{"id":3508,"date":"2019-09-03T16:35:41","date_gmt":"2019-09-03T20:35:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/acorncanada.org\/ottawa-acorn-responds-consultants-report-landlord-licensing\/"},"modified":"2019-09-03T16:35:41","modified_gmt":"2019-09-03T20:35:41","slug":"ottawa-acorn-responds-consultants-report-landlord-licensing","status":"publish","type":"news","link":"https:\/\/acorncanada.org\/news\/ottawa-acorn-responds-consultants-report-landlord-licensing\/","title":{"rendered":"Ottawa ACORN Responds to Consultants Report on Landlord Licensing"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\t\tAug 31st, 2019 <\/div>\n
\n\t\t <\/div>\n
\n\t\tOttawa ACORN members are in the final sprint for their campaign for landlord licensing. After convincing city council to include landlord licensing as part of the City’s “regulating rental accommodations” review, members have organized Tenant Speak Outs, days of action at City Hall, door knocked in bad apartment buildings, released reports, engaged the media and have met with the City’s consultants three times. The consultants from Maclaren Group have released their report on policy options for housing conditions and are asking for feedback before submitting their recommendations to City Hall. <\/div>\n
\n\t\t <\/div>\n
\n\t\tRead Ottawa ACORN’s response here: <\/strong><\/div>\n
\n\t\t <\/div>\n
\n\t\tThe elected leadership of Ottawa ACORN\u2019s citywide board has reviewed this report in detail and would like to offer our official response and recommendations. <\/div>\n
\n\t\t <\/div>\n
\n\t\tThis response is based on consultation with Ottawa ACORN\u2019s membership of low income families through community forums, phone calls and house visits. It is also based on over a decade\u2019s worth of community organizing experience. Consistently for the past 13 years that our organizers have gone door-to-door in low-income neighbourhoods, the state of people\u2019s housing is the number one thing they\u2019d like to see changed. ACORN views this review as an opportunity for substantive change to ensure that everyone\u2019s right to housing is protected and that every tenant has a healthy home. <\/div>\n
\n\t\t <\/div>\n
\n\t\tUpon reading the report, here are our members\u2019 reactions: <\/strong><\/div>\n
\n\t\t <\/div>\n
\n\t\t– <\/span>The report mentions that the majority of workshop attendees were not in favour of a universal licensing regime. We would like to note that the workshop attendees would not be representative of low income tenants, who are the ones that face the brunt of bad housing conditions. The announcement for workshops was sent out with very little notice to organizations or promotion to the general public, which didn\u2019t give low income tenants the time needed to book time off work or arrange childcare or address other barriers that often prevent low income people from attending public consultations. <\/div>\n
\n\t\t <\/div>\n
\n\t\t– <\/span>The report also states that \u201cit was generally recognized that the majority of landlords do provide quality rental accommodation in a highly regulated and often challenging market.\u201d However, we would argue that this doesn\u2019t apply when it comes to more affordable rental units that low income tenants live in. For example, in ACORN\u2019s 2017 report \u201cState of Repair\u201d 85.5% of low income tenants who responded to our survey reported problems in their building.<\/div>\n
\n\t\t <\/div>\n
\n\t\t– <\/span>Moreover, the human and economic costs of living with poor housing conditions is significant. Tenants\u2019 testimonies outlined in ACORN\u2019s latest report, \u201cHousing Horror Stories\u201d (attached) detail stories of children getting sick from mold, injured by disrepair and adults living with bedbugs and cockroaches developing severe mental and physical health issues to the point of hospitalization, putting a strain on our health care system and social services. As such, we are in strong support of a Pest Control By-Law in addition to landlord registration or licensing. <\/div>\n
\n\t\t <\/div>\n
\n\t\t– <\/span>Furthermore, arguments have been made that we need to target the bad landlords and that licensing or registration would punish the good landlords. ACORN would argue strongly that a registry would promote good landlords and target the bad. The report considers publishing property standards reports online and in common areas of buildings. This would promote good landlords who would stand out on the list and allow tenants to know what they\u2019re getting themselves into before signing a lease. <\/div>\n
\n\t\t <\/div>\n
\n\t\t– <\/span>A registry is necessary so that the City can target bad buildings where tenants are not calling 311. The reasons for not calling 311 vary and are discussed below. For example, Toronto\u2019s RentSafe program did mass inspections of properties it decided to register and assigned them a grade. Buildings that did well were only inspected every three years and those that did poorly had a full audit conducted of the building and were inspected annually, hence targeting the bad ones to bring them up to code. This model allows the City to efficiently identify the bad buildings and focus its resources on the worst offenders.  <\/div>\n
\n\t\t <\/div>\n
\n\t\t– <\/span>There was also an argument made during the workshops that licensing could discourage investment in rental properties. However, there are no statistics in any city that has implemented licensing or registrations that this is true in reality. The costs of registration are so minimal in Toronto for example, that if you are a landlord renting out 3 units you\u2019ll only pay $30\/year. This would be significantly less than 1% of what that landlord would make in rent each year. It is our understanding that Toronto may have underestimated the amount of work the program would take and that current fees are not covering costs. Toronto will likely increase fees but even if they double initial licensing fees to $20 per unit annually, this is an extremely nominal cost compared to the social costs of bad housing. <\/div>\n
\n\t\t <\/div>\n
\n\t\t– <\/span>There is unfounded concern that Toronto\u2019s fees would be downloaded onto tenants in the form of increased rents. Yet the fees are so nominal that it wouldn\u2019t be worth a landlord\u2019s time and resources to pass the cost down to tenants. First off, landlords increase rents each year by the maximum allowed by the Province anyway. Secondly, even if the landlord did go to the Landlord Tenant Board to apply for an AGI and it was passed down to tenants, it would cost an extra $1-2\/month in rent to ensure tenants better protection under the law. Tenants are paying a lot more right now as a consequence of mould, losing furniture to pests and paying for cleaning or repairs themselves anyways.<\/div>\n
