1731 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

I'm currently in a large Canadian city that does not allow panhandling on its downtown streets. The homelessness issue is not front and centre like it is in Victoria and that's primarily because the business community and the police do not tolerate it. In fact, there are posters in buildings asking people to not give money to panhandlers but instead to help fund agencies that provide food and services. Those services are also NOT clustered in the downtown core and prime business centre.

Victoria is starting to get a reputation as a place where the homeless congregate and social disorder is not only tolerated, but welcomed. And that's incredibly bad for business for a town so dependent on tourism.

So while councillor Madoff regales us with stories of how visitors whom only she somehow encounters ONLY bemoan Victoria's changing urban development patterns, the rest of the country is asking what the heck has happened to the City of Garden's that has been known for time immemorial as a pleasant, safe city.

[tedward]

Where people and money are?  Saanich has more people, and more wealthy people.  What it does not have is free handouts.

 

Sure, but they are spread out to far. For someone who claims to know how business operates you show a lack of understanding of the importance of location. 

The free handouts came AFTER the homeless in case you forgot. The timeline is roughly: homeless beg on busy pedestrian streets, handouts are provided near to where the homeless are already congregating, word spreads and more homeless come where they can get more, more services are provided, repeat the last two until a solution is found.

 

Implying Saanich has somehow solved homelessness is ridiculous. 

[Mike K.]

Speaking of business, I'd wager the industry is now so large on the south Island that eradicating the issue and forcing hundreds (if not thousands?) of direct and indirect workers to seek alternate employment is not feasible.

Managing the homeless issue has led to a vary large and a very healthy industry in Victoria. Proof of this is how Woodwynn Farms has been received and how it's been (un)supported.

[LJ]

Back when I had an STR they called it something different.

That was an STD for gawds sake.

[todd]

That was an STD for gawds sake.

 

From the STR?

[tjv]

I'm currently in a large Canadian city that does not allow panhandling on its downtown streets. The homelessness issue is not front and centre like it is in Victoria and that's primarily because the business community and the police do not tolerate it. In fact, there are posters in buildings asking people to not give money to panhandlers but instead to help fund agencies that provide food and services. Those services are also NOT clustered in the downtown core and prime business centre.

Victoria is starting to get a reputation as a place where the homeless congregate and social disorder is not only tolerated, but welcomed. And that's incredibly bad for business for a town so dependent on tourism.

So while councillor Madoff regales us with stories of how visitors whom only she somehow encounters ONLY bemoan Victoria's changing urban development patterns, the rest of the country is asking what the heck has happened to the City of Garden's that has been known for time immemorial as a pleasant, safe city.

Oak Bay is one such municipality.  I remember once a panhandler was on Oak Bay Ave (Oak Bay side), within minutes 4 police cars showed up and promptly took the panhandler to the border.  Does Oak Bay have a homeless problem?  no, because they harass them and they don't come back

 

Bottom line panhandlers and homeless need to be harassed by the police on a regular basis.  Sleeping in a doorway of a private business - arrest them and spend a few hours on jail for trespassing, etc.  

[MarkoJ]

Self terminating leases bypass pretty much all tenant rights,  it's something the bcndp promise to fix but not fast enough.  At the end of your lease they can kick you out, change your rent to anything they want, and you have no legal recourse.

 

I own a few condos downtown and have a suite in my personal house and I think the self-terminating leases are extremely unfair to tenants and should be banned. On my properties I always use 1 year leases the revert month-to-month and do not self-terminate. 

 

Interesting thing is when I've brought this up with clients, friends, acquaintances, who are landlords no one individual has ever shared my opinion. Seems like everyone has had a bad experience or two and likes the option of simply having the tenant leave after the one year is up.

[rjag]

Oak Bay is one such municipality.  I remember once a panhandler was on Oak Bay Ave (Oak Bay side), within minutes 4 police cars showed up and promptly took the panhandler to the border.  Does Oak Bay have a homeless problem?  no, because they harass them and they don't come back

 

Bottom line panhandlers and homeless need to be harassed by the police on a regular basis.  Sleeping in a doorway of a private business - arrest them and spend a few hours on jail for trespassing, etc.  

 

I live in OB and know several of the local officers. There are a regular contingent of vagrants/panhandlers that hang around the Ave and as long as they dont make a nuisance then they are tolerated. There are a few properties on or near the avenue that house citizens of 'questionable' character. I've walked the foot patrol with them when out walking my dogs and they have pointed them out. They are on top of it for the most part but cant stop citizens hanging out unless they are harassing folks etc.

 

There was always the old story of vagrants getting a free ride downtown and dropped in front of the Odeon 

[lanforod]

I own a few condos downtown and have a suite in my personal house and I think the self-terminating leases are extremely unfair to tenants and should be banned. On my properties I always use 1 year leases the revert month-to-month and do not self-terminate. 

 

Interesting thing is when I've brought this up with clients, friends, acquaintances, who are landlords no one individual has ever shared my opinion. Seems like everyone has had a bad experience or two and likes the option of simply having the tenant leave after the one year is up.

 

Yeah, its a fine line to regulate. If you ban them, you have no way to get rid of a tenant who is crappy - bad enough that they are a real hassle, but not bad enough that you can get them evicted. 

I do the same as you, 1 year lease, revert to month to month after (we have resigned leases though for peace of mind). 

One way to fix, may be to allow the terminating leases, but if the landlord does not renew, fine. The landlord can relist the place but only for the same rent (plus whatever the allowable annual increase is). 

Hard to enforce, I think. Tenants could complain perhaps to the RTB and get compensation if the landlord listed for higher.

Edited by lanforod, 10 September 2017 - 01:31 PM.

