Municipal Politics

[RyLucky]

I can't get over how nuts the thought of secondary suites makes some people. They worry that overnight Calgary will become like Karachi (though I've never been there and have no idea what it's like), with no where to park, rampant crime, and zero upkeep to homes. In reality, this is already happening illegally and wont change much except for maybe stabilize rental rates, decrease the burden of student loans, and provide a little income and companionship to those with too much house.

Ethically speaking, if I own a property, do I not have the right to house who I choose and accept payment from my tenants for my proprietary expenses? Should the government be allowed to restrict me from entering said contract?

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Ethically speaking, if I own a property, do I not have the right to house who I choose and accept payment from my tenants for my proprietary expenses? Should the government be allowed to restrict me from entering said contract?

Could this line of thinking not be applied to the City's entire land use bylaw?...

[Chealion]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Yeah what happened with the smart card system they were looking at?
And for adding bike parking, was there ever a discussion about adding more bike racks on city buses?

The smart card system was killed when the vendor was failing to meet expectations with delays and a failed trial period last summer. ( http://newsroom.calgary.ca/pr/calgary/calgary-transit-cancels-electronic-240651.aspx )

As for bike parking/racks on buses, my understanding is Keating has been pushing the issue but CT has been saying no it'll only be a (failed) pilot for now because the racks mean they can't store as many buses in their garage.

By failed pilot - I mean the route 20 is supposed to have racks but there's no guarantee that the bus will actually have a rack making planning a multi modal trip a waste of time. (One cyclist I follow on Twitter reported only getting one with a rack once in the 5 times he tried to make it work)

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Curious if any one ward would have support in the 66% or higher range

Question: For each of the following issues I would like you to tell me whether you support,somewhat support, somewhat oppose or oppose the following:

The City approving secondary suites and basement suites?


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

From a poll done for a certain 2007 Mayoral candidate. 1,000 Telephone Interviews with Likely Municipal Voters, ±3.1% 19 times out of 20. Sub-samples should be treated with caution, but as they all exhibit similar results...

The numbers tell the story well, since oppose out number somewhat oppose by a wide margin, it shows opposition has the potential to be loud. More current polls are similar, but this one likely has a bit more support because it was a real poll, with real weighting (not psychographics alas but that wasn't common yet). In internet and computer dial polls angry people seem to respond more, so it tilts the sample in my experience.

[Bigtime]

Anyone else get a phone poll yesterday evening?

Was very focused on the Manning Centre "slate" and the Cal Wenzel video.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Radley77

2. Adding safe and easy bike parking facilities at lrt, particularly because almost every city in the USA has better cycling/transit integration

No, they don't. Every US city has absolutely horrid transit systems save for New York, Chicago, San Fran, Boston, Phillly and DC. How can you have good cycling/transit integration when your transit system sucks?

Perhaps Minneapolis has good transit/bike integration, but that is because transit in Minneapolis has such poor ridership, that bikes on buses pose no operational challenges.

Agreed, we have to do better, but to say that any city in the US, save for the Northeast corridor large metros, Chicago and San Francisco, have a transit system even worth mentioning is absurd.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Not true, it's a vocal minority. The extensive polling that was done indicated that not only did about 3/4 support suites in their neighbourhood as a whole, but almost the exact same number indicated they supported the right for their direct neighbour to have a suite.

I stand corrected.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

Could this line of thinking not be applied to the City's entire land use bylaw?...

We should ask these kinds of questions for every policy decision.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Ethically speaking, if I own a property, do I not have the right to house who I choose and accept payment from my tenants for my proprietary expenses? Should the government be allowed to restrict me from entering said contract?

First paragraph for the Canadian CHarter of Rights and Freedoms says:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights
and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by
law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

I put forth that land use restrictions are reasonable limits in a free and democratic society. One persons property rights need to be restricted such as not to infringe upon another persons property rights.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Cage

First paragraph for the Canadian CHarter of Rights and Freedoms says:



I put forth that land use restrictions are reasonable limits in a free and democratic society. One persons property rights need to be restricted such as not to infringe upon another persons property rights.

