Follow @nenshi on Twitter
Join Naheed's Facebook page
Nenshi proposes common-sense policy on secondary suites
- Monday, June 7th, 2010
- 11 Comments
Policy Overview
Today Naheed released his policy on secondary suites in Calgary — a policy that brings safe, legal affordable housing to Calgary while respecting the rights of people in existing communities.
Secondary suites are not the entire solution to our affordable housing crisis, but they are an important part of the puzzle. Naheed will be releasing a full policy on housing in due course, but this piece could be implemented today.
Overview Video
Media Release
Nenshi proposes common-sense policy on secondary suites
McIver-led motion is Councilitis at work: an attempt to hide from record, delay issue until after election
Mayoral candidate and long-time housing advocate Naheed Nenshi today announced a policy for secondary suites that will immediately bring safe, legal affordable housing units to Calgary, while minimizing disruptions to existing neighbourhoods. This stands in stark contrast to the Notice of Motion being presented to City Council today by aldermen Ric McIver, Jim Stevenson, and Gord Lowe – all ardent opponents of secondary suites in existing neighbourhoods in the past – which would tie up any decision on suites in administrative paralysis for at least eight months, if not longer.
Nenshi’s proposal envisions secondary suites being allowed in all residential communities without need for a land-use rezoning, subject to the following simple conditions:
- All provincial building code rules must be met, notably the need for fire safety (e.g. fire walls between suites, smoke alarms that ring on all floors)
- One off-street parking spot must be provided for the suite, in addition to the spots required for the main dwelling. This rule would be waived for suites within 500 metres of an LRT or BRT station.
- The owner must occupy any home with a suite; both units cannot be rented simultaneously.
“It’s unbelievable that this has been allowed to go on for so long,” said Nenshi. “This city has been out of step with other cities, with public opinion, and with its own plan to end homelessness due directly to a lack of courage at City Council to address the issue.
“Alderman McIver’s motion would just extend this untenable situation even further. It’s a clear indication that he and his colleagues suffer from “Councilitis” – an inflammation of analysis characterized by an inability to make tough decisions, even when they are the right thing to do. We don’t need eight months to study the issue – we already know what works and we just need to do it.”
There are an estimated 50,000 to 80,000 illegal suites in Calgary, whose tenants lack any safety protection or recourse. All major cities in Canada save Calgary have a secondary suite policy, with Vancouver, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina, and Toronto, amongst many others, having legalized them in all neighbourhoods.
June 08, 2010 at 2:16 am, Adam Zendel said:
Damn straight. The problem is not the drafting of policy, the policies exist in every city. The problem is getting a city council you pass the policy.
June 09, 2010 at 2:33 am, Darryl Cariou said:
One major flaw with this policy – it is unenforceable. How can the City monitor or police who lives in the building? And why should they? The house may be owner-occupied at the time the secondary suite is approved and built; however the owner could move out the next day and rent the upper floors without anyone's approval or knowledge.
In addition, why the prejudice against renters? I generally like Mr. Nenshi's positions but I believe this one is simply more pandering to the NIMBYs and lacks common sense.
June 10, 2010 at 11:11 pm, admin said:
Great points, Darryl, but the problem is that we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, as the old cliche goes. Right now, we have no legal suites in most neighbourhoods. None. If owner-occupied is the compromise we need to make, a then we need to think about it.
As I wrote on the Facebook page:
The owner-occupancy is a bit problematic for a couple of reasons, but I think it strikes the right balance to help people feel that their existing neighbourhoods will not be "ruined" by secondary suites.
I know a lot of people say this is unenforceable, but that's a tough argument for me to understand. Most city by-laws are "unenforceable" — they are enforced on a complaint basis. By making the suites legal, you give tenants recourse to complain without worrying that they will lose their home entirely. The exact same argument applies to smoke alarms — the city doesn't go into every house to see if the alarms work.
There is a difference of opinion on the legality of such a requirement — some lawyers say you can't do it, others say it's fine, and the jurisprudence is mixed. I would like to try it … see if there is a challenge, rather than shirking from the fear of a potential challenge, as the City has the habit of doing.
Finally, some argue that this removes "property rights" from the owner. I respond that right now, the owners have no right to secondary suite at all. This adds a right in some instances; it does not take one away.
June 17, 2010 at 6:25 pm, Kay She said:
Best policy I've seen thus far from any mayoral candidate on secondary suites. As a former post-secondary student advocate, one only has to look at the area surrounding the University of Calgary to know that illegal secondary suites exist, and this policy expedites the process for homeowners who would like to create a secondary suite in their home legally, but were put off by the arduous applications and financial costs to re-designate their zone, especially when it's not a guarantee that their application will be approved. After that hoop, the homeowner would still need to get the proper permits and applications to actually turn their home to have a secondary suite.
It's true that this policy won't solve everything overnight, and is enforced on a complaints basis, but it's absolutely better than what the city currently has for dealing with secondary suites.
The owner-occupied requirement will also render this policy useless for a lot of homeowners around the University of Calgary. But it's a requirement that is necessary in order to address the needs of the homeowners who currently live in the community. The last thing a homeowner wants is the house next door to be a "frat house", and the owner-occupied requirement is the best way to deter that from happening.
Exemption for parking spot if within 500 m radius of C-Train. Also great. This isn't a new idea but it's great that someone is finally willing to put their weight behind it.
June 23, 2010 at 6:49 am, Jenn T said:
I think your plan is right on the money. I personally think most people follow the law. Also, it is not for Calgary to have inspectors going door-to-door, rather a legal recourse for people who are in poor living or safety conditions. Yes, someone could rent out a whole house but if that landlord upsets the tenants, the tenant then can raise a complaint and the city could investigate.
I don't understand why there isn't more common sense in this issue.
July 08, 2010 at 8:02 pm, Calgary mayoral candidate Naheed Nenshi « GORDON MCDOWELL said:
[...] proposal #2: Commons sense policy on secondary suites. All major cities in Canada except Calgary have a secondary suite policy. Vancouver, Edmonton, [...]
July 11, 2010 at 4:15 am, Nurul Khan said:
Very good idea.But I like to add that the neighbours of the whole block should be empowered to discipline any roudy and noisy tenants.
September 01, 2010 at 2:38 am, Todd J Al said:
Love it. Urban density rather than sprawl. Helps the environment, gives the renters rights, helps make homes affordable, adds new dwellings with very little use of resources.
Just remember Nurul Khan that everybody makes noise, not just renters. Everyone in a community should be empowered not to have to put up with noisy neighbours, it's not tenant/owner specific. If the owner lives in the same building they're not gonna be causing much of a ruckus anyway.
September 22, 2010 at 3:41 am, maurice said:
Wake up folks, It is a tax grab by the local government(s) who use the roose of providing affordable housing moniker. People buy homes to have a lifestyle choice and if they wanted to live in a high density situation they would have purchased an apartment condo, townhouse etc. This is a load of you all know what so do not try to justify it with different cover titles. The only way this can happen is if the owner lives on the property and if not is subject to a $50,000 fine attached to the property and at tax time, if not paid, the property is sold.
September 22, 2010 at 9:18 pm, Amy said:
Yes, this all sounds fine and well, but there is a lack of common sense in our society these days, in fact I'm not so sure it should be called 'common'! Maybe we should start calling it "not-so-common sense"! But I'm all for you Nenshi!
September 26, 2010 at 7:49 pm, We Should Know Naheed Nenshi « GORDON MCDOWELL said:
[...] spaces for established artists, and facilities (in low rent neighborhoods) for emerging artists. Secondary suites & zoning changes will lead to lower cost housing & studio space. Likes proposal for [...]