Amendment Enhanced TRPP Protections – Villages

Thank you. Yeah, we've all seen this amendment. It's because the single-acre stairs is still on the docket, and it's about applying the TRPP to those sites as well. Probably don't have to debate it much further, but that's the amendment.

Thank you. Do you have a seconder? Great. Councillor Fry seconded. Seeing no one else in the queue, why don't we put it to a vote? Sorry. Sorry. Councillor Bligh.

Yeah, thanks. I appreciate the spirit of this amendment. I actually think it opens up a number of risks. And one of the main risks is that the... tendency uh for landlords to be willing to vote out to rent out their basement suites if they are compelled through a trpp actually and we've we've actually looked at this before and we've gotten feedback from staff that this so before we implement i think It really needs to be talked about and analyzed with what does the data show us? Because while I appreciate the spirit of it in protecting the tenants, what happens is landlords are less likely to rent out their basement suites if they are going to be accountable to what is often tenant protections that they can't necessarily fulfill. My concern in the past when we've looked at this is that There may be an unintended consequences if landlord might, you know, use Airbnb or something to generate revenue for their basement suite instead of actually allowing a permanent tenant to be. So while it may support existing tenants, I think it actually harms our available affordable rental stock in the long run, or it could. And so without that data, I can't just simply support that asking staff to bring back amendments. I'd much prefer a report back to better understand what are these conditions looking like today and how do we address. I think the spirit of this amendment is trying to protect tenants, which I agree with. But the unintended consequence can be actually reducing affordable housing stock for renters across our city at a time we can't afford to lose any of that space. So I can't support it because I think the way it's been drafted is too prescriptive.

Thank you. Councillor Maloney.

Yeah, I also have similar concerns because what we need to do is make sure that these are viable. And I think we've heard several times in recent months from staff that apartments just aren't being built. Small scale apartments just aren't being built where there is a requirement that inclusive zoning or other impositions be put on it. And I absolutely agree that we need to be looking after tenants more. We need so much work to be done. There's a lot of other things that are available to us, like the social housing initiative that was voted down, like building... more affordable housing in conjunction with funding from senior levels of government. And we heard that from staff this morning, that a deeper level of subsidy from senior levels of government is required to make sure that all levels, we're providing housing with all levels of affordability. And I think that's the thing about The Villagers Plan and my proposed body of work that was voted down in relation to supporting retail areas with more accessible, affordable housing choices is that we need more housing supply at every level of affordability, but we don't want to make sure that single-stair egress housing can't be built because it's not viable or it discourages people from entering into that because of additional restrictions that aren't currently on those forms of housing. So that was a little bit garbled but I'm just trying to explain that I really appreciate the intent of this and I care very deeply about providing more affordable housing options. But if people aren't willing to...

either develop or open their homes to tenants, then we're kind of shooting ourselves in the foot. Mr Fry?

Yeah, I do support this amendment wholeheartedly. I... Like a lot of us, I think I've been out there doing a lot of door knocking. And I am actually flabbergasted the extent to which there are still so many shared houses with tenants across our city from Dunbar to the drive. It's there's a lot of folks who are living in this. sort of secondary rental stock, which may or may not have been legally converted into multiple apartments within a house, but there certainly are a lot of them. And I think as we contemplate how the single egress stare kind of vernacular would... potentially accelerate the interest to knock down these houses and build replacement apartments in their stead. I think we do need to recognize that there's folks living there and that we are potentially creating interest in developing those lots. And I think that we've long talked about extending TRPP to more of that secondary stock and recognizing that... There are a lot of people, and I think the villagers' plan, and it was originally contemplated, there was, what, 7,000 people that were potentially at risk, tenants, renters in our city that could be kind of displaced. I think this is an important consideration that staff could report back on, and so I do support it.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bligh.

Yeah, thanks very much. I just want a point of information through you to the chair is, to staff, sorry, is the interpretation of this amendment.

Because it's asking staff to prepare amendments, not to report back. And I just want to make sure all counselors, because some of the comments have sort of suggested that we're going to get some information back. And that's not what this is asking for. It's asking for amendments to the TRPP.

Right, but amendments, okay, I didn't necessarily read that as a report back so much as it would be amending it, which can be quite different, right? We get a report back, we make a decision, we shape it, and then we amend it. And so maybe it doesn't need clarification from staff, but yeah, I think I'll, well, actually, I would like to hear from staff their interpretation of it.

Okay, that's helpful. And part of that review, sorry, Dan, part of that review right now includes expanding to single-family lots, essentially.

But you don't have that decided yet?

Yeah, okay, okay.

Well, thank you very much, Dan. Yeah, I appreciate that.

No, I appreciate the, as I've alluded to, and I, you know, in other comments, Councillor Frye and others speaking quite confidently about this approach. I don't think we have that data, and so I'm not sure how you could be quite so confident that this is not going to have an unintended consequence of reducing available affordable rental stock, and that's my priority. So, yeah, I mean, I'd be happy to get that information back. It sounds like it's already coming back from staff at a future time regardless. So I'll probably just abstain at this point because I feel like this work is likely to be underway. And I don't think I have enough information to support it outright. But I'm certainly not opposed to it outright.

Thank you. Councillor Maloney.

Point of information to staff through the Chair. Yeah, I'm interested in knowing would the TRPP review, if this was incorporated, include an economic impact or impact on viability so that we could make an informed decision about whether it was going to have a negative effect on the supply of Housing.

All right. Well, look, that would allow a bit more informed decision to be made. So I'm persuaded I'll support this. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, so why don't we put that to a vote?

Okay, thank you. And that fails with myself, Councillors Kirby Young, Don Minato, Montague Claston, Meisner and Joe in opposition and Councillor Bligh abstaining. Okay, so going back to the main queue, Councillor Orr.