Wonderful Waterloo Archive

This site is maintained by Sam Nabi as a record of the vibrant Wonderful Waterloo community, which was taken offline in 2014. This site is a partial archive, containing some posts from 2009-2013. To read more about the recovery effort and access the data in a machine-readable format, check out the GitHub page.

Waterloo's Rental Licensing Bylaw

Post #21958 12-30-2010 11:12 AM Ktown4ever	Waterloo's Rental Licensing Bylaw www.waterloo.ca/rhlr This was posted yesterday on City of Waterloo website: The City of Waterloo has been investigating in a program to license the business of renting residential units for the purposes of protecting the health, safety and welfare of residents in low-rise residential rental units. A report on a proposed rental licensing bylaw will be available on Thursday, Jan. 6, 2011 for public review and consideration. The report outlines a proposed new rental licensing system in the City of Waterloo for low-density residential units (not including apartments). Staff will table the report at City of Waterloo council on Monday, Jan. 10, 2011 for information. Following the release of the report to council, the public consultation phase for the report will begin. It is anticipated city council will consider a rental licensing bylaw in February. Public consultation As part of the public consultation process, the city will be holding a series of open houses. Staff will be available to discuss the proposed bylaw and answer any questions. Copies of the report, including the proposed bylaw, will be available starting on Thursday, Jan. 6, 2011 on this page or for pick-up at Waterloo City Centre, Bylaw Department (first floor), 100 Regina St. S., Waterloo. Please join us at one of the following open houses: Thursday, Jan. 13, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 20, 2011 at 3 p.m. – 5 p.m. The open houses will be at the Hauser Haus, Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex, 101 Father David Bauer Dr., Waterloo. Due to space limitations, please email http://www.city.waterloo.on.ca/Deskt...spx?tabid=2227
Post #22329 01-07-2011 01:46 PM Ktown4ever Village Member Joined Jan 2010 59 posts	Waterloo plans to be first to introduce rental licences January 6, 2011 \| Jeff Outhit \| Waterloo Region Record \| Link WATERLOO — Waterloo proposes to become the first local city to regulate landlords who rent houses, charging them $1.2 million a year for rental licences. Critics see it as a costly red-tape headache that will dissuade people from renting out bedrooms and houses. “It’s really an attack on the Mom-and-Pop operation,” said Glenn Trachsel, of the Waterloo Regional Apartment Management Association. He predicts it will lead to a housing shortage. Proponents say rental regulation will improve property standards and tenant safety.
Post #22331 01-07-2011 03:10 PM Greg Moore Urban Issues Moderator Belmont Villiage Joined Dec 2009 240 posts The opinions expressed in my messages may not be the shared opinions of Wonderful Waterloo E-mail me! - accessibility@wonderfulwaterloo.com	Hey big brother. Stay the hell out of my bedroom. Perhaps I can understand going after properties where three or more rooms are rented, but going after people who rent one room in a house they live in is unconscionable. They even want access to this room! Ridiculous. Rent will go up a minimum of $40/month the first year. For what value? None. Tenants already have rights. Cities already have ways of shutting down unsafe residences. This is nothing more than a tax grab and behind the scenes way to micromanage development. What are the landlords rights if the city refuses to renew a license? Floor, maintenance and parking plans? Are we going to pay some bureaucrat to comb over these plans to make sure they are legit? The city wants all landlords to expend money and effort for zero value to those it will most effect. I'm sure this is a reaction to how poor a job they've done managing Northdale and the rest of publicly owned student housing. Now every person who rents out a room or two in the city will have to pay the price. More and more I hope we get rid of Waterloo council before my unit at 144 Park St is complete.
