Municipal Politics

[MalcolmTucker]

Yeah, the way our tax system is, 6.7% is not really 6.7%. On a real basis I have to wonder what it actually is (even without using constant dollars) in terms of percentage for the average house.

[freeweed]

No, I think 6.7% is about right. If the average property tax in Calgary is just over $1000, a 6.7% increase would work out to $79 a year.

Most people forget that property taxes are only half of what you pay in that big bill every year, not sure if that's what you're getting at.

[Bigtime]

I wish my property tax was only $1000/year.

[DizzyEdge]

I just figure we have it pretty good if a $3 a cheque increase is front page news for months.

[Ferreth]

I don't think there were any big complains this last election - thus the standard, taxes, roads, and transit (which is a newer standard complaint in Calgary) came to the front as the default complains when there wasn't anything bigger on the radar. I was almost hoping for a freak snowstorm before the election just to see how that would've stirred up the pot!

[MalcolmTucker]

Nenshi will push for secondary suites throughout Calgary

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Ne...Calgary/3851731/story.html#ixzz15hR4DBX1

“What I propose is that we legalize them immediately, one fell swoop, in every neighbourhood in the city, subject to some very basic conditions,” he [Nenshi] said.

Those include following safety and fire codes, ensuring all suites far from transit stations have parking spaces, and that homeowners live in houses with legal suites — a provision that city lawyers have cautioned against, Nenshi said.

Big fight a coming. The ownership residency part will go down, but hopefully the rest survives to come into law.

[You Need A Thneed]

The ownership residency is impossible to enforce. Plus, what if a place is legally suited, but then the owner needs to move? Is he only allowed to sell to someone who will live in the house? There are other logistical nightmare with that requirement as well.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

The ownership residency is impossible to enforce. Plus, what if a place is legally suited, but then the owner needs to move? Is he only allowed to sell to someone who will live in the house? There are other logistical nightmare with that requirement as well.

I see why this rule is there. I agree it would be difficult to enforce but at the same time I'm not overly interested in seeing neighbourhoods bought up by investors so they can subdivide single homes into multifamily. Without this rule you might as well rezone all R-1 to R-2.

As for selling, a grace period could be allowed. But anyone buying this house would likely be looking to rent out the unit for extra income otherwise their probably not interest in the house, unless it's an investor, back the first argument.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

I see why this rule is there. I agree it would be difficult to enforce but at the same time I'm not overly interested in seeing neighbourhoods bought up by investors so they can subdivide single homes into multifamily. Without this rule you might as well rezone all R-1 to R-2.

As for selling, a grace period could be allowed. But anyone buying this house would likely be looking to rent out the unit for extra income otherwise their probably not interest in the house, unless it's an investor, back the first argument.

Simply put treating someone differently whether they are an absentee landlord, or a live in owner is pretty much unconstitutional.

Sec 15, Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law

No different than saying only families with more than two children can own a house with more than 3 bedrooms, or that you have to prove you need a truck for work to buy one. Equal protection under the law.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I wish my property tax was only $1000/year.

It probably is, unless you live in a $750,000 house or something. Remember, half of that bill you pay every year isn't property tax.

What kind of taxes DO people pay in condos, anyway?

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Simply put treating someone differently whether they are an absentee landlord, or a live in owner is pretty much unconstitutional.

Errr.. I can think of dozens of laws that treat these 2 groups of people differently. From zoning laws to tax laws to liability issues, if it's unconstitutional, we better have a chat.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by freeweed

It probably is, unless you live in a $750,000 house or something. Remember, half of that bill you pay every year isn't property tax.

What kind of taxes DO people pay in condos, anyway?

I believe this year we are paying about $2700 in taxes for 1100 square feet and two parking spaces.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I believe this year we are paying about $2700 in taxes for 1100 square feet and two parking spaces.

Wow, that's insane. Although 1100 is pretty big for inner city. 2 parking spaces eh? And here I lived in the suburbs for years with only one car. Yes, I know, they probably just come with the unit...

That makes your property tax about $1400-1500?

[Bigtime]

Actually we purchased the 2nd parking stall, for Mrs. Bigtime. She has a 2008 Yaris with a whopping 20,000 km on it. Her driving has increased since we had Littletime.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Errr.. I can think of dozens of laws that treat these 2 groups of people differently. From zoning laws to tax laws to liability issues, if it's unconstitutional, we better have a chat.

Zoning laws make no distinction between owners and renters. Any planning legislation can only make reference to the use of a site, and not to the users. Any bylaw that does distinguish between renters and owners can be challenged based on the Municipal Government Act. Residential is residential, no matter who is living there.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Errr.. I can think of dozens of laws that treat these 2 groups of people differently. From zoning laws to tax laws to liability issues, if it's unconstitutional, we better have a chat.

