Secondary Suites

[jeffwhit]

I swear the reason these suites are not getting approved is because someone in city hall is worried Rick Bell will say something mean about them, like calling them silly.

[bob1954]

This debate is rediculous!! If any of you guys get's to Chicago, look at large percentage of property's that have these "secondary suites" or "inlaw houses" on the same narrow lot. The city kept a lot of people in the city because these "suites" gave people an affordible option, that otherwise might have had to leave or live in a lees desireable are! Calgary is becoming a large city sounds like some folks in govn't need to start realizing this.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[You Need A Thneed]

UPDATED Council, barely flinching, offers blanket rezoning for secondary suites in several standalone-house districts.

By JASON MARKUSOFF MON, JUL 26 2010

This crop of aldermen have repeatedly voted against blanket rezoning or even one-off rezoning to allow secondary suites in R-1 and R-C1 zone districts which are designed for single-family houses.

But they have just -- perhaps unwittingly, but i'm not sure -- passed a bylaw create allowing the suites everywhere zoned R-1N and R-C1N, which is also designed for single-family houses.The difference the "N" makes? It signifies narrow lots, particularly in Calgary's 1980s and 1990s neighbourhoods. The vote was unanimous, and the bylaw changes take effect now.

So in areas like this sardine-like one in Royal Oak and also this area in Bridlewood. But not this more spacious area in University Heights right next to University of Calgary -- because it's R-C1 and council specifically did not want secondary suites in areas like that one that were built for single-family houses. (click on links for satellite views of those areas.)

In good news for other duplex-zoned areas like Inglewood and Sunnyside, council's bylaw amendments greatly reduced the minimum property width needed to develop a legal secondary suite.

What an odd way to wrap up the 2007-2010 council session.

UPDATE -- After council, I spoke to one aldermen about the change. The member didn't seem aware that that's what council had done... More on this possible mess Tuesday.

Link

[Policy Wonk]

The city finally shut down the flophouse in my neighborhood, the shitstains who lived there are gone along with their dozen odd pickup trucks and 1990's Sunfires.

[freeweed]

If there wasn't a Camaro on cinderblocks you have nothing to complain about.

Although... 1990s Sunfires and Cavaliers - might be the modern equivalent. Because I totally know what you mean.

[Policy Wonk]

I'm just glad their gone, I was seriously contemplating moving come summer.

Two down, one to go.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The city finally shut down the flophouse in my neighborhood, the shitstains who lived there are gone along with their dozen odd pickup trucks and 1990's Sunfires.

Well you must be happy they are approving secondary suites soon?

[Policy Wonk]

No, I am dead set against secondary suites in most situations having suffered the illegal ones around here for some time.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

No, I am dead set against secondary suites in most situations having suffered the illegal ones around here for some time.

I don't know if secondary suites make things worse, but I completely understand. Living next to trash renters is just about the worst possible situation. We moved very specifically because of the losers next door. They've helped shape my opinion on open fires in an urban setting, noise bylaws, alcohol restrictions, and thoughts towards mandating that all U-Haul vehicles have automatic ignition shut-off after 10pm.

I'm sure there are owners who live like complete inconsiderate savages somewhere, but I've never lived by them. It's always renters - and most often, renters who are living in a place cheaper than the average. I pray that these secondary suites aren't specifically being introduced just to lower rents.

[MalcolmTucker]

As renters would have more rights living in a legal suite, not being under threat of eviction at any time, or threat of expulsion by order of the state, the rent should be higher in legal suites.

That being said, increasing transparency on how many suites are available in the rental market could lower prices, as could encouraging those who avoid putting in suites today due to legal aspects.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

No, I am dead set against secondary suites in most situations having suffered the illegal ones around here for some time.

Its called living in a city. This isn't disneyland. Dont let a couple of bad renters push you to make a choice that could affect thousands. I have always been a good renter. I cant wait until they start approving these things.

[Policy Wonk]

There are two separate issues, my primary objection to secondary suites is it will create parking hell in many neighbourhoods. One of my friends lives near the North Hill LRT station and the existing illegal tenants have taken up every square inch of street parking. One of the arguments for secondary suites is these people will supposedly be living car-free, which is ridiculous.

The fact my former neighbours were white trash vermin was a separate issue entirely.

The people who will be building out tangible numbers of secondary suites are going to be professional investors looking to double their tenants. They will be built in existing rental intensive areas and will create parking hell. I don't anticipate very many secondary suites will be popping up in owner-occupied dwellings.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The people who will be building out tangible numbers of secondary suites are going to be professional investors looking to double their tenants. They will be built in existing rental intensive areas and will create parking hell. I don't anticipate very many secondary suites will be popping up in owner-occupied dwellings.

Yeah, I also find it hard to picture people in my neighbourhood (for example) putting in secondary suites in their own homes. I sure can see a lot of duplexes becoming 4-plexes, however. That sort of thing.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

There are two separate issues, my primary objection to secondary suites is it will create parking hell in many neighbourhoods. One of my friends lives near the North Hill LRT station and the existing illegal tenants have taken up every square inch of street parking. One of the arguments for secondary suites is these people will supposedly be living car-free, which is ridiculous.

The fact my former neighbours were white trash vermin was a separate issue entirely.

The people who will be building out tangible numbers of secondary suites are going to be professional investors looking to double their tenants. They will be built in existing rental intensive areas and will create parking hell. I don't anticipate very many secondary suites will be popping up in owner-occupied dwellings.

The church people that came to my neighborhood did more of a number on the parking stalls than a bunch of renters. Parking will always be an issue in the city. Its a good thing Calgary has such wide roads and we have room for all of these extra cars that will soon be showing up in neighborhoods.

[MalcolmTucker]

I think with the parking requirement secondary suites will end up passing. That being said if there are too many cars parked on the street the street can request pass parking no?

[LFRENCH]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

There are two separate issues, my primary objection to secondary suites is it will create parking hell in many neighbourhoods. One of my friends lives near the North Hill LRT station and the existing illegal tenants have taken up every square inch of street parking. One of the arguments for secondary suites is these people will supposedly be living car-free, which is ridiculous.

I live half a block from North Hill LRT( Lion's Park) and parking is no such issue. If anything the annoyance is more the people going to the Yoga Shala with their mats parking in front of my house.

Sure there might be some people who complain about parking around here, but perhaps they need to learn to parallel park.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

I think with the parking requirement secondary suites will end up passing. That being said if there are too many cars parked on the street the street can request pass parking no?

Yep, but unless they adjust the rules you can walk into the CPA office with your lease and your vehicle registration showing you live on the street and get a permit. That may help a bit, but if every renter goes and gets a permit you'll be back to square one.