[Blurr]

It has made it into the local papers and seems to be getting some interest. It started as an idea just to license the student population near mac but now talk is to license all residential rental properties.

what do you think about this becoming bylaw in Hamilton?

I see it as a negative. I mean, if we want to promote redevelopment, this just seems like another tax that will keep development dollars away. From what I can tell, tenants already pay a much higher tax rate than everyone else in the city. This licensing fee will likely be passed on to the tenant and make rents go up. This is why I see it as a bad thing for tenants as well as landlords.

I also fear a lack of new supply of housing coming to the market as these fees will make it more expensive to build/redevelop rental residential properties. It would be easier/cheaper to build or redevelop in Burlington or Brantford or somewhere nearby without licensing.

I think the right way to do it is to identify problem buildings and go after them more aggressively rather than letting them off the hook with a slap of the wrist or not perusing it at all. (the post with the abandoned beautiful building on Wentworth comes to mind).

This licensing punishes good landlords. Go after the bad ones and get their property up to code. The city has the power to do it as is.

Disclaimer: I do have rental property in Hamilton.

[oldcoote]

It's positive and long overdue IMO.

[oldcoote]

It has made it into the local papers and seems to be getting some interest. It started as an idea just to license the student population near mac but now talk is to license all residential rental properties.

what do you think about this becoming bylaw in Hamilton?

I see it as a negative. I mean, if we want to promote redevelopment, this just seems like another tax that will keep development dollars away. From what I can tell, tenants already pay a much higher tax rate than everyone else in the city. This licensing fee will likely be passed on to the tenant and make rents go up. This is why I see it as a bad thing for tenants as well as landlords.

I also fear a lack of new supply of housing coming to the market as these fees will make it more expensive to build/redevelop rental residential properties. It would be easier/cheaper to build or redevelop in Burlington or Brantford or somewhere nearby without licensing.

I think the right way to do it is to identify problem buildings and go after them more aggressively rather than letting them off the hook with a slap of the wrist or not perusing it at all. (the post with the abandoned beautiful building on Wentworth comes to mind).

This licensing punishes good landlords. Go after the bad ones and get their property up to code. The city has the power to do it as is.

Disclaimer: I do have rental property in Hamilton.

I think you're assuming a few things here.

This is more than derelict properties. It's overcrowded and in some cases unsafe living conditions. Many (most) rental homes in Westdale, for example, have more than 5 tenants, generating in excess of $2000 a month, but they are paying the same tax rate as their family-occupied neighbours. Is that fair? Why shouldn't they be licensed and taxed accordingly?

I think the intent of this by-law is to see some of the burden taken off the residential communities in and around MAC and Mohawk, hopefully converting some of those homes back to family dwellings, and lessening the effect of the growing student ghetto.

[Blurr]

I think you're assuming a few things here.

This is more than derelict properties. It's overcrowded and in some cases unsafe living conditions. Many (most) rental homes in Westdale, for example, have more than 5 tenants, generating in excess of $2000 a month, but they are paying the same tax rate as their family-occupied neighbours. Is that fair? Why shouldn't they be licensed and taxed accordingly?

I think the intent of this by-law is to see some of the burden taken off the residential communities in and around MAC and Mohawk, hopefully converting some of those homes back to family dwellings, and lessening the effect of the growing student ghetto.

I apologize if I wasn't clear. I am not debating the student issue with licensing, I believe that is an issue that should be dealt with in a different way. I am speaking of all the other non student occ'd apartments being licensed.

[flar]

It's a bitter pill for responsible landlords, but something needs to be done about rental properties in Hamilton (not just student rentals). I honestly doubt there is a city in Canada with so many slumlords and decrepit rental properties per capita.

[raisethehammer]

It's a bitter pill for responsible landlords, but something needs to be done about rental properties in Hamilton (not just student rentals). I honestly doubt there is a city in Canada with so many slumlords and decrepit rental properties per capita.

ever been inside an apartment in TO?? crazy stuff. rats, roaches etc....brutal.

[FairHamilton]

ever been inside an apartment in TO?? crazy stuff. rats, roaches etc....brutal.

Yup, lived in one for 8 years at York Mills and DVP, and it was nothing like you describe above.

[SteelTown]

And most of the crappiest apartments in TO are owned by the city itself. Thanks Mike Harris.

[flar]

ever been inside an apartment in TO?? crazy stuff. rats, roaches etc....brutal.

Obviously other cities have crappy apartments, I'm saying there are a lot here. I think stricter regulation is worth a try because whatever they're doing now doesn't work. There are far too many derelict properties and they are often rentals.

[emge]

Tough for the responsible landlords... but for the overwhelming majority, very much needed - I don't care if you're in Westdale or downtown - I'm sure there's more of a need for it downtown.

For the Toronto comparisons... I've lived in several Toronto neighbourhoods and several Toronto apartments. There are a few terrible areas with the lion's share of the terrible buildings (and yes, the majority of those buildings are city-owned) But overall, the city has many more great multi-unit buildings than we do here.

A lot of that can be attributed to higher property values, meaning there are many more renters who are relatively wealthy with higher standards and the ability to move if they aren't met.

Another big part why we need this regulation is that we have many, many more legal and illegal duplexed, triplexed, fourplexed properties than there are in Toronto, at least when you're speaking of primarily residential neighbourhoods.

