Secondary Units

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by LFRENCH

I agree with you on lots, however I think you need to define what your calling "rock bottom" of the rental market. When a one bedroom trends for $1000k (plus uts) a month that encapsulates a lot of the market don't you think? I get that there are rip roaring drunks and such, however there are lots of quiet service workers who fall into this category.

I'm not disputing the legality or illegality of secondary suites, more about how we need to examine the housing market all along the continuum. There are lots of individuals who make less than $40k a year in our city.

You've just touched on the biggest problem with secondary suites as a solution for affordable housing. Secondary suites, at least the affordable ones, are not generally illegal simply as a matter of zoning. They are illegal for a host of reasons. Some of which start with a lack of fire separation and combined heating systems with one zone for the entire house, then carry on to uninspected and improperly installed electrical and plumbing additions. I've seen an illegal suite being torn out. There were over a dozen hidden electrical junctions. The plumbing didn't drain properly because it was back grading and unvented. The bath fan exhausted into the joist space where mould began to grow. It was dangerous.

If anything, Calgary rezoning the entire city to allow secondary suites would add a handful of legal units. None of them would be affordable. Rent would easily approach what apartments cost. If it coincided with a crackdown on improperly built and unsafe existing suites it would probably clear up all of Policy Wonk's concerns. The demographic he speaks of would simply transition into undivided houses. As it currently stands there are already times when five or more adults in their early twenties rent a whole house.

Basically, secondary suites are only currently cheap because of how substandard they are. Letting people build tin shacks in parks would provide affordable housing too but it doesn't mean that it would be a good idea.

I think the only solution for housing affordability is through government action. One approach would be a much more robust social housing program. Something with the mass to actually affect market rental rates would be needed. The stock could be paid for by the government directly or built up through inclusionary zoning. Another approach would involve a broad spectrum of changes to everything from monetary policy (to promote wage growth as opposed to asset inflation) at the federal level to development policy at the municipal level. Unlike Policy Wonk, I don't see dirty money as the primary driver of rising housing prices. I just don't think that it is a coincidence that housing and education are essentially the only common expenses to have significantly increased in cost over the last thirty years while the population has been aging and the typical voter is ever more likely to already be a property owner a generation removed from even being in a position to worry about their own children's education.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

You've just touched on the biggest problem with secondary suites as a solution for affordable housing. Secondary suites, at least the affordable ones, are not generally illegal simply as a matter of zoning. They are illegal for a host of reasons. Some of which start with a lack of fire separation and combined heating systems with one zone for the entire house, then carry on to uninspected and improperly installed electrical and plumbing additions. I've seen an illegal suite being torn out. There were over a dozen hidden electrical junctions. The plumbing didn't drain properly because it was back grading and unvented. The bath fan exhausted into the joist space where mould began to grow. It was dangerous.

Huh, you just described my house when I moved in, expect it wasn't an illegal suite, simply a rental property. Bad rental properties exist everywhere, secondary suites or not.

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

If anything, Calgary rezoning the entire city to allow secondary suites would add a handful of legal units. None of them would be affordable. Rent would easily approach what apartments cost. If it coincided with a crackdown on improperly built and unsafe existing suites it would probably clear up all of Policy Wonk's concerns. The demographic he speaks of would simply transition into undivided houses. As it currently stands there are already times when five or more adults in their early twenties rent a whole house.

Basically, secondary suites are only currently cheap because of how substandard they are. Letting people build tin shacks in parks would provide affordable housing too but it doesn't mean that it would be a good idea.

I think the only solution for housing affordability is through government action. One approach would be a much more robust social housing program. Something with the mass to actually affect market rental rates would be needed. The stock could be paid for by the government directly or built up through inclusionary zoning. Another approach would involve a broad spectrum of changes to everything from monetary policy (to promote wage growth as opposed to asset inflation) at the federal level to development policy at the municipal level. Unlike Policy Wonk, I don't see dirty money as the primary driver of rising housing prices. I just don't think that it is a coincidence that housing and education are essentially the only common expenses to have significantly increased in cost over the last thirty years while the population has been aging and the typical voter is ever more likely to already be a property owner a generation removed from even being in a position to worry about their own children's education.

Secondary suites are not a one shot answer to the price issue, but they certainly would help with the supply issue which is one driver (albet not the only) of the near constant price increases.

