In our last post, we wrote about the city of New Westminster’s decision to utilize the province’s new tool by rezoning six privately-owned stratified buildings as rental-only. The decision was taken to curb the growing number of ‘renovictions’ in the city, where units that had been rentals for decades are put up for sale, causing tenants to be evicted.
There are lots of concerns about this kind of rezoning decision. For one thing, the ‘rental-only rezoning tool’ is the first of its kind anywhere in North America, and the city of New Westminster is the first to use it. So we’re really the guinea pigs of this tool, and I think it’s a problem that its first use is to take away property rights from private landowners.
These owners have been paying property taxes on the highest and best use of their land for decades. They’ve chosen to rent out their units, but they’ve always been free to sell units or the whole building if they saw fit. To have the city come in and suddenly decide for them how they can use their primary investment is definitely a shock to them. It’s also a scary precedent that sends fear up the spines of all property owners in New West and all of B.C. The values of their properties will plummet with this decision, and the targets seem arbitrary.
These owners, I feel, should be entitled to the tax differential they’ve paid for, a stratified building over a purpose-built rental building. They deserve a refund on the property taxes for at least the last three or four years, if not for the entirety of their ownership. This would amount to tens of thousands of dollars.
It’s the pure prerogative of any municipality to set development standards. They can determine that this land will be used for a school, this land for a railroad, etc. This is always a pain for some, and a boon for others. But the time to discuss these issues is during the community involvement period. However, the B.C. Supreme Court has acknowledged that while municipalities have the responsibility to provide a forum for the pubic, they’re under no obligation to actually listen.
About three years ago, there was an injunction against a project in Vancouver. The council passed a permit, but there was never a consultation period. The judge ordered a halt to construction because they didn’t follow the proper process. They were required to have a consultation – they can’t skip any steps in the process.
These owners were never notified of first or second readings about the decision to rezone their property. They learned about the decision through others in their industry, and they did manage to attend the final public hearing, two weeks after the bylaw had been introduced. Despite their protests, the law was passed. I feel that much more time should have been given to the ramifications of the decision – especially since, as I’ve stated, this is the first timethis kind of tool has ever been used in North America.
The owners are taking the city to the B.C. Supreme Court over the decision, and I wish them well in their attempts to walk back the rights that have been taken from them.
I believe the only involvement from government should be to make land available for development. They should be actively looking for ways to reduce the cost of land so that our drastic shortage of housing supply can be remedied. The primary target for this, as we’ve written about, is ALR land.If our government, at all three levels, focused on easing the path of development, instead of looking for more and better scapegoats for an out-of-control affordability crisis, I think we’d all be better served.