Sure, in Toronto there's a lot of owner-occupied places with a basement or an attic apartment, but Toronto has fewer duplexed, triplexed, fourplexed places with absentee landlords (because more money can be made by tearing them down and building something bigger, or they're kept as single-family homes and rented out to students at U of T, similar to the Westdale situation... but you don't often see a home in any but the worst residential neighbourhoods with single-family homes turned into a multi-unit that isn't owner-occupied.)

[omro]

I think licensing landlords has the potential to be a good idea, as higher standards can only be a good thing.

However, as things stand, Ontario tenants seem to have an "advantage" that doesn't encourage Landlords to care too much.

For example, I was shocked by the fact that there doesn't seem to be any legal form of damage insurance deposit system here. I let out a flat in London and the tenants left it in an awful state, without the damage deposit it would have cost me a fortune to set right. Nothing like that seems to exist in Ontario.

My point, perhaps a little lost, is what use is it forcing Landlords to meet certain standards, if there is nothing the Landlord can do to force the tenant to meet them too?

If most Landlords are afraid their properties could potentially be trashed by their tenants, why are they going to bother to maintain them to the highest standards, only to have that maintenance trashed?

[BrianE]

^^^

This is very true. Assurances must be made by both renters and landlords for the rental market to improve in quality.

[highwater]

I think licensing landlords has the potential to be a good idea, as higher standards can only be a good thing.

However, as things stand, Ontario tenants seem to have an advantage that doesn't encourage Landlords to care too much.

For example, I was shocked by the fact that there doesn't seem to be any legal form of damage insurance deposit system here. I let out a flat in London and the tenants left it in an awful state, without the damage deposit it would have cost me a fortune to set right. Nothing like that seems to exist in Ontario.

My point, perhaps a little lost, is what use is it forcing Landlords to meet certain standards, if there is nothing the Landlord can do to force the tenant to meet them too?

If most Landlords are afraid their properties could potentially be trashed by their tenants, why are they going to bother to maintain them to the highest standards, only to have that maintenance trashed?

Keep in mind that rental licensing was first considered to address some of the specific problems in the areas around Mac and Mohawk that don't apply to apartment complexes and legal duplexes, etc. The tragic fire on Broadway that claimed 5 young lives due to a lack of working smoke detectors, is an example of the sorts of situations that are rampant in the student areas. Single-family homes are illegally converted. Students are stuffed into attics and basements with ceilings that are too low and windows too small (if they have windows at all) to qualify as legal living space under the city's current bylaws. There are no fire exits, many still have the old knob and tube wiring, and there's no means of proactively enforcing the presence of working smoke detectors. So the standards that landlords are being asked to meet are only the most basic standards of safety and legality. The risk of having a few holes kicked in the drywall doesn't quite compare to the risk many students take on when they live in these illegal residences.

[BCTed]

ever been inside an apartment in TO?? crazy stuff. rats, roaches etc....brutal.

Yes, I am sure that all Toronto apartments are full of rats and roaches.

[omro]

Keep in mind that rental licensing was first considered to address some of the specific problems in the areas around Mac and Mohawk that don't apply to apartment complexes and legal duplexes, etc. The tragic fire on Broadway that claimed 5 young lives due to a lack of working smoke detectors, is an example of the sorts of situations that are rampant in the student areas. Single-family homes are illegally converted. Students are stuffed into attics and basements with ceilings that are too low and windows too small (if they have windows at all) to qualify as legal living space under the city's current bylaws. There are no fire exits, many still have the old knob and tube wiring, and there's no means of proactively enforcing the presence of working smoke detectors. So the standards that landlords are being asked to meet are only the most basic standards of safety and legality. The risk of having a few holes kicked in the drywall doesn't quite compare to the risk many students take on when they live in these illegal residences.

Standards for housing are definitely needed to address the scenarios you've mentioned above.

You have two lines in your above, which I'm just going to quote: "Students are stuffed..." and "the risk many students take on when they live in these illegal residences".

These students, by the very nature of the fact that they are studying for degrees, are hopefully quite bright people and possessed of free will. They choose to live in these conditions, ignoring the illegality, cramped conditions and potential hazards from living in these houses - which they must be aware of. Why? Because these places are cheap!!

Regulating housing will have two effects:

1) The scenarios you've described above will, hopefully, be eliminated.
2) Rents will go up.

The latter may have a negative effect upon students' desire and ability to stay in certain areas. Perhaps, purely for the students, alternative sponsored housing is the answer, which could be purpose built and meet all the necessary health and safety requirements.

Once again, just to re-iterate, I'm all for housing regulations. I've been a landlord in London for four years now. In the UK, before you can rent out a property, you have to provide gas and electrical safety certificates that are no more than 12 and 24 months old respectively. You also have to provide smoke detectors that are working on the day the tenant moves in, however it is left to the tenant to regularly test these and report back to the landlord if any are faulty.

[FairHamilton]

Single-family homes are illegally converted. Students are stuffed into attics and basements with ceilings that are too low and windows too small (if they have windows at all) to qualify as legal living space under the city's current bylaws. There are no fire exits, many still have the old knob and tube wiring, and there's no means of proactively enforcing the presence of working smoke detectors. So the standards that landlords are being asked to meet are only the most basic standards of safety and legality. The risk of having a few holes kicked in the drywall doesn't quite compare to the risk many students take on when they live in these illegal residences.

I can't believe the Fire Marshal wouldn't be interested in knowing which homes have students in the basements.

It's my understanding if the only exit from a basement is into the main house (i.e. up the stairs) than a second exit needs to exist. Also, as I understand it the ceilings in those basements need to be more then just plain old 1/2 drywall or drop ceilings. The ceiling needs to be thicker drywall that can withstand a longer burn through time.

