Decision 2010: Calgary Municipal Election

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I like his proposal. What I really like is Nenshi is the ONLY candidate actually giving us a platform and how they intend to implement it.

In time, in time.

The proposal isn't bad, but the owner occupied rule is likely unconstitutional, unenforceable. If I can lease a single house to 8 boarders, why can't I lease a house broken into two units safely to two groups of 4. A better rule would be a universal 'in good repair/good neighbor' bylaw in conjunction with the wide scale zoning changes to enforce community standards of property upkeep and conduct.

As for parking, the devil is in the details - is one spot enough for the owners so the second spot in a garage can be for the renters? Does that spot always need to be available to the renters even if the renter has no car? Again, why does the parking rule apply to a secondary suite, but no one cares if I rent a house to many many people as one unit.

The parking requirement would require costly site visits and overly bureaucratic rules to be developed, and implies that you would still need a permit of some kind beyond something signed by an architect/engineer/whatever authority can show the correct building code was followed.

Still, even if unworkable, it is a step forward, and politically palatable. After it is in place for a year or two and the problems come forward I am sure it would be fixed for the better. Sometimes flawed incremental-ism is the correct path versus the alternative of no change.

[You Need A Thneed]

I like the proposal, but I don't know how the owner occupation would be enforced. That also would mean that an owner could own no more than one house with a suite.

While owner occupied suites are best, there are many other factors that determine whether the property will be kept in good condition. We all know that many houses without suites are in terrible and ugly condition as well.

The current policy regarding suites is hilariously bad.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by AUM

Perhaps instead of putting all this energy into a campaign for their own interests, they could perhaps look at improving their practices and providing 'better' choices not necessarily 'more' choices.

I wish they would also quit calling themselves the Urban Development Institute. Their focus is primarily suburban therefore call it what it is. Suburban Development Institute.

That POS votecalgary.ca site currently is just video with Jay Westman "Chairman and CEO, Jayman MasterBUILT President; President, JWI Investments".

I have four friends who have dealt with Jayman/Excel homes (same company) and they are 0/4 in terms of satisfied customers. If Jayman decided how to build this city, we'd be faced with surprise sinkholes, roads that suddenly narrow because there isn't enough ROW, LRT repairs that end up leaving more damage than what was fixed, and mid-year tax increases to cover "unforeseen expenses". And yes, I am translating actual house situations into comparible city situations.

Choices? CHOICES?! Two of my four friends ventured over to Jayman exactly because they had so LITTLE CHOICE. You want this house design? Only Jayman has it. You want this builder? Sorry, they don't build here. Fah! - the home building industry is all about corralling you into a few neat categories where they can sell you one of a few cookie cutter designs in a particular area defined for your salary and stage of life. You are SOL if you don't fit their mold.

End rant!

[Ferreth]

I like the overall proposal as well; also have concerns about enforcability.

SHA, I could buy that it's not within the City's powers to enforce owner occupation for a secondary suite, but unconstitutional? Any specific points of the constitution in mind on that one?

YNAT, Overall, I'd say it's a GOOD thing that a landlord could only own one house with a suite. I can pretty much pick out the rental properties in my neighborhood by their lack of care - having owner/rental units would provide an intermediate form of property that on average would get better care, IMO.

I don't see an issue with parking - the tenant is provided with one off-street parking stall - while the tenant may not want to squeal on a landlord shirking his duty there, the landlord's neighbor's would have fewer qualms on that front. It's a reasonable "one size fits all" compromise.

The Fire code thing seems most unenforceable to me, particularly firewalls. Is it at all easy to determine if there is a sufficient firewall between an upstairs main and an downstairs suite? I can't see many potential landlords going to that red tape and expense.

The proposal is a start - it has to be something that is going to be not too hard for landlords to comply with or else we are going to just keep having a ton of illegal suites, barring some serious enforcement.

[halifaxboyns]

Legally you can't enforce owner occupied. Plus; who an owner rents a unit out too is a constitutional issue related to family. This is why you don't typically seen Single Family Dwelling as use in bylaws anymore. They are Single Detached Dwellings.

