If there were not the "need to reside" clause in the national park townsite's residential leases, those towns would become more like Canmore, where a large percentage of the housing is second homes, that sit unoccupied for large chunks of time, while local workers struggle to find housing and pay extremely high rents.