[VicHockeyFan]

What if you own a second home. And only spend summers in Victoria in it, but would like to offer it to students from September to May. Ban that and you might find that stock is withdrawn. Careful for unintended consequences.

[North Shore]

Several Comrades on Vic Council have a solution for that, though - a tax on empty properties...

[MarkoJ]

One thing I think could be improved without fuss is education/disclosure. I often find tenants do not know what they are signing when they initial one-year lease with a fixed end date (does not revert month to month). 

 

The reason I think fixed end date/self terminated leases are unfair is I've seen many of my own clients over the years bully tenants with such leases.

 

At the same time I've seen some problematic tenants as well.

[PraiseKek]

Yeah I think if they ban terminating leases I'd stop renting out my unit. Not worth the risk of a bad tenant. 

[VicHockeyFan]

As a former forumer pointed out, on the same day the City allowed the removal of 200+ hotel units (Harbour Towers), they also clamped down on Air BnB.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 11 September 2017 - 07:01 AM.

[rjag]

As a former forumer pointed out, on the same day the City allowed the removal of 200+ hotel units (Harbour Towers), they also clamped down on Air BnB.

 

$10 orange juice hates competition

[DavidL]

There's a public hearing tomorrow followed by a vote at council to downzone a wide swath of the CoV.  It's being presented in terms of an administrative change or zoning "correction".  It is not.  It's much more than that.  Here's my letter to council on the topic:(fair warning it's a little long).

 

Mayor & Council,

 

The city of Victoria has been discussing short term vacation rentals, (STVRs), for over a year. Some believe that STVRs are responsible for rising property and rental prices, that STVRs are responsible for the lack of affordable housing in Victoria and that STVRs are responsible for the very low vacancy rate that exists in Victoria.  Considering that best estimates put legal vacation rentals at approximately 1% of the rental stock in Victoria, it seems a little dramatic to lay the blame for these issues at the feet of STVRs.

 

Regardless, the discussion to date has been about bringing in a regulatory regime to licence and regulate STVRs in the city, with a focus on taxation and enforcement.  Those of us who own legal and legitimate STVRs that contribute to the social good through employment, taxation and the retention of tourist dollars in the local economy have said from the beginning that the easiest first step to take would be to simply enforce the existing zoning bylaw. 

 

Victoria has zones in which STVRs are legal and legitimate, and STVRs are expressly permitted. However, there are many STVRs in zones in which they are not permitted.  These STVRs operate in contravention of existing zoning rules.  Council has taken no action to enforce the existing zoning bylaws. 

 

Last year city staff directly advised council that using rezoning as a tool to regulate STVRs would be overly blunt and ineffective.  Rezoning would not return one STVR to the long-term rental market, it would not produce one unit of affordable housing, it would have no affect on vacancy rates and it would not decrease property values.  All existing STVRs and their buildings would automatically become legal non-conforming, a status allowing current use to continue in perpetuity.  Instead, staff recommended enforcing existing zoning and looking at regulatory reform.

 

Naturally, less than two weeks ago, council gave first and second reading to a re-zoning amendment bylaw that will try to eliminate the legal and legitimate vacation rental zones by deleting the term “vacation rentals” from the transient accommodation definition.  Council has still not done anything to enforce the current zoning bylaw against STVRs in zones that do not allow them, but instead in this initiative has chosen to attack legal and legitimate STVRs.

 

This change affects thousands of owners and properties, not just the few active STVRs in affected zones.  If this were a land use decision that affected less than 10 owners or properties then the city would be required to notify those parties in writing. Ironically, because it affects so many more properties and owners, this change can be made with only one public hearing advertised in the local newspaper, likely leaving the majority of affected owners unaware.

 

This downzoning has been presented as just a correction or an administrative change to fix some oversight in the zoning bylaw language, going so far as to use the Orwellian term “Right-Zoning”.  Vacation rental inclusion in transient zoning was not a mistake.  The fact that vacation rentals are expressly contained in the transient accommodation definition alone proves that this use was both contemplated and approved by city councils and planners that long predate the current council.

 

Those leaders recognized the importance of the tourism industry to the city and saw vacation rentals as an important element in an overall accommodation sector strategy.  Should this council wish to overhaul the way STVRs are treated then they should bring forward their whole policy, including specific regulatory and enforcement proposals in addition to any rezoning at the same time.  Only this way can honest public input be sought by stakeholders and property owners, only this way can the overall strategy be evaluated and examined.

 

Two weeks and one public hearing is simply not acceptable for such a wide-reaching land use change that affects thousands of owners and properties and that is supposed to be part of an overall STVR policy.  Please consider voting down this amendment and waiting until such a time as a complete STVR policy package can be presented, in its entirety for evaluation and meaningful public input.

Edited by DavidL, 20 September 2017 - 06:35 AM.

[sdwright.vic]

Are there any real studies or statistics to back up this claim?

"Considering that best estimates put legal vacation rentals at approximately 1% of the rental stock..."

Edited by sdwright.vic, 20 September 2017 - 06:49 AM.

[VicHockeyFan]

Is there any real studies that say clamping down on Air BnB is positive to the tourism economy, other than it's good for traditional hotels?

[DavidL]

Are there any real studies or statistics to back up this claim?

"Considering that best estimates put legal vacation rentals at approximately 1% of the rental stock..."

 

City's consultants report on short term vacation rentals presented to council approximately one year ago. 

[spanky123]

^ As I referenced about a month ago, the rental vacancy rate in the CRD hasn't changed substantially during the past decade. What has changed in the past 2 years is that housing prices have increased susbstantially as they have across Canada. As housing prices have increased so have rental rates. 

 

Craigslist shows almost 1,000 places for rent in the CRD. There is no shortage of housing, there is a shortage of housing for the $600 a month that the social justice warriors seem to think should be available for everyone.