There was a court case (I don't recall what City) that took a fraternity to court because as far as their land use bylaw was concerned, the frat house was a rooming house. They lost because the court said that a family was no longer able to be defined as people by blood or marriage - since common law families are neither. So the same effect had to be applied - was very interesting.

[charper]

I attended the focus groups on secondary suites. It was an interesting discussion. The main concern seemed to have little to do with secondary suites and much to do with tenants. There was concern of parties and 6 people living in one basement suite etc. I felt like these issues were valid even when a secondary suite wasn't present. For example, people rent out entire houses with the same situation.

Parking was another issue but addressed through permits.

I summed up the discussions on an old blog post: http://www.harperonside.com/2/post/2010/04/post-title-click-and-type-to-edit.html

Charps

[MalcolmTucker]

For constitutional there is also equal treatment under the law provisions, tenants as renters have equal rights over a property in a legal sense (home is castle, landlord can't let police inspect without the same provisions that would allow police to inspect an owner occupied unit, etc). When the first person/ family got kicked out of one or both levels of a house because one wasn't an owner, there is no equal treatment under the law.

Add to that that kicking someone out of their housing if there is no other reason than this bylaw would be harmful to someone's security of the person, the law is not fulfilling a greater good that is justified in a free and democratic society (Oaks Test).

Plus applying it would be full of slippery slopes, since the law could never really take into account the full scope of situations. Would having not the direct owner but lets say a son or daughter live in one of the units fulfill the 'owner' quota? I know at least a couple houses during university that were set up in such a manner.

Best solution is still neighborhood standards (if want to go beyond normal city functions then a home owner association or whatever legally it is called, a group that can dictate standards like in a condo but applied over a normal neighborhood, which does exist in Calgary), parking controls (maybe mandatory passes on a street once it passes 10% with secondary suites), and

[Wooster]

Good question. Not sure how you could enforce owner occupancy.

[Me&You]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Good question. Not sure how you could enforce owner occupancy.

You can't. That's just plain ridiculous.

[Bigtime]

Wayne Stewart just tweeted that he is in the race.

www.waynestewart.ca

Originally Posted by Stewart's Website

The key elements of Stewart's platform include:

1) Renewing faith in city government through a commitment to integrity at City Hall, in part by appointing an independent auditor to review the way the city does business, including the way we buy goods and services

2) Continuing to improve the city's infrastructure; roads, LRT, public transit and snow removal, as well as cultural infrastructure like libraries, public art, music and theatre

3) A focus on innovation, making Calgary the World's Energy Capital,

4) Support to public safety agencies, the police and fire departments, to ensure safety at all times and in all places, and

5) A bid for the 2022 Winter Olympic Games.

[Ferreth]

After further reading and thought, I'm agreeing with all of you's who are saying Owner Occupied is unenforceable, plus even if it were, there are situations that crop up such as renting a house and sharing it with 8 of your best buddies, leading to the same problems. It's too bad because in my rental days, I lived in a owner occupied rental and really liked it. Perhaps it helped that every time the Italian landlords threw a party, they'd bring down the left over homemade pastas next day.

Perhaps Calgary needs to scrap the idea of free-for-all parking in front of residential units and make it by permit only, 1 permit per X linear feet of property border. Allow public parking only in excess space, with 48 hour maximums applying only there. Parking in front of your house would still have to be parking, not storage - with rules to the effect that the vehicle must be drivable at any time, so must have valid plates, insurance, 4 inflated tires

Is this feasible? Would any candidate campaign on this promise?

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

After further reading and thought, I'm agreeing with all of you's who are saying Owner Occupied is unenforceable, plus even if it were, there are situations that crop up such as renting a house and sharing it with 8 of your best buddies, leading to the same problems. It's too bad because in my rental days, I lived in a owner occupied rental and really liked it. Perhaps it helped that every time the Italian landlords threw a party, they'd bring down the left over homemade pastas next day.