Post #22333 01-07-2011 03:21 PM mpd618 Metropolis Member Waterloo, ON Joined Jan 2010 1004 posts	Originally Posted by Greg Moore More and more I hope we get rid of Waterloo council before my unit at 144 Park St is complete. Waterloo Council hasn't had a say yet - so far it's a staff proposal. Please let them know what you think. I'm very concerned myself at how the 3 bedroom limit has been arbitrarily inserted into the licensing by-law. There's very little justification, and certainly none for it being hidden away as a supposedly necessary part of a rental licensing program. For anyone interested in reading the staff report and the proposed by-law, you can find it on page 15 of the packet for Monday's Committee of the Whole.
Post #22336 01-07-2011 04:05 PM ViewFromThe42 Town Member Waterloo, ON Joined Dec 2010 139 posts Eventually, you can't go on not caring. You realize you have a voice. Sending your LRT thoughts to a local paper or politician? Send them to letters@wonderfulwaterloo.com as well, so that we can post them, and ensure your voice will not fall on deaf ears.	I feel I have seen both sides. On one hand, a friend stayed in a room of an older empty-nester couple. For her, the quiet and mature company served her education well. On the other hand, I thought once that it would be a good idea to rent a bachelor apartment in the basement of a co-worker from a co-op placement. Only after signing the year-long lease did he reveal that the shower was broken (took 10 weeks for him to repair it because he wanted to use a friend for cost reasons), the toilet needed replacing (also done by the friend, and for six weeks I had no toilet), the freezer in the fridge was wonky and broke (no freezer for 8 weeks), I would never be given notice of entry into my unit, and eventually the elements listed in the lease came under his attention. He put them there to ensure I wouldn't damage things like the fridge and stove, but admitted he didn't realize it also guaranteed me access to them when I confronted him about trying to sell the appliances out of my unit to pay for the three new vehicles he and his girlfriend had bought. Just as some of the larger group landlords want a bunch of poorly-maintained houses in locations that will always fill with tenants to be their cash cow, some individuals also feel that they can rent out rooms or make basement apartments in their place to supplement their income without having any responsibilities attached. Fair as well, both situations also have their share of responsible landlords, and I've had those too. As much as development controls are needed to avoid the issues of Northdale, the same goes for enforcement of the properties themselves, something that has been poorly done. Just as with traffic: since no one ever seems to get tickets for failing to signal, failing to yield right of way, failing to stop for stop signs or lights, these illegal acts have become daily occurrences, thought of as trivial by those shrugging them off, until the consequences of them, dire as they can be, finally strike home.
Post #22337 01-07-2011 04:27 PM benjaminbach Town Member Kitchener Waterloo Joined Oct 2010 294 posts Benjamin Bach, Director at KW Commercial Realty, Sales Rep. \| Read my real estate investment blog Not intended to solicit clients or properties under contract.	The proposed by-law is terrible - it will have a dramatic impact on property values if approved as is. At a minimum, currently licensed propertiesneed to be fully grandfathered in, including upon sale I have been asked to sit on the KW Real Estate Board's committee that address the Residential Rental Licensing; we're meeting Monday to discuss the proposed by-law, and I'd be happy to present some WonderfulWaterloo opinions too.
Post #22338 01-07-2011 04:29 PM benjaminbach Town Member Kitchener Waterloo Joined Oct 2010 294 posts Benjamin Bach, Director at KW Commercial Realty, Sales Rep. \| Read my real estate investment blog Not intended to solicit clients or properties under contract.	Originally Posted by mpd618 I'm very concerned myself at how the 3 bedroom limit has been arbitrarily inserted into the licensing by-law. Yup. This will affect every licensed lodging unit in Waterloo. Has HUGE implications for property values, the city's tax base, investors equity, etc.
Post #22339 01-07-2011 04:35 PM Spokes Metropolis Member Kitchener Joined Dec 2009 4967 posts	Is this their way of controlling homes that are/could be student residences?