I'd be reporting every house I thought violated fire laws to the fire department. The Fire Marshal has more authority in many instances to enter residences than the Police have.

The fire on Broadway, was the primary reason we had our combination smoke/CO2 detectors hard wired into our house when we had the knob & tube replaced. Expensive at about $900, but I sleep soundly at night. When we took possession of the house (which had a renter upstairs) the smoke dectectors had no batteries in them..........

[oldcoote]

Standards for housing are definitely needed to address the scenarios you've mentioned above.

You have two lines in your above, which I'm just going to quote: "Students are stuffed..." and "the risk many students take on when they live in these illegal residences".

These students, by the very nature of the fact that they are studying for degrees, are hopefully quite bright people and possessed of free will. They choose to live in these conditions, ignoring the illegality, cramped conditions and potential hazards from living in these houses - which they must be aware of. Why? Because these places are cheap!!

Regulating housing will have two effects:

1) The scenarios you've described above will, hopefully, be eliminated.
2) Rents will go up.

The latter may have a negative effect upon students' desire and ability to stay in certain areas. Perhaps, purely for the students, alternative sponsored housing is the answer, which could be purpose built and meet all the necessary health and safety requirements.


Bingo.

They want students out of family neighbourhoods, and concentrated along Main West (preferably).

The new Main West student condo's are proof of this trend, as is the proposed Ewen Road development.

Now, if only we could convince MAC to stop increasing enrollment. :whip:

[raisethehammer]

Yes, I am sure that all Toronto apartments are full of rats and roaches.

my bad....I should have said 'some'. All the blobs of highrises that I've been in in Scarborough, Etobicoke and 'central' Toronto. Obviously not 'all' apartments.
I forgot about our resident troll looking for any little thing to start a quarrel over.

[adam]

I can attest firsthand that there are many apartments in Toronto with roaches. What's your point BCTed?

[BCTed]

my bad....I should have said 'some'. All the blobs of highrises that I've been in in Scarborough, Etobicoke and 'central' Toronto. Obviously not 'all' apartments.
I forgot about our resident troll looking for any little thing to start a quarrel over.

Yes, I am a troll for refuting your grossly inaccurate overgeneralization that Toronto apartments are somehow kept in much worse condition than those in Hamilton.

[Blurr]

Another big part why we need this regulation is that we have many, many more legal and illegal duplexed, triplexed, fourplexed properties than there are in Toronto, at least when you're speaking of primarily residential neighbourhoods.

Sure, in Toronto there's a lot of owner-occupied places with a basement or an attic apartment, but Toronto has fewer duplexed, triplexed, fourplexed places with absentee landlords (because more money can be made by tearing them down and building something bigger, or they're kept as single-family homes and rented out to students at U of T, similar to the Westdale situation... but you don't often see a home in any but the worst residential neighbourhoods with single-family homes turned into a multi-unit that isn't owner-occupied.)

Many of these properties are illegally zoned. If the city really wanted to enforce this, they have the power to do so. You could walk across a neighbourhood and identify almost by eye on the outside how many apartments are in any given house. Mail boxes, hydro meters and fire escapes are excellent indication, then go look up the zoning (or just use instinct by looking at the area).

This is an issue which both the city of Toronto and Hamilton have clearly turned a blind eye. They have not decided what to do.

It imo is a very good thing. It reduces rents, increases supply of housing and increases the density of the downtown area. Those are all great things that if changed would change the attractiveness of the city.

Think about these old 2 1/2 story houses all being changed back to single family houses... where would all those people get housed? what would it mean for density downtown? more suburbs? build new costly apartments?

[Blurr]

Once again, just to re-iterate, I'm all for housing regulations. I've been a landlord in London for four years now. In the UK, before you can rent out a property, you have to provide gas and electrical safety certificates that are no more than 12 and 24 months old respectively. You also have to provide smoke detectors that are working on the day the tenant moves in, however it is left to the tenant to regularly test these and report back to the landlord if any are faulty.

In Hamilton, for a building of 5+ units you must have a fire inspection on an annual basis and remedy all deficiencies outstanding.

Reliance and union gas will tag any boiler, hot water tank or gas appliance not up to code. Depending on the severity of the infraction, they either give 4 weeks notice to block the gas supply or block the supply right on the spot.

Why duplicate costs and regulation and increase expense for the tenants and landlords and the city of Hamilton?

[Blurr]

These students, by the very nature of the fact that they are studying for degrees, are hopefully quite bright people and possessed of free will. They choose to live in these conditions, ignoring the illegality, cramped conditions and potential hazards from living in these houses - which they must be aware of. Why? Because these places are cheap!!


I believe this is refreshingly a good point. Tenants have to take some of the responsibility towards knowing what is safe, how to treat others in the neighbourhood and keeping there places clean and respectable.

I think the law benefits bad tenants as is, and in return hurts good tenants and the area around them.

Although landlords could get better, it would work much easier if there was cooperation from the tenants.

[raisethehammer]

Yes, I am a troll

I appreciate your honesty in admitting that and coming clean. That's the first step towards getting help.

[emge]

Many of these properties are illegally zoned. If the city really wanted to enforce this, they have the power to do so. You could walk across a neighbourhood and identify almost by eye on the outside how many apartments are in any given house. Mail boxes, hydro meters and fire escapes are excellent indication, then go look up the zoning (or just use instinct by looking at the area).

This is an issue which both the city of Toronto and Hamilton have clearly turned a blind eye. They have not decided what to do.