Will be interesting when the Millennials eclipses the boomers as the primary voting demographic.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

No, that is a little simplistic. It is more of an issue of stage of life than intractable poverty. There is a stage of live where people are willing to shack up with another couple or just random room mates in a two bedroom basement suite. This stage of life also however tends to include owning a vehicle. There was one house that had issues of a police nature, but it was more of a literal flophouse than a secondary suite situation.

I have had tenants of the secondary suites come to my door and ask if they could park in my driveway. There have been times I couldn't get out of my driveway. The worst it ever was when there was a rental house that had a suite with a family upstairs with three vehicles on the street, an RV without plates in the driveway and two men with large trucks living in the illegal suite also parked on the street and those guys had their girlfriends, who also had cars, staying over practically every night. It was often those girls who would come to the door asking to park in my driveway.

Practically speaking if you throw open the doors to legal suites you are really just changing the economics of rental properties. The people going for suites are going to be absentee landlords doubling up houses, which are just as likely to be preposterously over-occupied as existing rentals often are.

I don't want that and I don't fault anyone else who doesn't. Were I not as likely to end up with illegal suites and unbearable renters anywhere else I can afford I would move.

A compromise I would be open to would be any area with suites would be switched to permit parking and homes with suites would for perpetuity forfeit access to parking permits, including guest permits.

A few points,

1. There is no restriction on the number of vehicles that can be registered at a property, secondary suite or not. Restricting the number of permits does nothing to solve this issue. Which requiring a lot with a suite to forfeit permits would likely result in. Rather restrict the number of permits available to all lots based on frontage (25' - 1 Resident/Visitor, 50' 2 Resident/Visitor) and combine the resident and visitor permits into a single piece of paper then only one can be used at a time (i.e. only resident or visitor on the street).

2. If the secondary suite on your street was legal they would have 3-4 stalls on the property, I realize this doesn't help you

3. I have no issue with the rules for secondary suites stipulating that the owner must live on the premise

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

If anything, Calgary rezoning the entire city to allow secondary suites would add a handful of legal units. None of them would be affordable. Rent would easily approach what apartments cost. If it coincided with a crackdown on improperly built and unsafe existing suites it would probably clear up all of Policy Wonk's concerns. The demographic he speaks of would simply transition into undivided houses. As it currently stands there are already times when five or more adults in their early twenties rent a whole house.

The bolded part is why I don't understand the "bad neighbour" argument that seems to be popular in the whole secondary suite debate. Although completely anecdotal, my experience from my 20s was as follows:

The two people I knew that were living in secondary suites both lived in suites where the property owner lived upstairs and had created the suite to supplement their income. In both cases, the property owners set down a fairly strict set of rules about noise, smoking, parking, guests, etc... due to the fact that they lived right above the suites and were concerned about their own quality of life.

On the other hand, I had several friends that rented rooms in houses where the owners had rented out their entire home. These were three bedroom and four bedroom houses in the same single family housing neighbourhoods that people seem so desperate to protect. It was at these houses where parking was always an issue (as each individual owned a car), it was at these houses where we had all of our parties and these houses where there were issues with smoking, noise etc... (due to the fact that a lot of the time not all room-mates knew each other prior to moving in and there always seemed to be one token trouble maker in the mix).

Now like I said, I get that this experience is anecdotal and is unique to me but I don't think it's that far off from the truth. And to me, that's the irony. I think a good number of these "bad neighbour" horror stories we always hear in the secondary suite debate are not due to secondary suites at all. They are due to complacent property owners who have rented out their entire home 'frat house style' and have three or four renters living in the space. So no matter how hard people fight against secondary suites, it's not going to prevent the problems that they seem to associate with the suites as at the end of the day, there is nothing preventing a homeowner from renting out their entire property to a large number of people. Where as allowing secondary suites will allow people an ability to supplement their income and perhaps purchase a home in these nice single family home neighbourhoods that they otherwise couldn't quite afford. To me that's a positive change to the neighbourhood as it's one less house that can be rented out in its entirety. Why that always seems to get lost in the debate, I just don't understand...

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

3. I have no issue with the rules for secondary suites stipulating that the owner must live on the premise

Except its dubious legality.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

A few points,

1. There is no restriction on the number of vehicles that can be registered at a property, secondary suite or not.

It comes down to the number of adults. Adults = Cars. In the immediate area there is really only one owner-occupied house that has a ridiculous number of vehicles on the street.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Except its dubious legality.

Could you not get the owner to sign something that they agree to live in the house and if they decide to move without selling they need to remove the suite? Then it would be a matter of enforcing the agreement.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Could you not get the owner to sign something that they agree to live in the house and if they decide to move without selling they need to remove the suite? Then it would be a matter of enforcing the agreement.