Post #22340 01-07-2011 04:54 PM benjaminbach Town Member Kitchener Waterloo Joined Oct 2010 294 posts Benjamin Bach, Director at KW Commercial Realty, Sales Rep. \| Read my real estate investment blog Not intended to solicit clients or properties under contract.	Originally Posted by Spokes Is this their way of controlling homes that are/could be student residences? It wouldn't affect apartment buildings, basically purpose built 4 plexes and larger, but would regulate everything smaller, including all currently licensed lodging houses
Post #22352 01-08-2011 03:13 PM benjaminbach Town Member Kitchener Waterloo Joined Oct 2010 294 posts Benjamin Bach, Director at KW Commercial Realty, Sales Rep. \| Read my real estate investment blog Not intended to solicit clients or properties under contract.	reposted with permission from a local investor: "Good evening, My Name is Mark S. I reside in Waterloo, just on the border of Northdale I am a former UW grad I am a Student Landlord with 13 properties / 65 beds Unlike many of my colleges I am unfortunately or fortunate not to be so elegant when it comes to formal speaking. Those who know me, know that I tell it as I see it. So WHAT THE HELL! I have seen a lot of crap come out of city hall – but nothing to the extent of this piece of CRAP! Is staff actually serious? Was there any thought put into this at all? In fact I have to question the hiring practices here at City Hall. If I had a company that an executive proposed that a large section of my holdings be de-valued with NO apparent gain = they would be FIRED!!! Again, I seriously have to question the decision making abilities of the personnel that drafted this, and the reasons you will hear from myself & countless others. My taxes pay their salaries, and frankly, I only see incompetence and a total waste of resources when I look at this proposal! This proposal is so beyond reality, that I demand to know how much time & my tax paying money went into this waste of paper! Why is it even being proposed? This is a result of the City of Waterloo, 20 years ago, setting up a license system for Student Lodging Houses so that there was SAFE, AFFORDABLE, housing for students and to lessen any negative impact on the neighbourhoods, these LEGAL LICENCED LODGING HOUSES would be a minimum distance of 75M, later changed to 150m. This CITY RUN system told Investors WHERE & WHAT they could buy as an investment. These investors then paid a PREMIUM for these properties, paid HIGHER TAXES than their unlicensed neighbours, paid for FIRE CODE upgrades, and SAFETY INSPECTIONS – ALARMS ETC., each year, and the city a LICENSE FEE!!!!!!! Well it failed. It failed because of the cities inability to enforce their own rules. So what now? – the City is going to tell all these people that after setting a 20 year precedent, that everything that the city had imposed and agreed to is now thrown out the window, and our investments, our retirements, our Children’s Educational funds, mean nothing to them & we can all take a hike! I DO NOT THINK SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Again – what the HELL are you thinking!!!!!!!!! The proposal comes off with this arrogant attitude that since Oshawa won a few law suites that Waterloo can do what ever they want without fear of losing in Court. Well let me tell you – don’t change this proposal and we’ll see!!!! Oshawa did NOT set a 20 year precedent with respect to Student Housing – and they DID allow a number of pre-by-law units to operate outside their new by-law. So when quoting other legal actions, staff once again has come up incompetent. These facts would win our cause in any court since Canadian law is based on precedent. The city also is trying to stage the battle on a “safe housing” platform, which when it comes to LEGAL LICENCED LODGING HOUSES – any reference that they are unsafe is a blatant LIE! Also, their entire argument that a house with 3 renters is safer than 5 is so ridiculous I am not even going to go into it. Also, if they want to go down that road = then how is it that a wood constructed apartment building on Columbia holding 25 students – that has the same fire code as a LEGAL LICENSED LODGING HOUSE - be any safer??? Logic would determine that if there were a fire, there is a 5 times greater chance of someone getting hurt – so once again = WHAT THE HELL !!!!!! The city better start differentiating between LEGAL LICNESED LODGING HOUSING and all the illegally run units out there, especially in the media. I know I personally have NO issue with the city controlling the rash of UNLICENCSED & UNSAFE student housing. The housing that does not comply with the existing LEGAL LICENSED LODING HOUSE rules = that does not comply with the minimum separation rules, to the present safety rules, should be expected to be upheld to the same level and the same requirements of a Legal