Newsletter March 31, 2018
Two recent letters we suggest you read
Newsletter
The following addresses the Secondary Suite debate. As we have stated many times, Oak Bay Watch favours an intelligent, well researched and planned, fact-based and balanced approach to the legalization of Secondary Suites.
The first letter (Attachment #1) is a letter to the editor which was not published by Oak Bay News (OBN). “Adding some logic would be a good start to the Secondary Suite debate”.
The second letter (Attachment #2) was recently published in the Saanich News and media. “The real impact of secondary and cottage suites on neighbourhoods”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first letter includes information on this issue which has not been provided to residents. Since this letter was submitted, there have been several OBN editions but only one letter and that was from a Victoria resident. The Oak Bay News, however, has published both a questionable Secondary Suite Survey and an editorial that appears to be critical of, but not relevant to, Oak Bay residents.
We interviewed a number of Oak Bay News readers active in the Community and did not find any who saw the OBN Secondary Suite Survey questions. Perhaps this is because they were only provided on the OBN website several menus deep and, we understand, to facebook subscribers. The Oak Bay News highlighted the results but did not publish how many respondents completed the survey, where they are residents or how many were real estate agents, suite owners and/or speculators.
Editorial: Oak Bay News March 10, 2018, states:
“what we need (presumably from residents) is listening as well as speaking” and, “blocking change of any sort before considering the merits can be the fastest way to stagnation”.
Oak Bay Watch has attended all Council Meetings in the last two terms of Council and cannot recall one resident who can be accused of “blocking change”. Residents have spoken almost exclusively as wanting moderate, intelligent change and so have three Council Members many times. Oak Bay has certainly changed over the years in many ways and remains desirable and “unstagnated”. It is our opinion that Oak Bay News has criticized residents who have indeed “listened”, but rather to development proposals many for much greater density and less parking than our Bylaws allow. They have given up their free time to appear at Council to let their views be known. The legislation allows this. It is not the place for the Oak Bay News to admonish them for doing so.
The second letter (Attachment #2) was sent to:
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Oak Bay Council [email protected]>
(Please share this email with your friends and neighbours)
Oak Bay watch would like to thank our donors for their contributions and as indicated to you they will only be used to keep residents informed. Oak Bay Watch is committed to ensuring the Community gets the full range of information on budget, governance and all key development issues – a well informed opinion cannot be made without this.
Keep informed please sign up for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
Attachment #1 Letter:
Adding some logic would be a good start to the Secondary Suite debate.
It’s time to provide logic to the debate that has stirred up apparent controversy about legalizing Secondary Suites in Oak Bay’s single-family neighborhoods. The facts are: this will include untaxable garden and laneway infill structures as well; there is agreement the District has an estimated 500–1000 existing illegal suites; a one-vote Council majority has prioritized regulating them and there is one Bylaw Officer to accomplish regulation plus attending to his other bylaw enforcement duties.
At present the Bylaw Officer, on receiving a complaint, can take corrective action if a suite is unsafe, is disruptive to neighbours, has too many tenants, or the landlord lives elsewhere. He has indicated this does not necessarily mean evictions: he says these are rare. Having a suite is not illegal for two occupants, however, cooking facilities, the number-one cause of fires in BC, absentee landlords and Airbnb are prohibited.
The passive, complaint enforcement system we have, and in fact most Districts have, is working here. What is missing from the debate is if the Zoning Bylaw is changed to permit suites with stoves, enforcement practices will not change. However, what will change is what can be and will be enforced without significant cost. For example: will all suites meet the building code requirements; will there be an increase in the number of tenants with their cars, that can be accommodated; and the prohibition of absentee landlord will no longer be legally possible.