Perhaps Calgary needs to scrap the idea of free-for-all parking in front of residential units and make it by permit only, 1 permit per X linear feet of property border. Allow public parking only in excess space, with 48 hour maximums applying only there. Parking in front of your house would still have to be parking, not storage - with rules to the effect that the vehicle must be drivable at any time, so must have valid plates, insurance, 4 inflated tires

Is this feasible? Would any candidate campaign on this promise?

That is already the case:
http://content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Business/Running+a+Business/Bylaws+of+Interest/Streets.htm

- Do not leave unregistered, uninsured vehicles on City streets or lanes.
- A vehicle must be operable and moved within 72 hours or it may be considered abandoned and removed as such.*

*This regulation is a part of Alberta's Traffic Safety Act and is enforced by the Calgary Parking Authority .

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

For constitutional there is also equal treatment under the law provisions, tenants as renters have equal rights over a property in a legal sense (home is castle, landlord can't let police inspect without the same provisions that would allow police to inspect an owner occupied unit, etc). When the first person/ family got kicked out of one or both levels of a house because one wasn't an owner, there is no equal treatment under the law.

Add to that that kicking someone out of their housing if there is no other reason than this bylaw would be harmful to someone's security of the person, the law is not fulfilling a greater good that is justified in a free and democratic society (Oaks Test).

Plus applying it would be full of slippery slopes, since the law could never really take into account the full scope of situations. Would having not the direct owner but lets say a son or daughter live in one of the units fulfill the 'owner' quota? I know at least a couple houses during university that were set up in such a manner.

Best solution is still neighborhood standards (if want to go beyond normal city functions then a home owner association or whatever legally it is called, a group that can dictate standards like in a condo but applied over a normal neighborhood, which does exist in Calgary), parking controls (maybe mandatory passes on a street once it passes 10% with secondary suites), and

Owner occupation is definitely unenforceable and problematic from other stand points but I'm not sure if it would fail the Oaks test. A case could be made either way and it would depend a great deal on the Justices who had to decide.

I'd imagine Nenshi's plan would involve some kind of registry with a one home per name policy. The result would of course be a lot of spouses, siblings, cousins, and so on "owning" houses.

[Me&You]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Owner occupation is definitely unenforceable and problematic from other stand points but I'm not sure if it would fail the Oaks test. A case could be made either way and it would depend a great deal on the Justices who had to decide.

I'd imagine Nenshi's plan would involve some kind of registry with a one home per name policy. The result would of course be a lot of spouses, siblings, cousins, and so on "owning" houses.

Exactly. Ridiculous.

For instance, what would I do. I own houses that are well kept rentals (up/down suited). I also own my home that isn't also rented. My brother owns a home. My parents own a home. My closest cousins own homes. My closest friends own homes. What would I do?

A business associate of my father's owns something in the area of 30 homes that he rents out... what would he do?

Ridiculous.

I'm all for more suites and affordable rentals, but this owner-occupation, one-name-per-home thing simply won't happen.

[Wooster]

http://enlightenedsavage.blogspot.com/2010/06/conversation-with-naheed-nenshi.html

In depth interview by Joey Oberhoffner with Naheed Nenshi. Unfortunately, the audio quality is poor, but the conversation is excellent.

[outoftheice]

Just curious if any of the candidates have come out with a stance on expanding the recycling program to include apartment/condo buildings?? From what I can remember, this was supposed to be phased in eventually but I haven't heard much about it from the current city council.

[Bigtime]

I'm not sure about older buildings but doesn't every new condo building have in-house recycling? Here at arriVa we've had bins in our garbage room since day 1 for cardboard and bottles. Of course we pay a private contractor to come and pick it up, not the city.

[hulkrogan]

Even if it is done by private contractors, make it a legal requirement.

Office buildings too. I'm chucking away so many recyclables in a day at work.

[mr.steevo]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I'm not sure about older buildings but doesn't every new condo building have in-house recycling? Here at arriVa we've had bins in our garbage room since day 1 for cardboard and bottles. Of course we pay a private contractor to come and pick it up, not the city.

You also pay for private pickup of your garbage.

s.

[Bigtime]

Barb Higgins for mayor?

http://www.ffwdweekly.com/calgary-blogs/the-howler/2010/06/14/mayor-barb-higgins-400/