Discriminatory New By-Law for Renters?
I came across the following notice in my apartment building last night:
Full text is below (with SCREAMING CAPS preserved):
TENANT LICENSING BY-LAW DISCRIMINATES AGAINST TENANTS!!
We have now seen the final report by City Staff and their recommendations to Council Members.
IF THIS BY-LAW IS PASSED, THE CITY OF LONDON WILL DO TWO THINGS IT CANNOT NOW DO UNDER ITS PROPERTY STANDARDS BY-LAW. THE CITY WILL:
1. IMPOSE A TENANT TAX ON 12,500 TENANTS; and,
2. AUTHORIZE ENTRY OF TENANTS’ RENTAL UNITS WITHOUT THE TENANT’S CONSENT!!
This by-law discriminates against Tenants because:
- Tenants already pay the City double the residential tax rate, hidden in their monthly rent. Forcing tenants to pay this additional Tenant Tax is unfair in this economic downturn and is unnecessary.
- The by-law gives Property Standards Officers a special right to enter a Tenant’s rental unit without the Tenant’s consent. This inspection power will not apply to Londoners who own their own home: it will ONLY apply to Tenants!!
WHAT YOU CAN DO!
COME TO CENTENNIAL HALL NEXT TUESDAY, MARCH 24, AT 5:00 P.M., AND TELL LONDON CITY COUNCILORS WHAT YOU THINK OF THIS DISCRIMINATORY BY-LAW!
TELEPHONE, EMAIL, OR WRITE TO YOUR LOCAL COUNCILOR, AND TELL THEM WHAT YOU THINK!
Judy Bryant
City Hall: 519 661-2500 Ext. 0370
City Hall Fax: 519 661-5933
Email: jbryant@london.ca
Personally, I am not familiar enough with economic issues to comment about the “fairness” and necessity of the additional tax. However, the ability for anyone to enter a tenant’s property without permission is ridiculous. There is already a process for entering someone’s property without permission: it is handled by the police with warrants and whatnot. There is no reason that exceptions to this process should apply only to people who rent their homes.
This seems worth looking into for anybody who rents. I encourage comments from anyone who has opinions or more details about these potential by-laws.
© Fowler Media
Hope this doesn’t get passed.
Landlords can currently enter the premises of a tenant anytime during the day or night in case of an “emergency.”
Otherwise 24 hours notice must be provided to the tenant.
That’s mostly reasonable, so I wonder why there is a necessity for additional powers to enter a tenant’s home. I’m not sure what a Property Standards Officer is, but the notice seems to imply they can enter without notice or emergency. I hope the law doesn’t pass unless there’s very good reason for it.
To read the proposed by-law and background information that you may find helpful, click HERE.
At first glance, I was pleasantly surprised that only 12,500 tenants would be affected by a tenancy by-law. I thought, wow, London is affluent enough that so few are affected. Then I read the proposed legislation:
3.1 This By-law shall not apply to:
(a) a Rental Unit in a Building containing 5 or more Rental Units;
which suggests to me that this by-law targets a problem which has been well-publicized: one-off rentals in the basements of private homes, and the multi-room houses rented (especially to students) by the room. The latter of such properties are often described as sources of party noise, April move-out trash, etc. I understand how a licensing scheme might seem like a good idea given the negative publicity surrounding such rental units.
I see two problems:
1) The larger (5+) rent-by-the-room (often student-filled) rental houses are excluded. (I forget whether landlords have been prevented from renovating additional houses into more than 5 rooms to rent out separately.)
2) Funding a new service–random inspection–does not inspire the city to educate its citizens about their rights. Putting a little effort into education would allow the current complaints-based system to thrive.
Thanks for the link Greg.
So is this another attempt to deal with “the student problem” then?
Here’s an idea. If there’s a problem with people (students or not) being drunken jerks, making too much noise and destroying property, go after people who make noise and destroy property. Blaming it on studenthood or introducing indirect measures to curb it will only worsen the problem.
Although I haven’t read the proposes by-law yet a person could make the claim that passing such a law could be deemed un-constitutional under the Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 8 reads:
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
As it stands now entering a unit for emergency purposes (fire, flood, missing person etc) it certainly reasonable as it is in the public’s safety (for the most part), however, what is by-law proposes could be deemed unreasonable.
As well, Section 15 under the Charter states:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
So wouldn’t this by-law de discriminatory to those that rent in buildings with units less than 5? To be it sounds like this is essentially profiling, but with a work around.
Once again, I have yet to read the by-law but will be sure to before tomorrow’s meeting, but at first glance these are two things that popped out at me.
I wanted to jump into this discussion as the Chairperson of the London Housing Advisory Committee to give some background on the licensing of the rental housing business and also to address some of the serious misinformation that is floating around.
Prior to 2007, Ontario cities were not permitted to include the rental housing within the general business licensing powers. Cities generally have very broad authority to require anyone doing business in the city to obtain a license. Because of changes to the Municipal Act, the limitation on including rental housing as a licensed business has been removed, and cities are now free to require owners of residential units to obtain a business license as in any other business. This is a good thing because the rental housing industry is one of the largest businesses in town, and there are many health and safety issues that are not properly being addressed under the current complaint-driven enforcement code enforcement process.
