Message to Our WEBSITE VISITORS
It has been brought to our attention by a couple of our website visitors that our use of the term “multi-tenant”, when referring to Council’s intention to allow multi-tenant suite residents is offensive. They claimed that our use of the term “tenant” indicated we consider that people who rent basement suites are in some way different than the people that live upstairs.
This was not Oak Bay Watch’s intention or opinion – and we certainly make no such judgement.
It is important to note however, who is doing the complaining about Community Groups (and a number of groups have come under fire) who oppose inappropriate developments and Council actions.
The Urban Development Institute lobbies governments of all levels (at great expense) on behalf of the Development and Real Estate Industries to get more benefits for their members. A community advocacy group's objective is to protect existing residents interests.
To be clear, most homeowners have probably paid rent to obtain accommodation at one time or another. We are not opposed to people who rent secondary suites or people who need this extra income to make ends meet.
However, we are opposed to unsafe inadequate, and unsuitable accommodation. We are opposed to landlords that rent suites to multi-residents when the suite is only suitable for 2 occupants. We are opposed to Councils that expect their taxpayers to fund the services and amenities for landlord’s multi-tenant suite residents. Hence the reason for an earlier Council to legislate a 2-boarder limit.
We are confident though that we have not been singled out. And, that the few complainants, concerned about our use of the term “tenant”, have contacted the following organizations and brought to their attention their use of the term “tenant” implies that a tenant, according to the complaints, is somehow inferior to other Community residents. Some of the (offending?) organizations are:
However, perhaps we should have anticipated this “reaction”, particularly in the current climate of political correctness, and hopefully we have made amends. To oblige and satisfy the sensibilities of those who may have been offended, we have changed our January 19, 2022 Newsletter “multi-tenant” suite reference to hopefully, a more acceptable term “multi-resident” suites”.
Our January19, 2022 newsletter objective was to inform Oak Bay’s residents that Council has indicated it is their intention to add a significant number of new multi-resident suites and, that, like most of the existing suites, they will be unregistered.Home
This has been other communities experience everywhere according to the Provincial Secondary Suite Guidelines Report. Adding this additional population will be without the additional tax revenue to provide the required services, amenities and infrastructure they require. This is not fair to existing taxpayers who will be expected to cover the costs.
It has been brought to our attention by a couple of our website visitors that our use of the term “multi-tenant”, when referring to Council’s intention to allow multi-tenant suite residents is offensive. They claimed that our use of the term “tenant” indicated we consider that people who rent basement suites are in some way different than the people that live upstairs.
This was not Oak Bay Watch’s intention or opinion – and we certainly make no such judgement.
It is important to note however, who is doing the complaining about Community Groups (and a number of groups have come under fire) who oppose inappropriate developments and Council actions.
The Urban Development Institute lobbies governments of all levels (at great expense) on behalf of the Development and Real Estate Industries to get more benefits for their members. A community advocacy group's objective is to protect existing residents interests.
To be clear, most homeowners have probably paid rent to obtain accommodation at one time or another. We are not opposed to people who rent secondary suites or people who need this extra income to make ends meet.
However, we are opposed to unsafe inadequate, and unsuitable accommodation. We are opposed to landlords that rent suites to multi-residents when the suite is only suitable for 2 occupants. We are opposed to Councils that expect their taxpayers to fund the services and amenities for landlord’s multi-tenant suite residents. Hence the reason for an earlier Council to legislate a 2-boarder limit.
We are confident though that we have not been singled out. And, that the few complainants, concerned about our use of the term “tenant”, have contacted the following organizations and brought to their attention their use of the term “tenant” implies that a tenant, according to the complaints, is somehow inferior to other Community residents. Some of the (offending?) organizations are:
- The BC Tenant Registry Office,
- The Tenant Resource and Advisory Centre
- City Spaces who co-authored the Provincial Secondly Suite Guidelines
- The Provincial Government Department that wrote the BC Tenancy Act
However, perhaps we should have anticipated this “reaction”, particularly in the current climate of political correctness, and hopefully we have made amends. To oblige and satisfy the sensibilities of those who may have been offended, we have changed our January 19, 2022 Newsletter “multi-tenant” suite reference to hopefully, a more acceptable term “multi-resident” suites”.
Our January19, 2022 newsletter objective was to inform Oak Bay’s residents that Council has indicated it is their intention to add a significant number of new multi-resident suites and, that, like most of the existing suites, they will be unregistered.Home
This has been other communities experience everywhere according to the Provincial Secondary Suite Guidelines Report. Adding this additional population will be without the additional tax revenue to provide the required services, amenities and infrastructure they require. This is not fair to existing taxpayers who will be expected to cover the costs.