Agreed. But at what point to one's rights impeded their neighbour's rights? If I rent a room in my house, how does that affect you?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Not true, it's a vocal minority. The extensive polling that was done indicated that not only did about 3/4 support suites in their neighbourhood as a whole, but almost the exact same number indicated they supported the right for their direct neighbour to have a suite.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Question: For each of the following issues I would like you to tell me whether you support,somewhat support, somewhat oppose or oppose the following:

The City approving secondary suites and basement suites?
....
The numbers tell the story well, since oppose out number somewhat oppose by a wide margin, it shows opposition has the potential to be loud. More current polls are similar, but this one likely has a bit more support because it was a real poll, with real weighting (not psychographics alas but that wasn't common yet). In internet and computer dial polls angry people seem to respond more, so it tilts the sample in my experience.

With the polling numbers comming out so in favour of secondary suite approval, how come there has never been a municipal plebiscite on the issue? If 70% plus of the electorate is infavour this seems like an easy win for the pro secondary suite voices.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Cage

With the polling numbers comming out so in favour of secondary suite approval, how come there has never been a municipal plebiscite on the issue? If 70% plus of the electorate is infavour this seems like an easy win for the pro secondary suite voices.

Because plebiscites are not legally binding motions. Even with a plebiscite, council will have to vote on the issue anyway. I am sure some on Council now will vote against it even with a plebiscite.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

If I rent a room in my house, how does that affect you?

My next door neighbour has a secondary suite. The issues come down to cars, garbage, noise, together with landlord apathy.

In Citadel the lots are so narrow that only one car can fit inbetween the two driveways. I share one spot with the neighbour to the north and one spot with the secondary suited neighbour to the south. There is insufficient space for a car to fit between my south neighbour's driveway and the house two doors down. On my street there is effectively two parking spots for every three houses. My suited neighbour wants ot utilize all four on property parking spots for herself. Garage doubles as a storage facility because the basement is now suited. Tenants instructed to park on the street.

The tenant street parking monopolized the one spot to the extent my guests could not use the space. Also had an issue every Thursday night WRT black and blue bin placement. Tenant was moving the bins to accomodate their vehicle. Also had issues with tenant encroaching on driveway with their SUV creating issues that prevent entrance to my driveway. Tenant was unwilling to park farther down the street to accomodate garbage day or others. Discussion with tenant vehicle owner and lanlord ensued. All sides un willing to move from their positions until I dropped the illegal suite hammer (along with land use bylaw requires the landlord to give tenant 1 parking spot).

There are other issues with garbage, specifically on days where the landlord does not put out their bins so the tenant can use them. The tenant have taken to leaving their garbage on the curb, which does not get it picked up. Alternately the tenant utilize my bins. I'm okay with this however the tenants also missjudge the garbage pick up time of 7:05am. Tenant tosses their garbage into my bin at 7:30am after the trucks have all ready passed. Now I have up to week old garbage to deal with. Landlord does not want to take ownership of the garbage issues and resolve situation (not my problem is the response). Drop the illegal suite hammer gets the landlord to take responsibility and ensure that tenant have access to bins.

Noise issues include the neighbourhood is chock-a-block with young kids. The tenants however don't have kids and like to have loud parties late at night (9pm is late when your trying to get a toddler to bed). Landlord is on vacation and the tenants don't give a damn about noise cause they are not doing anything illegal. Drop the secondary suite hammer and the outdoor portion of the party is shuttered at 9:30pm.

The real kicker however is that all of the above issues are recurring every 4-9 months when tenant is rotated. It has gotten to the point where I have a google alert on both house address and/or landlord phone number. At least this way I can follow up with the new tenants and landlord in a much more timely fashion.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I can't get over how nuts the thought of secondary suites makes some people. They worry that overnight Calgary will become like Karachi (though I've never been there and have no idea what it's like), with no where to park, rampant crime, and zero upkeep to homes. In reality, this is already happening illegally and wont change much except for maybe stabilize rental rates, decrease the burden of student loans, and provide a little income and companionship to those with too much house.

The secondary suite issue does drive me nuts for the issues raised in the above post. I do not relish the fight with landlord neighbour and the constant hassle of explaining suburban life realities to the tenants that have basement suite as a short waystation on their way to more permanent housing.

I will gladly change my secondary suite position the first time a bylaw comes up that will fix my issues.

