Bulletin: May 19, 2021: Concerned Resident Secondary Suite Survey Critique
(Oak Bay Watch Note):
At the Council Meeting on May 11th, there was concern on the part of several councillors as to the neutrality of the questions of the upcoming survey. Councillor Greene asked, “Would it be possible for us to see questions that will be part of the consultation this spring?” Having the Advisory Planning Commission (APC) of residents as part of the process was discussed.
Manager of Planning, D. Jensen, replied, “Just so you are aware once we’ve finished our presentation here tonight leading into going out into the Community, we will be consulting with the APC as part of that.” The discussion was concluded with the understanding that the APC would provide an objective overview of the questions. The Advisory Planning Commission was not consulted and the staff published the survey unvetted.
Oak Bay Watch received the following Concerned Resident Secondary Suite Survey Critique:
Oak Bay has recently released a Secondary Suite Survey that must be completed by June 3, 2021. It can be found at:
https://www.oakbay.ca/municipal-services/planning/secondary-suites-study
Whether one is for or against legalizing secondary suites in Oak Bay it is vital that the Survey is accurate, that it addresses the main issues associated with legalization and is in accordance with its mandate. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
The survey contains disingenuous/misleading questions T#10, #20). It does not consider costing issues nor does it address the concomitant impact of (more) suites on our crumbling infrastructure. Before attempting to answer the survey questions (there is no going back to previous questions) it is recommended one read the following question: (See Survey Questions Appendix #1)
Question 10 Owner occupancy
Owner occupancy can't be enforced for any type of property. It is astounding that the Survey author did not know this. A disingenuous/misleading question.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca › assets › gov › bulletins: Dec. 12, 2019 - The BC Code does not require the building owner building owner to occupy either of the units.
Question 16 Enforcement
It is impossible to answer this question without more details as to what "District-initiated (plus complaint based)" enforcement means.
Question 19 Registration
Instead of the option "Mandatory business license (annual fee)" the Municipality should use the annual property tax form. Owners should be required to answer a question or simply certify on the form saying they do or do not have a secondary suite within their property. (Whether or not it is rented is between the owner and Canada Revenue Agency). False answers may incur a substantial penalty. This procedure would be easy and inexpensive to implement.
Question 20 Note: One Important scenario left out
The preamble to the Survey states in paragraph one:
"This study ...is intended to identify policies and regulations for considering secondary suites as a housing form within the community".
To be consistent with the study’s mandate scenario Question #20 (Other) Option E, the status quo, must be included. The community should have been asked this when replying to:
"Generally speaking, which of the scenarios, do you prefer when considering secondary suites?"
Scenario A
.
.
Scenario D
Scenario (Other) (E) "Keeping the Status Quo"
Question 29 Additional comments
For a fulsome, meaningful discussion going forward the Council and Community need answers to many question including the following:
1. Who is going to pay for implementation? Community (by increased property taxes?) Property/Suite owners (by licenses/ fees?) How much will the implementation cost to initiate and annually?
2. A statement in writing from the Chief Engineer to certify whether our "crumbling infrastructure" has the capacity (storm sewers, waste sewers, roads etc.) to safely handle (more) secondary suites.
3. A statement in writing from the Chief Financial Officer on how the suite implementation will affect our ability to address our $300 million plus infrastructure deficit.
4. The full Survey results. e.g. number of respondents who answered each individual question, confidence limits associated with the replies, all comments.
Given the pandemic it is understood that most of the future community feedback will be attained through the online surveys and consultations.
The Suite Survey has two important but flawed questions. As well, any proposal must include answers to many questions, including the ones above. To be open, transparent and obtain a realistic measure of public feedback, the consultant's proposed suite legalization proposal should have been be posted online. It should have also contained the following additional survey question:
"Do you support the consultant's suite legalization proposal?"
"Yes" (implement)
"No" (Keep status quo)
Signed: A long-term Oak Bay Resident
Oak Bay Watch Perspective:
Given Council has stated implementing multi-tenant Secondary Suites is “being considered” we concur with this resident that Oak Bay residents who do not want more suites should have been provided with an option to “keep the status quo”. Particularly as the District has provided no evidence that any problem exists.