It imo is a very good thing. It reduces rents, increases supply of housing and increases the density of the downtown area. Those are all great things that if changed would change the attractiveness of the city.

Think about these old 2 1/2 story houses all being changed back to single family houses... where would all those people get housed? what would it mean for density downtown? more suburbs? build new costly apartments?

I'm in the process of buying a 2.5 storey to convert back to a single-family, so there's my bias right out in the open

It's a bit of a two-edged sword with the "density" question though - sure, its better than these properties being vacant or these individuals being shoved to the margins of the city... but on the other hand, properly built and maintained highrises will end up with much more density in a smaller area, and give shops/businesses in the area much more concentrated, accessible clientele.

One of the great things about Hamilton is all the single-family housing left downtown, but I can't see it lasting forever, and even when its multi-unit its still a relatively low-density type of housing compared to highrises.

[raisethehammer]

let's also keep in mind that some of the densest places on earth have few or no highrises. Brooklyn, NY is a great example. A ton of 3-4 story brownstones make up the bulk of their residential fabric and it's much denser than Toronto, even with all of it's high-rises.
Amsterdam, Paris and many areas in Montreal are also like this. I prefer this model of development because it encourages pedestrians and people to be out walking. Modern highrises generally have room for all the cars underground and don't add as many people on the streets as a nicely reno'd building on Locke or James North will with no parking.

[FairHamilton]

In Hamilton, for a building of 5+ units you must have a fire inspection on an annual basis and remedy all deficiencies outstanding.

Reliance and union gas will tag any boiler, hot water tank or gas appliance not up to code. Depending on the severity of the infraction, they either give 4 weeks notice to block the gas supply or block the supply right on the spot.

Why duplicate costs and regulation and increase expense for the tenants and landlords and the city of Hamilton?

Unfortunately, many of those 2 1/2 storey homes you'd previously mention are rentals with 2, 3 & 4 units and fly under the radar, are illegal and don't meet code.

[emge]

let's also keep in mind that some of the densest places on earth have few or no highrises. Brooklyn, NY is a great example. A ton of 3-4 story brownstones make up the bulk of their residential fabric and it's much denser than Toronto, even with all of it's high-rises.
Amsterdam, Paris and many areas in Montreal are also like this. I prefer this model of development because it encourages pedestrians and people to be out walking. Modern highrises generally have room for all the cars underground and don't add as many people on the streets as a nicely reno'd building on Locke or James North will with no parking.

That's a very good point, and I'd definitely agree. I know too many people in condos who still drive to the big boxes to shop.

I wonder how the current income levels of Hamilton residents affect this. With Hamilton's high poverty rates and less being able to afford cars who live in the core in these properties, would more people be walking no matter what type of building they lived in? Or would more highrise buildings change the makeup of those living in the single-family homes in "walkable" neighbourhoods? Not all, but many of those homes also have parking at the rear... Does that change the mix/effects?

[raisethehammer]

based on stats that I've seen Hamiltons supposed 'low income' problem isn't translating into a lack of car ownership.
We have among the highest rates of driving per capita in Canada and the highest number of major roads and highways per person in Canada.
Even downtown we cater to the car. Hamilton Place/Convention Centre has massive underground parking so people can drive in and out without ever setting foot in downtown Hamilton.
We're now looking at our first ever 'scramble' intersection and guess where it is?? No, not King/James, but York/McNab. So people can walk out of the market and cross directly into the parkade and zip back home. Other cities do scrambles at intersections full of transportation links, shops and destinations on all 4 corners (Yonge/Dundas). We're going to do one that links directly to a parking garage.
It's a sad culture in this city and one that will take years and lots of streetscape reno's and hopefully LRT to combat.

[Blurr]

let's also keep in mind that some of the densest places on earth have few or no highrises. Brooklyn, NY is a great example. A ton of 3-4 story brownstones make up the bulk of their residential fabric and it's much denser than Toronto, even with all of it's high-rises.
Amsterdam, Paris and many areas in Montreal are also like this. I prefer this model of development because it encourages pedestrians and people to be out walking. Modern highrises generally have room for all the cars underground and don't add as many people on the streets as a nicely reno'd building on Locke or James North will with no parking.

I agree, and believe that these 2 1/2 story 2000+ sq ft. houses are a good avenue for this. Place 2-4 units depending on the house and increase the density in the area and make it attractive. Great for local shops as well.

This reminds me of the High Park area in Toronto. I think it is a great model to look at. Houses that are too big for today's families are divided in multiple units (usually 2-4 units). It has a fantastic shopping strip nearby, subway stop and draws very high rents. It is what I would envision for an area like main/sherman, athough the one way streets kind of kill the walkable shop area.

Although more houses are owner occ'd in High Park I believe it is only because the owners of these houses are savvy and would rather pay off the mortgage and pay rent.

[Blurr]

Unfortunately, many of those 2 1/2 storey homes you'd previously mention are rentals with 2, 3 & 4 units and fly under the radar, are illegal and don't meet code.

5 units and more are considered commercial.

4 units or less even if they are legally zoned fall under a whole new criteria of residential for multiple purposes. Mortgages and tax rates for example.

Where is the line? if you fire code duplex's annually why not single family?

As for illegally zoned properties, the city already has the power to shut down shop. At the same time the fire department already has the power to make any given property comply with fire code. Licensing is is not required.

[FairHamilton]

5 units and more are considered commercial.

4 units or less even if they are legally zoned fall under a whole new criteria of residential for multiple purposes. Mortgages and tax rates for example.