The only solution I can think of that might be an equitable and feasible is a USA style Home Owner Association. The HOA would have power of bylaw enforcement (if passed by the general HOA membership) to fine home owners for any infractions including: overnight resident use of on street parking, excessive noise, garbage issues, and all other issues. Fine revenue would be retained by the HOA for park and facility improvement projects.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by fusili

Because plebiscites are not legally binding motions. Even with a plebiscite, council will have to vote on the issue anyway. I am sure some on Council now will vote against it even with a plebiscite.

I faced the same issues of nonbinding vote and potential for cowboy council during the 1995 Edmonton Municipal Airport Consolidation plebiscite.

The internal polls in June of 1995 placed support for consolidation to YEG at just under 55% with a much softer opposition (strong oppose in the low teens).

Consolidation side forces won the day with 76% support and the airports were consolidated the following April (near immediate consolidation considering YEG required improvements to handle the additional traffic from YXD.

Also during the election Jan Reimer (pro consolidation) lost the mayors chair to Bill Smith (opposed consolidation). Even Bill Smith could not stop the consolidation although it was tried.

Bringing this back to Calgary the polls are lead to believe unwaivering strong support for secondary suite legalization plus a Mayor with 80%+ popularity who is very much secondary suite supportive.

From a guy who has been there, done that, got the shirt to prove it:
IT DOESN'T GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

One reason I believe the secondary suite issue is big is because people don't want it in their neighbourhoods, and some councillors actually listen to people in their riding. I think they should totally allow more, but it's not as easy an issue as people think.

Originally Posted by Wooster

Not true, it's a vocal minority. The extensive polling that was done indicated that not only did about 3/4 support suites in their neighbourhood as a whole, but almost the exact same number indicated they supported the right for their direct neighbour to have a suite.

My theory on the secondary suite polling vs alderman vote record disparity.....

Both of the above posters are correct.

There is a vocal minority of 2 in 10 voters who oppose secondary suites. However in any normal mayor incumbent election only 4 in 10 people actually go out and vote. Cross the two opponents with the voters and now 50% of actually voters are against secondary suites. Any councillor getting close to 50% of the vote will get easily elected.

[Blader]

Just got my 1st robo call on the civic election from 587 315 8627.
As best I could tell they identified as B or V Bold PR at 1811 4 St SW Suite 250 or 260. A google search identifies this as a UPS address.

Quote
We'll shape the future of the City of Calgary. We hope you will take 3 minutes and answer these 4 questions.
Unquote

They then ask 9 questions. Not worth repeating, but the usual questions. Roads, reducing taxes, secondary suites everywhere, and so on.

In principle, I hate robo calls and especially when it's not clear who it's from.
It was a recording. I didn't answer.

[MalcolmTucker]

Research polls don't require the identification of the funder, as that can influence the responses. With the new CRTC rules, research polls can't provide the client with data still attached to the individual respondent. Calls that do that must identify the funder. Not much research would be needed to guess the commissioner

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I can't get over how nuts the thought of secondary suites makes some people.

I wish I was more open minded about this subject, but my first hand experience with having suites in my neighbourhood has been extremely negative. Both for the obvious parking reasons, but the white trash living in them brought some additional issues themselves. The SWAT team was pretty close the last straw for me, i'm just too busy to tackle moving at the moment.

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by Cage

My next door neighbour has a secondary suite. The issues come down to cars, garbage, noise, together with landlord apathy...

I completely understand where you're coming from with this issue (having had inconsiderate neighbours in the past myself) however I'm not sure why this particular issue translates into an opposition to legalizing secondary suites. In regards to having tenants that make life difficult for those in the surrounding area, there is absolutely nothing preventing your neighbour from renting out their house in its entirety. In fact I have a good friend whose family rents a house in the 'burbs. There is 5 of them in total, all of whom have cars and I have no doubt they take up more than their fair share of parking spaces in the neighbourhood. They also have a habit of moving houses every year or two. I would argue that secondary suites actually are an improvement over the status quo as the landlord tends to live on property which tends to help in regards to apathy and makes communication between neighbours easier than an absentee landlord renting their entire house out. I would also point out that sometimes you just end up with D-bag neighbours... regardless of whether they're tenants or not and again, allowing or disallowing secondary suites will have very little impact on that. I don't mean to single you out specifically with this post however your views tend to mirror the most common argument I've heard against legalizing secondary suites and I'd be curious to get a bit more insight from you on this! Are your problems really due to the secondary suite next door or are they due to who your neighbour is?