It’s time to provide logic to the debate that has stirred up controversy about legalizing secondary suites in Oak Bay. This includes untaxable garden and laneway-houses; the district has an estimated 500 to 1,000 existing suites; a one-vote council majority prioritized regulating them and there is only one bylaw officer to accomplish regulation plus attending to his other duties.
At present the bylaw officer, on receiving a complaint, can take corrective action if a suite is unsafe, is disruptive to neighbours, has too many tenants, or the landlord lives elsewhere. This does not necessarily mean evictions. Having a suite is not illegal for two occupants. However cooking facilities, the number-one cause of fires in B.C., absentee landlords and Airbnb are prohibited.
The passive complaint enforcement system we have, in fact most districts have, is working here. What is missing from the debate is, if the zoning bylaw is changed to permit suites with stoves, enforcement practices will not change. What will change is what can and will be enforced. For example: that all suites meet the building code requirements, the number of tenants will increase and absentee landlord prohibition will legally not be possible.
Almost all municipalities are struggling with regulation and impact problems after legislation. The Union of BC Municipalities has identified some of the serious impact problems in their 2018 Housing Report. They have recognized that the proceeds realized from renting suites do not contribute to municipal services: they want the province to provide this taxation authority. Controls on Airbnb and investor-driven speculation demand are needed. The increased higher-density impacts on infrastructure will require additional development, growth-related charges. In Oak Bay this would mean council introducing them. It seems to me then, that waiting for these changes would be prudent.
Anthony Mears
Oak Bay