Where is the line? if you fire code duplex's annually why not single family?

As for illegally zoned properties, the city already has the power to shut down shop. At the same time the fire department already has the power to make any given property comply with fire code. Licensing is is not required.

I don't think I ever mentioned anything about annually. IMO, if you are operating a business (i.e. rental property) you should be held to a higher standard than single family. I think those renting deserve that higher level of standards for their rent expense.

I was told that in order for the city to enforce anything they need access, which they can't get. Counting mailboxes and/or hydro meters does not mean anything.

If you have different information on enforcing without access, I encourage you to provide it to lower city councillors.

The Fire Marshal needs to know which properties are rentals, and they don't know unless someone tells them. They don't drive the city streets looking for multiple mailboxes/hydro meters. If I was 3 or 4 plex my property tomorrow the Fire Department could potentially never know.

Licensing would provide a database to identify rentals, and it would also allow for the identification of good and bad landlords. Once you track it, you can measure and manage it.

[MsMe]

My next door neighbour rents out the main floor and the basement as seperate units. The house only has one meter for the whole house, plus he is going against fire codes big time. The owner is the worst a--hole you would ever want to meet. Most of his tenants don't last more then 4 to 6 months. And almost all the tenants have taken him to tribunal due to his harassing them. Right now his daughter is living in the basement. And some new tenants just moved in 5 weeks ago on the main floor. I guess time will tell how long these ones will last. Most of the time the main floor sits empty cause no one will rent from him due to his agression. Everyone on the street wishes he would move so we could have some peace.

[Blurr]

I don't think I ever mentioned anything about annually. IMO, if you are operating a business (i.e. rental property) you should be held to a higher standard than single family. I think those renting deserve that higher level of standards for their rent expense.


I used annually as a comparison because that is what the current standard is for 5+ units.

I agree you should have a place up to fire code and have a safe place, I think there should be penalties for errors and non compliance.

For zoning, as I said in a post earlier, I don't think that the illegally zoned properties are much of a bad thing. I think they help with an healthy downtown. As long as they are safe and fire coded, these extra apartments reduce rents, increase density downtown, and make properties more affordable for homeowners.

The licensing fee would be an added expense for the tenant and therefore would be a negative for the tenant. Their rent expense will not come without a cost, for the additional bureaucracy.

I am saying that there are other measures that can be taken to solve the issues, and that licensing will duplicate processes, raise rents and make Hamilton more expensive and less attractive relative to nearby cities.

[emge]

My next door neighbour rents out the main floor and the basement as seperate units. The house only has one meter for the whole house, plus he is going against fire codes big time. The owner is the worst a--hole you would ever want to meet. Most of his tenants don't last more then 4 to 6 months. And almost all the tenants have taken him to tribunal due to his harassing them. Right now his daughter is living in the basement. And some new tenants just moved in 5 weeks ago on the main floor. I guess time will tell how long these ones will last. Most of the time the main floor sits empty cause no one will rent from him due to his agression. Everyone on the street wishes he would move so we could have some peace.

Forgive my ignorance on the topic... isn't there some process where you can report an illegaly zoned duplex with fire code violations? (And it likely wouldn't do anything initially, I'm sure.. but I suppose if its a streetwide problem, people could keep nagging/reporting until something is done?)

[highwater]

I agree you should have a place up to fire code and have a safe place, I think there should be penalties for errors and non compliance.

These places are currently regarded as single family homes, therefore they are not subject to the same codes as rental properties. That's what this bylaw is for - to classify these properties as the rental properties they are so that they will be subject to the applicable codes.

For zoning, as I said in a post earlier, I don't think that the illegally zoned properties are much of a bad thing. I think they help with an healthy downtown. As long as they are safe and fire coded, these extra apartments reduce rents, increase density downtown, and make properties more affordable for homeowners.

But you see, when they are illegal, they can't be forced to meet anything more stringent than the codes that apply to single family homes. I can't speak for downtown, but they are very unhealthy for the neighbourhoods around Mac and Mohawk. The student ghetto phenomenon has been well studied in the UK. It even has a name: Studentification. The studies have shown that 20% rental housing in a given neighbourhood is a healthy balance. At 20%, there is enough of a permanent population to keep schools, rec centres, and local businesses viable, more than 20% and the amenities that make a neighbourhood attractive are put at risk. Right now in Westdale/Ainslie Woods we are standing at 40%. The school board is eyeing our schools for closure. And far from making housing more affordable, it has the opposite effect. Because these properties are regarded as 'investments', they are valued much higher than the quality of the building stock is worth otherwise. Families can't compete against 'investors' who are willing to plunk down $3-400,000 for a dump that needs another $100,000 to make it habitable.

[highwater]

Forgive my ignorance on the topic... isn't there some process where you can report an illegaly zoned duplex with fire code violations? (And it likely wouldn't do anything initially, I'm sure.. but I suppose if its a streetwide problem, people could keep nagging/reporting until something is done?)

Yes, you can call in the fire marshall if you suspect the smoke detectors aren't working. However, because they are classed as single family homes, they are not required to have fire exits, nor are the units required to have windows or proper ceiling heights, or updated wiring. Also, there are hundreds of these types of homes in Ainslie Wood/Westdale, and goodness knows how many around Mohawk. The fire marshall's office simply does not have the man power to enforce bylaws even reactively, nevermind proactively.