Licensed Lodging House. There must be an even playing field when it comes to Safety and playing by the rules. But I am SICK of the constant attacks from the city on the very people that have been playing by the rules for over 20 years!!!!! So who wins with this proposal? The Landlords certainly do not win – too many reasons to list and you will hear them all – over & over. The small contractor, electrician, Landscaper, - they all stand to lose The Students = if this is imposed -Rents would certainly rise significantly! I have rents ranging from $395/mnth to 450/mnth. A city preferred student accommodation such as the new LUX building has rent over $635 /mnth !!!!!!! I guess WLU & UW are schools for the UTLRA rich – since the city is driving out any affordable housing. I am sure that is the message that both Universities want – “ Come study here – we’ll drain you dry “. There is also the whole argument of sharing costs of a unit such as cable, internet, etc. So do any of you have kids planning on going to, or already at University? Where do they live? What do they pay? How about we double that? The City = What does it win??? A devalued tax base A multitude of Court cases A system that is so vast that they will not be able to police it anyway. Does the city have an underlining agenda, connected with WLU or a major developer to drive down property values so that they can come in and buy up at a low cost?? Nothing less make sense and this would be criminal! This could be the costliest screw up the City could ever do! Does anyone on staff read a newspaper or watch TV?? Can you say – AMERICAN STYLE HOUSING CRISIS IN WATERLOO Staff is delusional if they think that the devaluation will stop with the Lodging houses. My own personal house is on the Northdale border and I absolutely believe that my value will go down the toilet once the flood gates are opened. There is going to be a great sucking vortex of devaluation on every property within miles of WLU & UW. You are going to have the same American issues – properties now not worth what is owed. Bank foreclosures. What bank is going to mortgage any property within any distance of such a drastic devaluation? What bank would get involved in a City that would do that to it’s people? Who would ever invest in Waterloo after seeing what City hall does to it’s investors? And you think it is a student ghetto now – just wait!!! You take away 40+ % of a properties income as well as it’s value and where do you think the money for repairs is going to come from, and add in the fact that no one will or can buy these properties since the bank won’t touch them? Again staff must have really thought this all through! Again WHAT THE HELL !!!!!! I am totally dumb founded by the total lack of judgment by staff. I do call for an inquiry to how such an overall STUPID proposal could even be tabled! WATERLOO will go down the toilet – I personally will be (trying) to sell my own home – which after investing mega dollars in over the years – I now except to lose on = I thank you for that! But I will not live in a City that is a mini version of Communist North Korea – Where the government thinks they can walk in & just take what I have been working for all my life! We have rights in this Country and I will fight this till the bitter end. IF THIS REDICULOUS proposal were to ever pass, you can bet one thing, I WILL NOT COMPLY !!!!!!!!!! I hope you are ready for a cat & mouse game with over 1100 units. Also, for example, I have a house with 5 bedrooms – I sign a lease with 3 people on it – if by some reason you ever got into that house = which under every privacy law – ever human right – you will never set foot in – and you find 5 people = then what ??? I have a lease for 3 = who are these other 2 people? Friends staying over? Did the students rent the rooms out themselves? How can I as a Landlord control that?? You can try to charge me, but I’ll fight it. I am sure as well as the 1100+ other Landlords will do the same. I guess the purpose of this proposal is to tie the City up in 50 years of court cases. I am sure the people of this city will think that is a great use of their tax paying money! One thing this proposal has already done is unite every Investor to a common front against you the city. You are messing with people’s livelihoods, their retirements, their Educational Funds, and their own personal homes. We are mad as hell! I ask what kind of response did you expect? Again, is staff that naïve? This is about as personal as a subject can get and we will not take it lying down. Bluntly – either work with us or this will become a NIGHTMARE – Without our cooperation this will backfire and the city will have even less control. For again I say, as well as I am sure that every INVESTOR in the city says – WE WILL NOT PUT UP WITH THIS! WE WILL NOT COMPLY! AND PREPARE FOR THE FIGHT OF YOUR LIFE!"