The evidence shows almost all municipalities are struggling with regulation and impact problems after legislation. The Union of BC Municipalities has identified some of the serious impact problems in their 2018 Housing Report. They have recognized that the proceeds acquired from renting suites do not contribute to municipal services: they want the Province to provide this taxation authority. The BCUM say controls on Airbnb and investor-driven speculation demand are needed and, the increased higher-density impacts on infrastructure will require additional development cost charges, related to growth. In Oak Bay, Council does not even have a development cost charge schedule yet. It seems to me that waiting for these changes would be prudent.
Oak Bay Resident
Attachment #2 Letter:
The real impact of secondary and cottage suites on neighbourhoods.
Barrie Szekely [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 11:07 AM
An open letter to Saanich Council, Oak Bay Council and neighbours of our municipalities that are considering garden suites or secondary suites. This is our experience with living in a dense area of secondary suites. The biggest issue we have is that our council built bylaws that do not protect single-family homes from this densification.
What caused the problems; Saanich has no idea as to the number of suites, they have never forced suites to be registered, no restriction as to how many in any area, they have created bylaws that do not protect neighbours or neighbourhoods who choose not to have a suite. They have created a negative neighbourhood culture, the energy to constantly call about infractions takes its toll on your life. Bylaw staff interpret the bylaw rules, taxes do not cover the impact on infrastructure. The best example I can provide of a weak bylaw, a secondary suite property owner in our area openly told the bylaw staff that he knew he was not complying to the bylaw by not living in the home. Renting both the house and the suite. Saanich would not act on this unless two adjacent property owners complain. Imagine admitting your guilt with no consequences.
We still have the time to adjust or build new bylaws that allow these kind of accommodation while at the same time protecting everyone. What would work; all suites new and existing must be registered, charge a yearly fee for suites and cottages, one complaint should justify action, enforced the parking and respect the privacy of none suited properties.
Bottom line, allowing garden cottages and secondary suites turns single-family homes into a business. This impacts the entire neighbourhood without contributing to it growth and maintenances of municipalities. Did secondary suites or will garden cottages really provide affordable housing or just line the pockets of greedy landlord with tax-free income.
Barrie Szekely Saanich
Two recent letters we suggest you read
Newsletter
The following addresses the Secondary Suite debate. As we have stated many times, Oak Bay Watch favours an intelligent, well researched and planned, fact-based and balanced approach to the legalization of Secondary Suites.
The first letter (Attachment #1) is a letter to the editor which was not published by Oak Bay News (OBN). “Adding some logic would be a good start to the Secondary Suite debate”.
The second letter (Attachment #2) was recently published in the Saanich News and media. “The real impact of secondary and cottage suites on neighbourhoods”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first letter includes information on this issue which has not been provided to residents. Since this letter was submitted, there have been several OBN editions but only one letter and that was from a Victoria resident. The Oak Bay News, however, has published both a questionable Secondary Suite Survey and an editorial that appears to be critical of, but not relevant to, Oak Bay residents.
We interviewed a number of Oak Bay News readers active in the Community and did not find any who saw the OBN Secondary Suite Survey questions. Perhaps this is because they were only provided on the OBN website several menus deep and, we understand, to facebook subscribers. The Oak Bay News highlighted the results but did not publish how many respondents completed the survey, where they are residents or how many were real estate agents, suite owners and/or speculators.
Editorial: Oak Bay News March 10, 2018, states:
“what we need (presumably from residents) is listening as well as speaking” and, “blocking change of any sort before considering the merits can be the fastest way to stagnation”.
Oak Bay Watch has attended all Council Meetings in the last two terms of Council and cannot recall one resident who can be accused of “blocking change”. Residents have spoken almost exclusively as wanting moderate, intelligent change and so have three Council Members many times. Oak Bay has certainly changed over the years in many ways and remains desirable and “unstagnated”. It is our opinion that Oak Bay News has criticized residents who have indeed “listened”, but rather to development proposals many for much greater density and less parking than our Bylaws allow. They have given up their free time to appear at Council to let their views be known. The legislation allows this. It is not the place for the Oak Bay News to admonish them for doing so.