[FairHamilton]

Yes, you can call in the fire marshall if you suspect the smoke detectors aren't working. However, because they are classed as single family homes, they are not required to have fire exits, nor are the units required to have windows or proper ceiling heights, or updated wiring. Also, there are hundreds of these types of homes in Ainslie Wood/Westdale, and goodness knows how many around Mohawk. The fire marshall's office simply does not have the man power to enforce bylaws even reactively, nevermind proactively.

Are you sure they don't need the meet Ontario Fire Code basement requirements when people are sleeping in them, single Family home, or other? And many of these student homes put rooms in the basement. I once stayed at a place that put the kitchen and common room in the basement and all the bedrooms upstairs, so they only needed the one existing exit from the basement.

Thinking back now, we would have all been dead if there was a fire and we were in the basement.

Don't quote me, I am not a lawyer, and this gets pretty legalize;
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/source/regs/english/2007/elaws_src_regs_r07213_e.htm

Number of exits

9.3.3.1. (1) Each floor area shall be served by at least two exits.

(2) Where sleeping accommodation is not provided for more than 10 persons, one exit from each of the first and second floor floor areas is deemed to be in compliance with Sentence (1).

(3) Where sleeping accommodation is not provided in the basement, one exit from the basement is deemed to be in compliance with Sentence (1).


I interpret 3 to mean that if there is sleeping accommodation in the basement a second exit is required, and it does not distinguish between single family, or rental property.

I am also pretty sure the burn time on materials is also applicable. When I owned a home in Waterloo with basement accommodation we put drywall that was thicker than 1/2 inch to meet code in the basement.

[MsMe]

Forgive my ignorance on the topic... isn't there some process where you can report an illegaly zoned duplex with fire code violations? (And it likely wouldn't do anything initially, I'm sure.. but I suppose if its a streetwide problem, people could keep nagging/reporting until something is done?)

There probably is. I just keep forgetting to look into it. There are very few houses that have more then a single dwelling on the street. Almost all are single dwellings.

His father bails him out all the time anyhow. Plus his father bought him the house. His father even pays all of his $5000 fines he has gotten when he is caught driving his car.

[highwater]

Are you sure they don't need the meet Ontario Fire Code basement requirements when people are sleeping in them, single Family home, or other?

They're supposed to, but the landlords lie to their insurance companies (and the city if alert neighbours force them to get a building permit) and claim they're using them for 'storage'. Once the tenants are ensconced, the city cannot come in to inspect the premises because it's classified single family. The tenants could squeal on the landlord, but then they'd be out of a home. Trust me. I've seen this scenario played out a number of times over the years. The city won't take the neighbours' word as proof that the basement is occupied. I even know of a case where the city declined to investigate when a neighbour had a hydro bill that indicated the home was occupied by eleven tenants. The city claimed that wasn't sufficient proof that the basement and attic were occupied.

Thinking back now, we would have all been dead if there was a fire and we were in the basement.

In addition to the 5 people killed in the fire on Broadway, there have been two fires in student houses in the last 2 years where the students managed to escape (one just barely in a fire that blew out the basement windows). 5 people are dead already. There will no doubt be more if these houses aren't regulated and inspected.

[FairHamilton]

They're supposed to, but the landlords lie to their insurance companies (and the city if alert neighbours force them to get a building permit) and claim they're using them for 'storage'. Once the tenants are ensconced, the city cannot come in to inspect the premises because it's classified single family. The tenants could squeal on the landlord, but then they'd be out of a home. Trust me. I've seen this scenario played out a number of times over the years. The city won't take the neighbours' word as proof that the basement is occupied. I even know of a case where the city declined to investigate when a neighbour had a hydro bill that indicated the home was occupied by eleven tenants. The city claimed that wasn't sufficient proof that the basement and attic were occupied.

When you refer to the 'city' are you also including Fire Marshal?

It was my understanding the 'city' had difficulty gaining access, but the Fire Marshal has power of entry in excess of police in certain instances, i.e. violations of Ontario Fire Code.

[highwater]

When you refer to the 'city' are you also including Fire Marshal?

It was my understanding the 'city' had difficulty gaining access, but the Fire Marshal has power of entry in excess of police in certain instances, i.e. violations of Ontario Fire Code.

I was referring mostly to city inspectors, but it's similar for the Fire Marshal. They do have power of entry, but there still needs to be proof that there's a violation, and that can only come from tenants who are usually reluctant to report. Also, the Fire Marshal's main concern is smoke detectors. Again, because these are classed as single family homes, fire exits and fire doors are not required, and I am not aware of any cases where the Fire Marshal has evicted anyone from basement or attic bedrooms. I don't think they have that kind of power.

[coalminecanary]

The tragic fire on Broadway that claimed 5 young lives due to a lack of working smoke detectors, is an example of the sorts of situations that are rampant in the student areas.
I do not want to marginalize any lost lives, so please don't read into this the wrong way. But at some point, people need to be responsible for themselves. If a group of students bought a house and lived in it, and did not check their smoke detector batteries, they would be responsible for any fire damage to property or people. But if they rent a place with working smoke detectors, and remove the batteries because they need some 9volts "temporarily" for their fuzz pedals, the landlord could be wrongly charged.

Whether you own or rent, at some point you have to look around yourself and say "Hey, I wonder if these smoke detectors work!?" If they don't, and you are a tenant, call your landlord. If noting gets done, 100% blame on the landlord. But if the tenants never take anything upon themselves, well, how far up do we blame? Their parents for not teaching them?


Students are stuffed into attics and basements...