Post #22358 01-08-2011 10:19 PM BuildingScout Urban Issues Moderator Joined Jul 2010 394 posts	This bylaw is very much in the spirit of the anti-student anti-universities regulations that so dominated city council during the 1990s. In this case it comes from the bureaucrats. I hope city council shoots them down.
Post #22364 01-09-2011 02:26 AM mpd618 Metropolis Member Waterloo, ON Joined Jan 2010 1004 posts	I have to ask the obvious: who will profit from this by-law? It is clearly focused on decreasing the supply of rentals in houses and of making rentals in houses extraordinarily difficult and expensive. It seeks to funnel everything to apartment buildings on "nodes and corridors". That means - new student apartment buildings and new construction. Honestly, it seems fishy. What are the connections between City of Waterloo staff and local developers? And, for that matter, between them and Laurier, which would enjoy the lower property values for expansion purposes.
Post #22366 01-09-2011 09:48 AM jay Moderator Bauer Lofts, Waterloo Joined Dec 2009 673 posts	I'm sceptical if this will even proceed as is. You would think they would be required to grandfather in existing rentals. From the article above that Benjamin posted.. The person is correct by saying that these new "wood buildings" are no safer than existing homes from a fire perceptive. It's joke really. Most of those buildings are constructed in very quick and cheap fashion. Also mpd618 makes a good point on who profits from this..
Post #22367 01-09-2011 10:05 AM benjaminbach Town Member Kitchener Waterloo Joined Oct 2010 294 posts Benjamin Bach, Director at KW Commercial Realty, Sales Rep. \| Read my real estate investment blog Not intended to solicit clients or properties under contract.	Originally Posted by jay I'm sceptical if this will even proceed as is. You would think they would be required to grandfather in existing rentals Good point Jay. As I wrote to a client this morning "I'd be surprised to see it approved as is, but I don't get a vote.." As BuildingScout notes, this draft was written by staff, not elected officials, and still has lots of editing from Council to go through before it is passed into law. Call and email your Councillor, and let the mayor know that we should be cracking down on illegal rentals and slum landlords, not penalizing good decent investors & managers.
Post #22388 01-10-2011 08:49 AM Robert Hamlet Member Joined Sep 2010 18 posts	My understanding is that the bylaw was intended to address the problem of landlords buying houses, subdividing them into 10 different units for students or low income tenants, and then landlords doing little or no maintenance as they petition the City to rezone their land for high density apartments. The City is concerned that sooner or later there will be a fire in one of these over populated houses, and tenants will die because there are insufficient exits. At the moment, the City has no legal means to enter any rental properties to even see if landlord "renovations" comply with the Building Code and Fire Code. This Bylaw was intended to give the City the ability to do inspections, and then withhold rental licences until and unless Code violations were fixed. Maybe somewhere along the line it became a tax grab, but as others have said, at the moment the Bylaw is just a first draft by staff that councillors are just now getting a look at. If you are concerned, please let our councillor know what you think, keeping in mind we need something in place to address slum landlords.
