An Item from Ian: Great quote by the Burnaby Mayor (not) on people getting evicted with no affordable place to go:
“And so it’s like if you want to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs.”
But the pressure is increasing on Burnaby.
Surprisingly extensive coverage by CKNW on the ‘demoviction’ crisis in Burnaby’s Metrotown:
In The Sun, a story on the provincial Ombudsman’s inquiry into the municipality’s rezoning process in its town centres:
Burnaby’s plans to “supersize” its four town centres by demolishing old rental stock in favour of high-rise condominiums will be the focus of an investigation by the B.C. Office of the Ombudsperson.
The probe is in response to a complaint from Helen Ward, chairwoman of the Burnaby First Coalition, who argues that the city did not follow due process in approving higher density, particularly around Metrotown, but also in the Brentwood, Edmonds and Lougheed town centres. The city’s decision has resulted in the demolition of older, three-story apartment buildings in Metrotown’s Mayfair neighbourhood and led to the loss of housing for hundreds of tenants, many of them low-income.
Corrigan’s response is the same as it is with providing shelters for the homeless: this is a provincial government responsibility – and it’s a mistake for local government to take the pressure off or assume responsibility for addressing affordability with their own resources or tools, other than facilitating supply.
He is, of course, right about provincial responsibility. But the Province has made it more than clear with regard to critical Metro issues – notably housing and transit- that they will not respond until local government takes on a significant part of the load. Otherwise, they have no political incentive to respond.
There is one area, however, in which the Province has sole authority about which they have so far expressed disinterest. Throughout the media, stories have documented the giant loophole of fixed-term leases used by landlords to avoid rent-increase restrictions. From the Courier:
Then came the news from their landlord of a 10 per cent increase in their rent — $200 a month. Why? Their fixed-term lease had expired at the end of July, opening a legal loophole increasingly being exploited by landlords who jack the rent by far more than the annual maximum of inflation plus two per cent as stipulated by the Residential Tenancy Act. The landlord’s justification? He’s selling a house down the block that fetches $2,450 for a similar suite. “Market rate, I guess,” said my friend.
.
As far as I know, Liberal MLAs in Vancouver have had no response or statements on rental issues, and no one seems to want to ask them. There have been no demonstrations in front of their offices. Meanwhile, the local Left helps take the pressure off the Province by focusing the protest on City Halls.
As we have seen with the foreign-ownership tax, so long as the issue is seen as a marginal one affecting only Vancouver or Metro, the Province is absent – until the polls, the media and the Opposition force a response.
For the last couple of years the foreign investor issue has distracted us from the massive increase in population since Expo 86, from 1.63 million to 2.8 million in the “Mainland Southwest” region of BC (according to BCStats). That’s a lot of people jostling for homes. With very little new land coming into the housing market most of this increase inevitably comes from demolition of old homes at lower density.
The more we retain low density housing, the harder it is to increase the number of homes available. The more we restrict the number of homes, the higher the demand and the higher the price for the homes we already have, given the fact that most homes are in the open market.
The only way I can see this changing is if local and/or provincial governments get into the business of housing by taking land out of the open market so that the cost of land is taken out of the equation.
So a subsidy ?
How about taxing properties more, say triple the current provincial component, and income less, say NO provincial taxes, like in Texas ? That would fairly monetize our excessive housing consumption by both locals, immigrants and foreigners !!
It’s certainly a challenging issue. I would also add that there are problems with the Residential Tenancy Act -on both sides. I have been a landlord and a renter in the past 10 years. Yes short term rentals can open a loophole. When I was a landlord, I never used that provision to increase rent, but it did help a little bit in getting rid of problem tenants (noisy, disturbing other neighbours) which is otherwise exceedingly difficult to do under current regulations.
When your mayor refers to his constituents as eggs to be broken, you’ve got an equity problem … to whom is the mayor responsible except ALL of his constituents.
These NDP mayors!
Burnaby NDP mayor Derek Corrigan certainly makes Rich Coleman and the provincial Liberals look more and more like saints.
Well there you have the flip side of the frantic scrabble for densification. It must come as a shock to some downtown dwellers that not everybody is a craft beer swilling hipster or some annoying NIMBY senior trying to protect their multimillion dollar home’s value. How ironic that at the same time urbanists tell us to follow the example of those happy Eurorenters, that experience is showing us here renters have virtually no certainty in many markets and the deck is stacked against them. Vancouver is no better, look at the destruction of affordable rentals at Davie and Jervis in favour of the latest bland block million dollar condos.
It’s not just a condo building – as well as the 62 condos, the developer is required to build 20% of the floor area – in this case 28 non-market rental units – (apartments, not rooms,) that will be sold to the City of Vancouver at a nominal price as an air space parcel.