The second letter (Attachment #2) was sent to:
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Oak Bay Council [email protected]>
(Please share this email with your friends and neighbours)
Oak Bay watch would like to thank our donors for their contributions and as indicated to you they will only be used to keep residents informed. Oak Bay Watch is committed to ensuring the Community gets the full range of information on budget, governance and all key development issues – a well informed opinion cannot be made without this.
Keep informed please sign up for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
Attachment #1 Letter:
Adding some logic would be a good start to the Secondary Suite debate.
It’s time to provide logic to the debate that has stirred up apparent controversy about legalizing Secondary Suites in Oak Bay’s single-family neighborhoods. The facts are: this will include untaxable garden and laneway infill structures as well; there is agreement the District has an estimated 500–1000 existing illegal suites; a one-vote Council majority has prioritized regulating them and there is one Bylaw Officer to accomplish regulation plus attending to his other bylaw enforcement duties.
At present the Bylaw Officer, on receiving a complaint, can take corrective action if a suite is unsafe, is disruptive to neighbours, has too many tenants, or the landlord lives elsewhere. He has indicated this does not necessarily mean evictions: he says these are rare. Having a suite is not illegal for two occupants, however, cooking facilities, the number-one cause of fires in BC, absentee landlords and Airbnb are prohibited.
The passive, complaint enforcement system we have, and in fact most Districts have, is working here. What is missing from the debate is if the Zoning Bylaw is changed to permit suites with stoves, enforcement practices will not change. However, what will change is what can be and will be enforced without significant cost. For example: will all suites meet the building code requirements; will there be an increase in the number of tenants with their cars, that can be accommodated; and the prohibition of absentee landlord will no longer be legally possible.
The evidence shows almost all municipalities are struggling with regulation and impact problems after legislation. The Union of BC Municipalities has identified some of the serious impact problems in their 2018 Housing Report. They have recognized that the proceeds acquired from renting suites do not contribute to municipal services: they want the Province to provide this taxation authority. The BCUM say controls on Airbnb and investor-driven speculation demand are needed and, the increased higher-density impacts on infrastructure will require additional development cost charges, related to growth. In Oak Bay, Council does not even have a development cost charge schedule yet. It seems to me that waiting for these changes would be prudent.
Oak Bay Resident
Attachment #2 Letter:
The real impact of secondary and cottage suites on neighbourhoods.
Barrie Szekely [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 11:07 AM
An open letter to Saanich Council, Oak Bay Council and neighbours of our municipalities that are considering garden suites or secondary suites. This is our experience with living in a dense area of secondary suites. The biggest issue we have is that our council built bylaws that do not protect single-family homes from this densification.
What caused the problems; Saanich has no idea as to the number of suites, they have never forced suites to be registered, no restriction as to how many in any area, they have created bylaws that do not protect neighbours or neighbourhoods who choose not to have a suite. They have created a negative neighbourhood culture, the energy to constantly call about infractions takes its toll on your life. Bylaw staff interpret the bylaw rules, taxes do not cover the impact on infrastructure. The best example I can provide of a weak bylaw, a secondary suite property owner in our area openly told the bylaw staff that he knew he was not complying to the bylaw by not living in the home. Renting both the house and the suite. Saanich would not act on this unless two adjacent property owners complain. Imagine admitting your guilt with no consequences.
We still have the time to adjust or build new bylaws that allow these kind of accommodation while at the same time protecting everyone. What would work; all suites new and existing must be registered, charge a yearly fee for suites and cottages, one complaint should justify action, enforced the parking and respect the privacy of none suited properties.
Bottom line, allowing garden cottages and secondary suites turns single-family homes into a business. This impacts the entire neighbourhood without contributing to it growth and maintenances of municipalities. Did secondary suites or will garden cottages really provide affordable housing or just line the pockets of greedy landlord with tax-free income.
Barrie Szekely Saanich