Besides the capital gains issue which if challenged would likely fall and then be changed to a sheer dollar amount instead of a primary residence exemption, the other laws shouldn't stand. A renter renting a house with a secondary suite has just as much of a right to enjoy full use of the property as an owner, and rent out the suite. (or the owner rent out the two separately) Plus, aren't we all just renters in a way from the banks

Now it is different for a corporation. I don't think equal protection applies in the same way, but you would have to ask a lawyer.

As for liability, I know insurance companies are allowed to discriminate, I am sure there was a charter case that set that law from the 80s or 90s.

All other 2 groups being treated differently have to pass the Oakes Test, which basically asks is the reason good enough and is the difference as small as it can be to accomplish the goal.

To be honest, most peoples complaints about suites aren't solved by having the owners living there - some owners are still partiers. And a rented house can still be sub rented five ways from sunday causing parking problems. How is that any difference from a split house? Much easier to just put in parking restrictions automatically when you apply to split the house, or put blanket maximum residency requirements.

[charper]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Besides the capital gains issue which if challenged would likely fall and then be changed to a sheer dollar amount instead of a primary residence exemption, the other laws shouldn't stand. A renter renting a house with a secondary suite has just as much of a right to enjoy full use of the property as an owner, and rent out the suite. (or the owner rent out the two separately) Plus, aren't we all just renters in a way from the banks

Now it is different for a corporation. I don't think equal protection applies in the same way, but you would have to ask a lawyer.

As for liability, I know insurance companies are allowed to discriminate, I am sure there was a charter case that set that law from the 80s or 90s.

All other 2 groups being treated differently have to pass the Oakes Test, which basically asks is the reason good enough and is the difference as small as it can be to accomplish the goal.

To be honest, most peoples complaints about suites aren't solved by having the owners living there - some owners are still partiers. And a rented house can still be sub rented five ways from sunday causing parking problems. How is that any difference from a split house? Much easier to just put in parking restrictions automatically when you apply to split the house, or put blanket maximum residency requirements.

SHA is correct regarding owner occupied suites. I attended several focus groups on this issue and the number one concern was rowdy tenants followed by parking.

Rowdy tenants have little to do with secondary suites. Your neighbour could very well rent out their entire house (as SHA also states) or even worse, rent out every room in the home plus the couch to car owning tenants.

It makes little sense to place an extra burden on the owners and tenants of secondary suites without placing the same burden on the owner and tenants of a rental property in general.

If the parking issue can be resolved (current requirement is +1 stall for the secondary suite in additional to primary residence.. otherwise Disc. Use required).

Here's a (ficticious) example. My sweet mother has grown old. She doesn't want to be shipped off to a nursing home. I live in an RC1 area and would like to build a suite for her downstairs where I am near, but she is still able to be on her own. Should this secondary suite be exempt?

Many people I have presented that argument to say she should be exempt. This has shown me that the issue is more about who occupies the suite than the suite itself.

So is the issue secondary suites? Or is the issue our judgement of who occupies them?

[mooky]

Originally Posted by freeweed

It probably is, unless you live in a $750,000 house or something. Remember, half of that bill you pay every year isn't property tax.

What kind of taxes DO people pay in condos, anyway?

I think my total 2010 property tax bill was around $1100 for a 786 sq foot condo conversion in Bridgeland. I don't have a titled parking spot, just assigned.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by fusili

Zoning laws make no distinction between owners and renters. Any planning legislation can only make reference to the use of a site, and not to the users. Any bylaw that does distinguish between renters and owners can be challenged based on the Municipal Government Act. Residential is residential, no matter who is living there.

You are close - but it's not the MGA that would control this; it has to do with case law set in the supreme court related to the issue of 'seniors housing' and defining a family.

Back in the 80's zoning did have definitions of family so you typically saw the 'single family home'. Then in the late 80's there were challenges to these distinctions (I believe in Ontario) that made it to the supreme court, not just on family but on senior's housing (if you dedicate housing to senior's you are discriminating on other people). That argument was accepted by the supreme court and thus zoning has changed so you no longer see 'seniors homes' - you see 'assisted living' (or something along that line) or 'single detached dwelling' (not single family dwelling). The courts have recognized that the definition of family is changing a lot; especially with gay marriage and immigrant family compositions being different from the 'typical' North American family. The courts have even concluded that fraternaties are families, just not be blood or marriage.

I've been studying this a lot and it's really quite interesting how the laws have changed...

[freeweed]

I still see plenty of "retirement homes" in this country. Does that mean I could just force my way into one by arguing discrimination?

Hell, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd swear we still have "adults only" buildings in Canada. Maybe I'm just used to seeing them in the US and getting confused.