Let's be honest here... Students are LOOKING for houses that they can jam in like sardines. Whether it's because they want to save money, or be with all seven best friends they met in residence, or for the party aspect - who knows. 5, 6, 7 person houses exist because groups of 5, 6, 7 looking for houses exist. If the students cannot see the dangers, maybe their parents should be questioning them when they talk about their new digs and how many roommates they have.

I'm not saying that regulations shouldn't exist, but it is absolutely wrong to imply that tenants are stuffed in as if they have no choice.

There needs to be a way to enforce the safety codes, but I'm not sure licensing is the answer. The bad landlords will go underground and the good ones will not be able to compete, and overall rents will rise causing students to want to pack in even tighter to make up for it.

We can't even enforce standards on VACANT properties, how will enforcement work on occupied ones?

One of the great things about Hamilton is all the single-family housing left downtown, but I can't see it lasting forever, and even when its multi-unit its still a relatively low-density type of housing compared to highrises.

But it is much higher density than single-family. Hamilton has some enormous houses that can easily sustain multiple units, and we should be careful about risking this density opportunity.

I am just saying that we should take care before jumping the gun on this type of law. It needs to be engineered to be most effective toward the worst offenders; it should balance responsibility intelligently between tenants and landlords; it should not punish the better landlords. I'm not sure what the answer is, but the current proposal does not seem to address it the right way.

I divulge:
-I have lived in highrise apartments here. I have lived in student houses. I once lived in a house of five where the furnace was, i kid you not, IN A BEDROOM.
-I am currently installing hard wired smoke detectors in my own home
-I am an advocate for people taking responsibility for their own lives and health, as well as an advocate for legislation that protects the greater good as long as it does not infringe on personal rights.

[adam]

Maybe students cram in as many as possible into a house because they are being milked by the universities for tuition. A student in Europe can go to med school for the equivalent of under $500 a year.

[Blurr]

"Hamilton has some enormous houses that can easily sustain multiple units, and we should be careful about risking this density opportunity."

I think that allowing multiple units in these single family homes is wise. I believe that some people will prefer traditional homes over highrise living, yet at the same time, a 2200 sqft house is too much for today's lifestyles. In addition, the cost of keeping up these home from heat to maintenance is too high.

[emge]

Maybe students cram in as many as possible into a house because they are being milked by the universities for tuition. A student in Europe can go to med school for the equivalent of under $500 a year.

I don't think the analogy works - we're talking about a university undergrad, some in disciplines that are relatively useless career-wise. I'm sure we each know several unemployable people with university degrees - far different from med school. Why not make the analogy to pharmacists here who can get their schooling fully paid by a variety of employers?

If undergrad students want to trade in $200 of their housing budget a month for disposable income, so they cram into a house so they get to go out more nights of the week, that's their choice.. but the point of school is school... everything else is incidental, and disposable income comes later, with a job when one graduates. Unless you're used to a relatively privileged lifestyle and don't think you'll need to make any sacrifices, that shouldn't be too much of a shock. Students who are used to making $400/month at their part-time job in high school and spending it all will need to make some adjustments, because that's the kind of personal spending that can't be maintained in college on OSAP. (And that's to say nothing of the students who do get a paid education, have some savings or parents paying every dime.)

But, again, if students want to get into the cheapest place possible and decide to spend their money on other stuff, that's their choice.

I worked my way through an undergrad at an expensive Ontario school a few years ago -- with OSAP and not a dime from anyone else, so I think I can say that.

[MsMe]

Sign on Accu-Gem Jewelry store on Garside and Main closing.

[oldcoote]

Students flee fire at housing unit

The Hamilton Spectator

(Dec 22, 2008)

A kitchen fire early yesterday caused $68,000 in damage to a student apartment housing unit in Westdale.

Hamilton firefighters were called to the building at 119 South Oval Ave. at 4:51 a.m.

They arrived to see smoke coming out of the rear of the building, where the first-floor kitchen is located, said Westdale district Chief Patrick McCafferty.

Tenants were already out of the home by the time firefighters arrived.

Three residents were checked for smoke inhalation.

Firefighters were able to confine the blaze to the kitchen and had the flames extinguished by 8:15 a.m.

They believe the fire started behind a cupboard and suspect the cause to be electrical wiring, but have not officially determined that yet, McCafferty said.

The power to the home had to be shut off and, with the smoke and heat damage, the residence isn't livable for its six occupants, he said.

The students are originally from Hamilton and are believed to be residing with their parents for the time being, he said.

[omro]

Is there a website anywhere which lists all the things that you need to make a duplex legal in Hamilton?

For example, the need for primary and secondary exits, etc.

[block43]

Is there a website anywhere which lists all the things that you need to make a duplex legal in Hamilton?

For example, the need for primary and secondary exits, etc.

I think there are bylaws listed on the city website.

[adam]

A fire retardant shared wall is one of the main ones I think.

[MsMe]

And usually an emergency fire exit is needed.

[mic67]

Omro

Google.ca

The term

apartment retrofit requirements

best of luck,

or
http://www.ofm.gov.on.ca/english/Publications/Guidelines/98commen.asp

Lookup Mac's student housing page,too.

Under certain conditions you can have up to 3 roomers that have less requirements than retrofit - though I offer no advice or opinion on the subject.

mic67

[omro]

Omro

Google.ca

The term

apartment retrofit requirements

best of luck,

or
http://www.ofm.gov.on.ca/english/Publications/Guidelines/98commen.asp

Lookup Mac's student housing page,too.