\n\t\t <\/div>\n
\n\t\t– <\/span>Another argument from workshop participants was that we may lose more marginal buildings if they\u2019re required to undertake major repairs and upgrades to meet today\u2019s building standards. This is an argument to maintain slumlords and our response to that is that no slumlord should be allowed to collect rent in our city. <\/div>\n
\n\t\t <\/div>\n
\n\t\t– <\/span>We\u2019d also really like to emphasize that in your report only 3 of the 665 tenants had actually followed up their complaint by calling 311. This clearly shows that our current complaint based system isn\u2019t working if people aren\u2019t calling City By-law when all the onus is on the tenant. There are many reasons why people don\u2019t call 311 despite having issues: tenants don\u2019t know to call 311, tenants don\u2019t know their rights, tenants are afraid of landlords and eviction, complaints are dropped once a new tenant moves in, there are language barriers, follow up and communication with tenants is hit or miss, or tenants eventually become unwilling to sacrifice their time and energy complaining when they fail to get results. This is supported by our State of Repair report which found that of those surveyed, approximately 22% didn\u2019t know what 311 was and close to 30% didn\u2019t think there was a point in calling. <\/div>\n
\n\t\t <\/div>\n
\n\t\t– <\/span>The report does seem to favour proactive enforcement of property standards, which ACORN agrees with and has been advocating for. Yet the report doesn\u2019t seem to think that licensing or registering landlords would have to be mandatory for this to happen. However, you cannot be proactive if you don\u2019t have a list of where people are renting. Rather, all your data would be complaint based and the research shows that 311 data alone isn’t actually representative of tenants who have issues getting repairs.<\/div>\n
\n\t\t <\/div>\n
\n\t\t– <\/span>The report also states that proactive enforcement may not be possible given current By-law staffing levels. This is exactly why we need licensing or registration fees so that property standards can increase the number of inspectors they hire to do proactive enforcement. Toronto was able to double the number of property standards inspectors with RentSafe. Given the significantly heavier caseload of By-Law officers in Ottawa compared to other major cities, we imagine this would be a welcomed source of funding to an important and understaffed department. <\/div>\n
\n\t\t <\/div>\n
\n\t\t– <\/span>Finally, taking an approach to property standards similar to parking violations was discussed as an option for how the City can be more proactive. While a parking model to property standards is applauded by ACORN members, our concern is that this would only catch problems on the outside of buildings (waste, parking garages etc) but would have little impact inside where the worst problems would remain. For this reason we would support a parking model to property standards violations that was supplemental to a landlord registration or licensing program. However, it won\u2019t address the worst of tenants\u2019 concerns on its own. <\/div>\n
\n\t\t <\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n\tOttawa ACORN\u2019s Response to Policy Options on Tenant Displacement and Renovictions: <\/strong><\/div>\n
\n\t <\/div>\n
\n\t– <\/span>The report discusses regulations to prevent tenant displacement in the case of renovictions or redevelopment. To address this concern, ACORN members would like to see the City:<\/div>\n
\n\t <\/div>\n
\n\t– <\/span>Create an anti-displacement strategy to ensure the city is not uprooting tenants when the focus should be on protecting them;<\/div>\n
\n\t <\/div>\n
\n\t– <\/span>Keep track of all apartment buildings sold, and immediately inform Ottawa tenants of their rights;<\/div>\n
\n\t <\/div>\n
\n\t– <\/span>Regulate and publicly register all tenant buyouts;<\/div>\n
\n\t <\/div>\n
\n\t– <\/span>Ensure developers give all displaced tenants suitable housing options;<\/div>\n
\n\t <\/div>\n
\n\t– <\/span>Enforce existing and new regulations on tenant buyouts and tenant relocation through building permit approval processes and all tools\/mechanisms available to the City;<\/div>\n
\n\t <\/div>\n
\n\t– <\/span>Stop any grant programs if they exist to developers who are displacing tenants;<\/div>\n
\n\t <\/div>\n
\n\t– <\/span>Create a city-wide Inclusionary Zoning By-law where 25% of development must include affordable housing and an additional 10% affordable housing if within 1km of rapid transit <\/div>\n
\n\t <\/div>\n
\n\t– <\/span>We also want a Rental Replacement By-law which in the case of the demolition and redevelopment of a property, ensures rental replacements so that if the developer eliminates affordable market rental units or subsidized units, they are included in the new development for the same price and number of bedrooms. Tenants who are evicted should have the first right of refusal to move back into the units created in the new development.<\/div>\n
\n\t <\/div>\n
\n\t– <\/span>Furthermore, landlord registration or licensing is an investment in preventing the loss of our affordable housing stock. Right now, there is a disincentive in the system for landlords to do repairs for long-term tenants as they can make a great deal more money by flipping the property when they move out. In the case of Herongate, Timbercreek Asset Management was able to justify demolishing affordable family rowhouses to be replaced with luxury rentals by arguing they were beyond repair. This was despite tenants complaining and struggling to get repairs done from the landlord for years. As many ACORN members who lived in the neighbourhood have argued, this was demolition by neglect and the City should have tools in place to prevent rentals from purposefully deteriorating. <\/div>\n
\n\t <\/div>\n
\n\tOttawa ACORN\u2019s Response to Policy Options on Short Term Rentals:<\/strong><\/div>\n
\n\t <\/div>\n
\n\tOttawa ACORN\u2019s citywide board has endorsed Fairbnb Canada\u2019s recommendations to regulate short-term rentals in order to protect the state of affordable housing in our city. We support the City adopting the following regulations: <\/div>\n