No, since it would be treating people differently before the law for no substantive purpose. Lets say I rent the whole house then sublease out the secondary suite. That would be illegal according to the owners provision. You can't deny people the right to use their property based on how they come to legally enjoy its use, all other things being equal.

It wouldn't take that long to find a test case for charter provisions either, denying someone their livelihood when their life circumstances change due to an arbitrary provision that serves no purpose other than trying to mollify opponents who can't be mollified anyways (which isn't a objective that holds up as a pressing and substantive reason why the government should do something).

[Policy Wonk]

The barriers to entry are much lower for an illegal suite with you and three of your buddies than setting up the archetypical party house. And when renting an entire house of any quality a landlord of any sophistication can probably land better tenants than college students moody their parents won't allow sleepovers.

Originally Posted by outoftheice

The bolded part is why I don't understand the "bad neighbour" argument that seems to be popular in the whole secondary suite debate.

[Spring2008]

I like this idea below as developers have to be making crazy high margins here, putting ceilings on rents for a few units wouldn't hurt.

This is something to consider too though:
Druh Farrell
‏@DruhFarrell
It costs $29,000 to build a legal, safe suite. It costs $190,000 to build affordable rental unit in an apartment.

https://twitter.com/DruhFarrell/stat...03887269003264

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I think as condos increasingly become the preferred vehicle for illicit funds, and that is an unstoppable global phenomenon, I think cities are well positioned to extract further "tribute" from developers. Require a certain number of affordable rental units in every new tower. Poor door or no poor door.

At one time I would have opposed that, but in the post-Swiss Bank Account world there is a new value added to condo developments that cities should be getting their cut of.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

No, since it would be treating people differently before the law for no substantive purpose. Lets say I rent the whole house then sublease out the secondary suite. That would be illegal according to the owners provision. You can't deny people the right to use their property based on how they come to legally enjoy its use, all other things being equal.

It wouldn't take that long to find a test case for charter provisions either, denying someone their livelihood when their life circumstances change due to an arbitrary provision that serves no purpose other than trying to mollify opponents who can't be mollified anyways (which isn't a objective that holds up as a pressing and substantive reason why the government should do something).

So the same thing that the city is currently doing with secondary suite applications, rejecting them for no other reason than a couple councillors don't like the look of you? The current approval process is complete arbitrary and even if you are/have met all the rules you can still have your application rejected. Surprised there hasn't been a test case on that one yet.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

It comes down to the number of adults. Adults = Cars. In the immediate area there is really only one owner-occupied house that has a ridiculous number of vehicles on the street.

And how many sec suites are in your immediate area? One? That you know of? I suspect there likely are more that you don't know about.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

So the same thing that the city is currently doing with secondary suite applications, rejecting them for no other reason than a couple councillors don't like the look of you? The current approval process is complete arbitrary and even if you are/have met all the rules you can still have your application rejected. Surprised there hasn't been a test case on that one yet.

Putting an arbitrary and discriminatory requirement as an explicit policy applied at the bureaucratic level is different than council rejecting rezoning. The Ontario Municipal Board can overturn arbitrary council decisions in that province, but we don't have a similar review body to force approvals.

If you want to be arbitrary and discriminatory on suites, forcing a zoning change for each one is the way to go, since it is pretty impossible to codify arbitrary and discriminatory rules. I don't think it would be possible to tie owner occupied to zoning even by voluntary agreement now.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

And how many sec suites are in your immediate area? One? That you know of? I suspect there likely are more that you don't know about.

There are four that I know of, one I'm suspicious of and another house that I know had one, but the entire house has been empty for a couple years.

There is a street nearby that is all walk-out basements that is said to be full of them and the bumper-to-bumper parking suggests that is probably true.

And for the record... the only time I have ever made a stink was over the flophouse.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

There are four that I know of, one I'm suspicious of and another house that I know had one, but the entire house has been empty for a couple years.

There is a street nearby that is all walk-out basements that is said to be full of them and the bumper-to-bumper parking suggests that is probably true.

And for the record... the only time I have ever made a stink was over the flophouse.

My only point is that a secondary suite doesn't always equal a flophouse, but an illegal one is more likely to than a legal one.

[Policy Wonk]

I didn't say otherwise. I only wished to emphasize I have never set out to cause hardship for the secondary suite's tenants as much as I wish they and their cars were not there.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

I like this idea below as developers have to be making crazy high margins here, putting ceilings on rents for a few units wouldn't hurt.