Post #22391 01-10-2011 09:15 AM benjaminbach Town Member Kitchener Waterloo Joined Oct 2010 294 posts Benjamin Bach, Director at KW Commercial Realty, Sales Rep. \| Read my real estate investment blog Not intended to solicit clients or properties under contract.	Originally Posted by Robert My understanding is that the bylaw was intended to address the problem of landlords buying houses, subdividing them into 10 different units for students or low income tenants, and then landlords doing little or no maintenance as they petition the City to rezone their land for high density apartments. The City is concerned that sooner or later there will be a fire in one of these over populated houses, and tenants will die because there are insufficient exits. At the moment, the City has no legal means to enter any rental properties to even see if landlord "renovations" comply with the Building Code and Fire Code. This Bylaw was intended to give the City the ability to do inspections, and then withhold rental licences until and unless Code violations were fixed. Maybe somewhere along the line it became a tax grab, but as others have said, at the moment the Bylaw is just a first draft by staff that councillors are just now getting a look at. If you are concerned, please let our councillor know what you think, keeping in mind we need something in place to address slum landlords. Hey Robert Waterloo currently has a regulated lodging license program, and has the authority to crack down on non licensed houses. There is a current framework to ensure tenant safety that has existed for a long time, that owners have spent lots of money complying with. The city is proposing to limit the size of any rental to 3 bedrooms, except for young kids, as well as not permitting any legal non conforming units to continue ("Compliance with Existing By Laws - Owner attests that property meets existing zoning by-laws."). This means that an owner of a licensed triplex for 15 - 3 separate units for 5, fully approved by the fire department (lodging houses are inspected regularly for safety issues) in a GRA2 zone - which no longer allows for triplexes, but has many grandfathered in currently - would only be able to rent to 6 (3 in 2 units) and have to evict 7 tenants. For the owner, that means at 65,000 a bed, the property has gone down in value from 975,000 to 390,000. If an owner has a 65% Loan to Value mortgage on the building (so, a 35% downpayment), they would have a $633,750 mortgage on the property. If the value is reduced to $390,000, they now owe the bank $240,000 more than the rental property is now worth. They have to write a cheque for that amount when they sell, and an even bigger cheque to be able to refinance. Plus, now 7 students are out of a house! They've been kicked out of a $450 a month rental, and have to move into one of the $525 -675 a month rentals dotting King, Columbia and Lester. <sarcasm> Seems like a good deal all around . . . </sarcasm>
Post #22392 01-10-2011 09:16 AM benjaminbach Town Member Kitchener Waterloo Joined Oct 2010 294 posts Benjamin Bach, Director at KW Commercial Realty, Sales Rep. \| Read my real estate investment blog Not intended to solicit clients or properties under contract.	Originally Posted by Robert If you are concerned, please let our councillor know what you think, keeping in mind we need something in place to address slum landlords. No one likes slum landlors, and those aren't the one this will punish. Slum landlords don't follow the rules now, why will they follow new rules? We need more enforcement for slum landlords, and we need to not punish owners who play by the rules. PS the Council meeting tonight is at 6:30 and you're all invited to come
Post #22393 01-10-2011 09:47 AM BuildingScout Urban Issues Moderator Joined Jul 2010 394 posts	Originally Posted by Robert My understanding is that the bylaw was intended to address the problem of landlords buying houses, subdividing them into 10 different units for students or low income tenants, and then landlords doing little or no maintenance as they petition the City to rezone their land for high density apartments. So to address the problem of slum landlords we charge all law abiding landlords a high yearly registration fee and prevent them from renting their entire property? How exactly does that address the issue of slum landlords?
Post #22394 01-10-2011 09:56 AM Spokes Metropolis Member Kitchener Joined Dec 2009 4967 posts	Originally Posted by benjaminbach PS the Council meeting tonight is at 6:30 and you're all invited to come Just really want to emphasize this as it'll be on the agenda tonight.
Post #22400 01-10-2011 12:25 PM Wloon Hamlet Member Joined Feb 2010 29 posts	"anti-universities". WLU's campus master plan drew a boundary around Northdale and called it a nice area for landbanking for future campus expansion. They have repeatedly told the residents the properties in Northdale were too expensive. The city failed to keep the promises to the residents that were made during the 2004 SAS process. Now that the remaining homeowners can't sell their homes to "families" or for non-student uses, this bylaw slams a ceiling on their property values. The mayor sits on the boards of both universities. Last spring the two universities presented their proposal for Northdale to council. (it's in the packet of the minutes from the meeting in 2009 regarding the Northdale Land Use study. Jan D'ailly repeatedly talked about expropriation (universities have the power to do this) starting with his first meeting with us in 2006. He also said (it's in the Chronicle and on record on the council minute recording) that the city could drive down property values in Northdale. Anti-university? I think not.