Under certain conditions you can have up to 3 roomers that have less requirements than retrofit - though I offer no advice or opinion on the subject.

mic67

The googling using various phrases I've tried thanks :)

Your link is to a revoked document, but I found the current version on the same site, so again thanks.

The McMaster site has also been helpful.

[mic67]

I also suggest:

http://www.ltb.gov.on.ca/en/index.html

"Welcome

The Residential Tenancies Act (the RTA) came into effect on January 31, 2007. The RTA sets the rules for most residential rental housing in Ontario. The previous legislation, known as the Tenant Protection Act, (TPA) is no longer in effect.

The Landlord and Tenant Board’s role is to provide information about the RTA and to resolve disputes between most residential landlords and tenants. The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal is now known as the Landlord and Tenant Board."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You might consider attending, as the general public, some of the hearings -you may or ought to learn something.
http://www.ltb.gov.on.ca/en/STEL02_111286.html

mic67

[emge]

The city is holding open houses and surveys to get feedback from residents and landlords:

http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/CityandGovernment/HotTopics/RentalHousingReview.htm

The survey at: www.hamilton.ca/rentalhousingreview (http://www.hamilton.ca/rentalhousingreview)


What?
City Staff are performing a City wide residential rental housing review. Public meetings have been organized to obtain input from renters, landlords and residents on the state of rental housing across the City.
As part of the Public meeting process, City staff will also be looking for individuals with an interest in participating in a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) to assist in a more detailed review of rental housing.

Why?
Your input will help City staff better understand the issues facing the rental housing market, which will assist in developing recommendations and an overview for City Council to make an informed decision on if or how rental housing should be regulated.

When and Where?
Monday, June 1, 2009 at Cathy Wever Elementary School (Gymnasium)
160 Wentworth Street North
Hamilton, ON L8L 5V7
Monday, June 8, 2009 at Lake Avenue Elementary School (Gymnasium)
157 Lake Avenue North
Stoney Creek, ON L8E 1L5
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 at Chedoke Hospital (Nash Auditorium)
Wilcox Building
565 Sanatorium Road
Hamilton, ON L9C 1C4
All meetings will be from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm
Presentation at 7:00 pm

Contact
Joe Xamin, Senior Project Manager
Parking and By-law Services Division
Planning and Economic Development Department
Phone: (905)546-2424 Ext. 6656
Email: Joe.Xamin@hamilton.ca

PLEASE RSVP to Lynsie Alexander via email Lynsie.Alexander@hamilton.ca (DebbieM.Thomas@hamilton.ca) or phone (905) 546-2424 ext 1213.

For more information and to fill out an online survey go to: www.hamilton.ca/rentalhousingreview (http://www.hamilton.ca/rentalhousingreview)

[Pearlstreet]

Re: The trending uproar from landlords all over this town of the estimated 23000 illegal rental muti-plex units causing a tax burden to our city.

By-law enforcement is attacking problem areas like Stipley (around Ivor Wynne) currently, but I see it even around my Victoria Ave. North area. If you're a landlord like me, you better have your ducks in a row!

I have a duplexed unit I need to make legal, I wonder of the legal costs associated with it. I would imagion construction costs conforming to fire, electrical and building codes would be the real nut buster depending on the application.

Has anyone experienced any of this?

See Spec articles :http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/826335--city-apartment-blitz-leaves-two-in-limbo

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/789868---it-s-driving-families-out-of-the-neighbourhood

[Pearlstreet]

Re: THE reason why landlords are shitting their pants right now.

So I contacted the city of Hamilton to see the costs involved of converting my rental into a legally zoned du-plex. Apparantly just to start it's only twenty-eight thousand dollars! If it needs to be brought before their board as mine would due to my smaller lot size, it will be more for their hassel (and mine). Then of course this is before all building fees to conform to the fire, electrical and building codes.... Good lord! I may as well just go sell it and buy a different one that someone else has already paid the fees for, that way there are no more surprises!

Since I was speaking to the zoning department, I informed them that for whatever the reason my corner lot property has two addresses. They couldn't find my property in their system and first argued it was a different address ten doors down.

Is this a joke Hamilton? I'm an obvious advocate of this town too haha!

[coalminecanary]

This is a serious problem here. If we are going to improve density we need to figure out how to make it easy and efficient to do safe, attractive multi unit conversions.

The way it's set up now, most people do them under the radar which opens the door for unsafe conditions.

The alternative is to drop half the value of the house on doing it legally. And then how do you think the landlord will feel about paying for proper maintenance and keeping up the standard of the property afterwards?

We have like - the worst of all worlds here.

Real cities embrace creative re-use of larger buildings for multi-units. They don't let a single square foot of living space go unwasted.

In Hamilton, it's like the laws are set up to encourage people to sell or destroy their holdings because bylaws make it cheaper and easier to maintain an empty lot or to build new than to re-use.

[Pearlstreet]

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/831554--landlords-vow-to-battle-proposed-rental-licensing

I would agree with this article, I'm a typical new investor and I'm scared as hell after buying my place with the purpose of renting it.

[Pearlstreet]

They're supposed to, but the landlords lie to their insurance companies .... ....In addition to the 5 people killed in the fire on Broadway, there have been two fires in student houses in the last 2 years where the students managed to escape (one just barely in a fire that blew out the basement windows). 5 people are dead already. There will no doubt be more if these houses aren't regulated and inspected.

I don't lie, you can easily just call your insurance company and insure the building properly, all is legal. Frankly, I'm not sure why though, perhaps it's all the money I pay them that convices them it's ok. Don't blame the landlord ALL the time...