This is something to consider too though:
Druh Farrell
‏@DruhFarrell
It costs $29,000 to build a legal, safe suite. It costs $190,000 to build affordable rental unit in an apartment.

https://twitter.com/DruhFarrell/stat...03887269003264

I'd love to see a source on those numbers. It doesn't cost anywhere near $190 000 to build an affordable apartment in this city. Developers currently sell two bed two bath units for less than that and make money doing it. There is also no way some one could properly subdivide a typical house for $29 000. It would be hard to divide the mechanical system for that price, let alone separate the electrical, add a legally plumbed kitchen, build a separate entrance, add an emergency exit, and fire rate the units. That is if there is already a legal bathroom, which there probably isn't.

I wouldn't be surprised if studio apartments could be built in slab on grade, wood frame buildings with surface parking for less than $50 000 a pop in this city. I'd be shocked if the average basement suite could be brought up to code for anything close to that.

[Spring2008]

Wouldn't HVAC and electrical already be in place before adding basement suite. 30k sounds doable. I think most basements already have rough in plumbing in place too.

For the apartment side, don't have the numbers in front of me ATM but u could prob build a basic condo for $80 psf(might be on the low side including all soft costs)here but ur forgetting to add land costs, which have gone up substantially in the inner city.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I'd love to see a source on those numbers. It doesn't cost anywhere near $190 000 to build an affordable apartment in this city. Developers currently sell two bed two bath units for less than that and make money doing it. There is also no way some one could properly subdivide a typical house for $29 000. It would be hard to divide the mechanical system for that price, let alone separate the electrical, add a legally plumbed kitchen, build a separate entrance, add an emergency exit, and fire rate the units. That is if there is already a legal bathroom, which there probably isn't.

I wouldn't be surprised if studio apartments could be built in slab on grade, wood frame buildings with surface parking for less than $50 000 a pop in this city. I'd be shocked if the average basement suite could be brought up to code for anything close to that.

HVAC - Use furnace for upstairs, blank off all downstairs ductwork, place in floor heating throughout - $3,000
Electrical - Subpanel, move wires to sub panels - $2,000
Plumbing - run new supply lines to bath and kitchen, place kitchen off one side of the bath reducing the length drains required - $2,000
Fire rating - roxul insulation and 5/8 drywall, fire doors - $7,000
Finishes - $15,000

Ends up at $29,000 without trying to, also some of the allowances are likely high.

Assumptions:
Some level of living space exists currently and was done to code
Bathroom either exists or is roughed in
Existing second entrance can be relatively easily fire rated (drywall, doors, etc.)
Doesn't include any structural changes to the home
A suitable egress window is currently present
Basic finishes only, vinyl flooring, laminate counters, etc.

Basis: My own renovations over the last year and half, complete rewire, replumb and HVAC fixes on a 102 year old home.

[Cage]

There are a couple of interesting ideas that have come up of late regarding secondary suites.

(1) Amnesty program for suites with identified safety deficiencies. It's a good idea that would alleviate the safety grey area concerns i.e. Drywall around the furnace. Emergency egress through window. The amnesty plan would allow for an existing suite to remain on the market while renovations were ongoing and the suite went through the development and building permit processes. This would bring suites into compliance overtime.

There are two major drawbacks to the amnesty idea. One the rental suite landlords will use the amnesty period to delay the inevitable shutting down of the suite, no intention of doing the renovations and will shutter the suite once the amnesty programs has run its course Two, what happens if there is a loss of life incident in the identified unsafe suite. The city owes a duty of care to the tenants to prevent unsafe situations.

(2) secondary suite whistleblower line. This program would allow for tenants to call about unsafe suites without fear of losing their home and being kicked out on the street.

I like the whistleblower hotline idea, infact I run the financial ethics whistleblower hotline for my employer. This would allow for quick identification of huge size and complexity of unsafe secondary suites.

One item that I don't like is restricting population of complainants to just tenants. I feel that anyone should be able to call in the unsafe secondary suite situation. This should include all types of tenants ( past, present, future), neighbours, general public. If complainant population is restricted it becomes much easier to identify who made the complaint, and while anti-retaliation provisions are in place, they will not be able to cover all circumstances.

(3) require secondary suite landlords to obtain and remain current a business licence.

I like idea the best as it affords an opportunity for the landlord / owner to remain true to then promises on development and responsibilities as set out by the city.