Municipal Politics

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by 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.

I got that call Thursday night too. I believe it was B Bold PR, which is Stephen Carter's company.

[Blader]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I got that call Thursday night too. I believe it was B Bold PR, which is Stephen Carter's company.

Tnx, a further google search led me to the Calgary Puck municipal election thread. A lot of familiar posters. Just getting up to speed.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I got that call Thursday night too. I believe it was B Bold PR, which is Stephen Carter's company.

My voicemail picked up B-Bold PR on Thursday night. I don't answer unknown callers unless I am expecting a call. Plus they called when I was getting dinner on the table for the kids.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

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?

If the whole house is a rental (single rental unit) the price for my area is $1600/month plus utilities, unfurnished; with some houses going for north of $2k. Rents at these levels attract the kind of tenant that has all ready learned the ropes. The car issues are usually handled by all four spots (2 driveway 2 garage) in use. Only a five car house will cause one additional on street parking. Garbage is not an issue as the tenants have full use of the bins.

On my street there are easily 5-10 whole house rental units. None have any significant issues with the rest of the neighbourhood. All units are well maintained by the tenants. Tenants are usually oilfield workers who only in Calgary on very short term basis.

As to neighbour vs secondary suite; the whole issue is with the secondary suite. All other issues have been approached with respect and careful consideration of the other person's needs. For example when the hail storm hit everyone got new siding and shingles. We worked out the cross neighbour issues (keeping the year clean from construction debris, advising each other of when workers will be around and minimizing impacts on each other.

[outoftheice]

Thanks for insight. You raise a very good point in regards to rental rates factoring in to shaping the kind of tenant you're left dealing with. Secondary suites do tend to rent out towards the cheaper end of the spectrum. However, I do think that if perhaps secondary suites were legalized the general quality of the suites city-wide would increase and perhaps would help increase the average rent and therefore the 'quality' of the tenants. From what I've read, a large number of secondary suites are built 'on the cheap' and do not comply with basic code requirements and therefore only attract the tenants who have no other choice in Calgary's tight rental market.

[DizzyEdge]

Since one of the main complaints about areas with large numbers of rental suites is parking, can't just restrictive and enforced permit parking take care of this problem?

[Policy Wonk]

What does that accomplish if the secondary suite tenants are eligible for a parking permit?

Although it might work if having a secondary suite approved included permanently forfeiting all resident and guest parking permits for that address.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by fusili

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.

Here are some stats about those better transit cities:
City: % of all work trips by transit, % buses with bike racks, % time bikes allowed on trains

Boston: 35%, 50%, 70%
Chicago: 27%, 100%, 88%
New York: 55%, 0%, 100%
Philadelphia: 25%, 100%, 77%
San Francisco: 32%, 100%, 83%
DC: 37%, 100%, 78%

Calgary: 16%, 5%, 80%

What I've generally noticed about Calgary Transit, is there seems to be much more dialogue now from Route Ahead etc. about better cycling/transit integration. Calgary can be both a great transit city, and a great cycling city. Calgary Transit really seems to go out of their way to seek vicious compliancy from cyclists though when it places signs for example at Bridgeland station (which is one of the few crossings over Memorial) saying that bikes can't be rode on the bridge.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Cage

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

Maybe if secondary suites were regulated, we could do away with apathetic landlords who violate bylaws related to parking, garbage, and noise. Bad neighbours are bad neighbours, and I'm not sure this is because of the fact it's a secondary suite.

By the way, thanks for sharing your insight, Cage. It's helped reform my perspective on this issue.

[Policy Wonk]

Bad neighbours are bad neighbours, but around here the issue very plainly is that the secondary suites cater to a more transient element than ordinary rentals and it is what it is.

I don't see how exactly legalization changes the fact this is the rock bottom of the housing market above SRO situations.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

Thanks for insight. You raise a very good point in regards to rental rates factoring in to shaping the kind of tenant you're left dealing with. Secondary suites do tend to rent out towards the cheaper end of the spectrum. However, I do think that if perhaps secondary suites were legalized the general quality of the suites city-wide would increase and perhaps would help increase the average rent and therefore the 'quality' of the tenants. From what I've read, a large number of secondary suites are built 'on the cheap' and do not comply with basic code requirements and therefore only attract the tenants who have no other choice in Calgary's tight rental market.

