Rental Licensing/Licensing Fees

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by oldcoote

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

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]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

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]

Originally Posted by highwater

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]

Originally Posted by highwater

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]

Originally Posted by omro

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.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by BCTed

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]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

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.