Appendix #1
District of Oak Bay Secondary Suite Survey Questions
(Oak Bay Watch Note):
At the Council Meeting on May 11th, there was concern on the part of several councillors as to the neutrality of the questions of the upcoming survey. Councillor Greene asked, “Would it be possible for us to see questions that will be part of the consultation this spring?” Having the Advisory Planning Commission (APC) of residents as part of the process was discussed.
Manager of Planning, D. Jensen, replied, “Just so you are aware once we’ve finished our presentation here tonight leading into going out into the Community, we will be consulting with the APC as part of that.” The discussion was concluded with the understanding that the APC would provide an objective overview of the questions. The Advisory Planning Commission was not consulted and the staff published the survey unvetted.
Oak Bay Watch received the following Concerned Resident Secondary Suite Survey Critique:
Oak Bay has recently released a Secondary Suite Survey that must be completed by June 3, 2021. It can be found at:
https://www.oakbay.ca/municipal-services/planning/secondary-suites-study
Whether one is for or against legalizing secondary suites in Oak Bay it is vital that the Survey is accurate, that it addresses the main issues associated with legalization and is in accordance with its mandate. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
The survey contains disingenuous/misleading questions T#10, #20). It does not consider costing issues nor does it address the concomitant impact of (more) suites on our crumbling infrastructure. Before attempting to answer the survey questions (there is no going back to previous questions) it is recommended one read the following question: (See Survey Questions Appendix #1)
Question 10 Owner occupancy
Owner occupancy can't be enforced for any type of property. It is astounding that the Survey author did not know this. A disingenuous/misleading question.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca › assets › gov › bulletins: Dec. 12, 2019 - The BC Code does not require the building owner building owner to occupy either of the units.
Question 16 Enforcement
It is impossible to answer this question without more details as to what "District-initiated (plus complaint based)" enforcement means.
Question 19 Registration
Instead of the option "Mandatory business license (annual fee)" the Municipality should use the annual property tax form. Owners should be required to answer a question or simply certify on the form saying they do or do not have a secondary suite within their property. (Whether or not it is rented is between the owner and Canada Revenue Agency). False answers may incur a substantial penalty. This procedure would be easy and inexpensive to implement.
Question 20 Note: One Important scenario left out
The preamble to the Survey states in paragraph one:
"This study ...is intended to identify policies and regulations for considering secondary suites as a housing form within the community".
To be consistent with the study’s mandate scenario Question #20 (Other) Option E, the status quo, must be included. The community should have been asked this when replying to:
"Generally speaking, which of the scenarios, do you prefer when considering secondary suites?"
Scenario A
.
.
Scenario D
Scenario (Other) (E) "Keeping the Status Quo"
Question 29 Additional comments
For a fulsome, meaningful discussion going forward the Council and Community need answers to many question including the following:
1. Who is going to pay for implementation? Community (by increased property taxes?) Property/Suite owners (by licenses/ fees?) How much will the implementation cost to initiate and annually?
2. A statement in writing from the Chief Engineer to certify whether our "crumbling infrastructure" has the capacity (storm sewers, waste sewers, roads etc.) to safely handle (more) secondary suites.
3. A statement in writing from the Chief Financial Officer on how the suite implementation will affect our ability to address our $300 million plus infrastructure deficit.
4. The full Survey results. e.g. number of respondents who answered each individual question, confidence limits associated with the replies, all comments.
Given the pandemic it is understood that most of the future community feedback will be attained through the online surveys and consultations.
The Suite Survey has two important but flawed questions. As well, any proposal must include answers to many questions, including the ones above. To be open, transparent and obtain a realistic measure of public feedback, the consultant's proposed suite legalization proposal should have been be posted online. It should have also contained the following additional survey question:
"Do you support the consultant's suite legalization proposal?"
"Yes" (implement)
"No" (Keep status quo)
Signed: A long-term Oak Bay Resident
Oak Bay Watch Perspective:
Given Council has stated implementing multi-tenant Secondary Suites is “being considered” we concur with this resident that Oak Bay residents who do not want more suites should have been provided with an option to “keep the status quo”. Particularly as the District has provided no evidence that any problem exists.
Appendix #1
District of Oak Bay Secondary Suite Survey Questions