WRT secondary suite safety or lack there of; the issues come down to fire protection, independent source of heat, and secondary egress in the event of fire. These three items also increase the cost of building a secondary suite beyond what most potential landlords are willing to pay. In pilot projects in both Edmonton and Calgary, once secondary suite owners were advised of the bill to make their suites fire code compliant, the owners either removed the suite or were successful in getting a govt grant to pay for the renovation.

Fire protection is firewall between each suite plus interconnected fire alarms. Generally no issues from potential landlords for this requirement.

Independent source of heat is the most contentious aspect of secondary suite renovations. Very high cost to implement and operate. Additionally and not well advertised, independent source of heat is also uncomfortable for the primary suite landlord. Heat travels up so to bring the basement to 21c will put the second floor of the house up to 23 to 26c.

Secondary egress from the suite has problems for flat level yards. The window well dimensions might not be allowed on the side of the house. Plus e cost to renovate the house to become compliant is very prohibitive.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Bad neighbours are bad neighbours, but around here the issue very plainly is that the secondary suites cater to a more transient element than ordinary rentals and it is what it is.

I don't see how exactly legalization changes the fact this is the rock bottom of the housing market above SRO situations.

Are you saying poor people make worse neighbours than rich people?

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

What does that accomplish if the secondary suite tenants are eligible for a parking permit?

Although it might work if having a secondary suite approved included permanently forfeiting all resident and guest parking permits for that address.

Well I'm thinking along the lines that each house gets x number of permits based on lot frontage, and that # is regardless of there being a single occupier or multiple suites.

[MasterG]

Deleted

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Are you saying poor people make worse neighbours than rich people?

I think it would be most accurate to say renters are worse neighbours.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Well I'm thinking along the lines that each house gets x number of permits based on lot frontage, and that # is regardless of there being a single occupier or multiple suites.

So assholes will just give tenants their guest permits,

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I think it would be most accurate to say renters are worse neighbours.

My way of thinking is that a good neighbourhood is one with a lot of diversity: propriety (rent or own), price (everything from affordable housing to luxury estate), density (single family detached to high-rise apartment), age (young families to seniors), employment (various industries and pay brackets), transportation (transit, bike, drive, walk), and leisure (parks, arts, and entertainment). No neighbourhood is perfect, but I believe that striving for this kind of diversity can do more to solve our social problems than increasing public spending on police, education, and healthcare can.

The neighbours immediately adjacent to me are both renters, but there are plenty of owners on my street too. I find they are all respectful, and I'm glad to share my neighbourhood with them. The reality of the times is that fewer and fewer people will ever achieve home ownership. If anything, secondary suites will help fight inflation of cost of living.

[Policy Wonk]

Idealism is a good thing, but the rentals around here pretty consistently find themselves ridiculously over-occupied by young men who have lots cars and trucks, lots of overnight company with their own cars, lots of parties, lots of dogs and don't do yard maintenance or pickup after the said dogs.

Get off my lawn. If I wanted to live in Forest Lawn I would downsize my mortgage and move there.

[MalcolmTucker]

Neighbourhoods that wish to enforce standards above and beyond bylaws can always try to get a home owners association approved to enforce community standards.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Idealism is a good thing, but the rentals around here pretty consistently find themselves ridiculously over-occupied by young men who have lots cars and trucks, lots of overnight company with their own cars, lots of parties, lots of dogs and don't do yard maintenance or pickup after the said dogs.

Get off my lawn. If I wanted to live in Forest Lawn I would downsize my mortgage and move there.

I would almost guarantee that there is a higher rate of dog ownership among property owners than renters. Although, you are right that there is a proportionately higher rate of men who rent than women.

Still, it's more fair to have rules against noise and not picking up after dogs than it is to have rules against renters. Lots of places only rent to people over 25, no pets, professionals. It's the landlords right to choose their tenant, and it's their right to evict them if they are breaking a law. Neighbours are free to make a noise complaint to police. If there is underage drinking, drinking and driving, illegal parking, drug use, the tenants will pay the consequences.