Ontario cities are very limited in their ability to raise revenues. They are precluded from adopting new “taxes” other than what is in the Municipal Act. However, cities may charge businesses reasonable licensing fees, but those fees are strictly limited to the actual costs that will be involved in administering the licensing program (i.e. carrying out a health, safety or fire inspection). The draft by-law that is coming before the planning committee is setting the fee at $2.50 per month per unit which is probably much lower than what would be needed for full cost recovery. Despite the efforts of LPMA to muddle the issue my claiming this will be paid by tenants, under Ontario rent law landlords are not permitted to pass charges like this on to tenants without getting permission from the provincial Landlord-Tenant Board through an “above-guideline” increase. And in order to get such an increase, the new charges must be “extraordinary.” It is very clear that the small amount being proposed as a licensing fee will not be enough to trigger such an increase.
For this reason, the notices that are being circulated by the LPMA are highly misleading. First, this is not a “tax” and second, whatever you want to call it, it cannot be passed on to an existing tenant in a unit. Under Ontario’s rent law (which is very weak and needs to be strengthened) when a unit becomes vacant the landlord may reset the rent as they wish, limited only by what the market will bear. But for existing tenants, the landlord is limited by law in terms of what rent increases they can pass on. This is a very important point to understand becuase it shows that LPMA is going to some great lengths to confuse tenants into opposing something that will actually benefit tenants.
It is also true that under the law the landlord has a right to enter the premises but must give reasonable (24 hour notice) first. There is nothing in the proposed law that would allow government officials to enter your unit without your consent other than through getting this notice.
Many rental units in London are in need of substantial repairs. According to Statistics Canada data (derived from the 2006 census), 4,980 tenants reported that their units were in need of “major repair” and 13,655 reported the need for “minor repair”. It is obvious that more needs to be done to insure that building and safety requirements are being met. This is not a student issue, it is a city wide issue.
Given all of this background, the London Housing Advisory Committee supports the the licensing of the rental business. At our last meeting, we adopted the following set of principles:
General Principles for a Residential Rental Unit
Licensing By-Law for the City of London
Adopted by the London Housing Advisory Committee
March 11, 2009
The London Housing Advisory Committee (LHAC) reiterates the policy recommendations it has taken in support of a city-wide Rental Residential Business Licensing Program and adopts the following principles which should guide the city in implementing this program:
1) The provision of rental residential housing units is a business and should therefore be governed by the same types of licensing requirements applicable to other businesses in the city. In the past, the province has limited the City’s power to apply its business licensing requirements to residential rental units, but now that this limitation has been removed, the City should exercise its new authority and treat the rental housing industry in a manner similar to other businesses.
2) The Rental Residential Business Licensing Program should be city-wide in application, and the end goal of the Program should be to include all residential rental units regardless of the size or location of the property. The licensing fees should be kept to the minimum necessary for cost-recovery.
3) Should the City Council determine that it be necessary to phase-in the licensing program, the selection of criteria should be based on objective and ascertainable factors that bear a reasonable relationship to the safety of tenants and condition of the housing stock. Factors such as the age of the building and the number of stories are better criteria than the reported number of rental units on the property. Under no circumstances should the geographic location of the property determine its order of licensing in a phase-in. There should be no cap on the number of licenses issued and minimum distance separation between addresses should not be considered as a criteria.
4) Any such phase-in should be for a reasonably short period, and accompanied by a target schedule along with ongoing reporting and review of the program.
5) The City Council should reject attempts on the part of the rental housing industry to influence the policy process by resorting to tactics designed to scare tenants with false representations about a landlord’s ability to pass through licensing fees to existing renters.
Samuel Trosow, Chairperson
London Housing Advisory Committee
Sam and Greg, thank you for the additional information you both provided.
I have to say that after reading the specifics of the by-law my concerns have been put more at ease, however, they have not disappeared completely.
Although the manner in which the City of London proposes to go about implementing this new by-law I still have issues with it profiling those that live in certain types of units, although I understand that this is the point.
Although it has not been directly said (and won’t) this is an “income based” by-law and this is in fact wrong. I’m not going to sit here and argue the point, but rather will attend the public meeting to see what comes of it.
One last note, regarding statistics that Stats Can publishes, please be careful when using this and citing this as it is in fact full of flaws and much of the data is skewed. (I deal with stats data on a daily basis, trust me, I know)
I agree with a license provided that the money is used specifically toward cost recovery of inspections only. I know from past personal experience that it’s sometimes very hard for a tenant to get the city’s by-law enforcement to investigate a complaint, and I suspect it’s because the by-law enforcement division is grossly under-funded.
Josh: Your “5+ rent-by-the-room” reference strikes a chord. As I recall, the NDP relaxed the rules in response to a huge need to do something about the lack of affordable housing for low-income people, and I don’t disagree with it. The problem lies in a city’s economic ability to properly identify and enforce health/safety standards for them. How many are there? A lot, I suspect, given the extraordinary difficulty of getting social housing in this city. Which is why the proposed by-law should not be limited to buildings with less than 5 rental units, and it should include owner-occupied “bread and breadfast” operations as well.
Sam makes a good point about the limited ability of cities to raise revenue. And we all know the kind of backlash there is any time there’s a suggestion that property taxes be raised; municipal revenue generation is a problem that has to be addressed by the two upper levels of government, but until local citizens pressure MPs and MPPs that’s not likely to happen.
Kevin: If you’re going to attend the public participation meeting, I’d appreciate hearing about your observations and impressions. I can’t be there because I’ve got a meeting of the ‘Strengthening Neighbourhoods’ Task Force to attend.
I rent and saw the notice too. It’s a good lesson to always get the full story and take into account various biases before making any assumptions — if you take the notice as is, it makes it sound like the whole city of renters would get hammered.
Great discussion! It does my heart good to see intelligent, real debate on the web. For once. Hooray for brain cells!