Better tenant protection is essential

Today, let’s discuss a couple of local issues where there is some right, some wrong and some grey areas.

First, the plight of a small group of tenants, the sole remaining occupants in a deteriorating 60-unit apartment complex at 1083 Main St. E. at Hamilton’s Delta.

Due to freezing and burst pipes, the landlord shut off the building’s water supply to prevent flooding on Dec. 28. And these people, still paying rent, have been without running water ever since, living off bottled water, supplied by the city.

This is not one of the grey areas. If it seems ridiculous that paying tenants could be coming up on two months without running water, that’s because it is. Can you imagine losing one of your vital utilities, but still having to pay the utility bill? Landlords are not allowed to shut off heat in the winter, how can they be allowed to keep the water shut off?

Documents that are part of the case say the building’s water system is shot and needs to be completely replaced. The owner says that to accomplish that and other renovations the tenants have to leave. Staying would expose them to safety risks, the documents state. Tenants say they’re not going, and cannot afford to considering skyrocketing rents in the city.

In one case, they pay a little less than $1,350 a month rent plus hydro for a two-bedroom unit. If they are forced into the open market, they will be looking at rents for comparable units of $2,300 monthly. That’s not a viable increase for people of limited means, so there’s no grey area there, either.

That this is happening in 2023 in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, is evidence of a couple of things. First, the city must make developing and implementing an “anti-renoviction” bylaw a priority. It needs to protect people who face eviction and don’t have other reasonable options. In this case the landlord offered a month’s accommodation, but at a motel on the North Service Road in Stoney Creek. For people without cars, that’s not a reasonable option.

Is the owner in this case simply trying to get rid of existing tenants for the express purpose of renovating and re-renting at higher and more profitable rates? Or is the owner correct in asserting that doing the renovations will put residents in danger? Or could both things be true?

We don’t know, but a properly constructed bylaw would help answer that in future cases, and even prevent future incidents. So would provincial legislation that actually works. The province says it has “taken decisive measures to strengthen tenant protections,” and yet here we are.

This case is extreme, but hardly unique. And we can’t compel the province to act if it isn’t interested. But we can develop local legislation that would help, so that should be the priority.

None of this will help the people in this case. They must wait for a March 8 Landlord and Tenant Board hearing. But it shouldn’t have come to this in the first place.

Next up, Hamilton city council’s deliberations on the provincial government’s controversial housing pledge.

First, local councillors were cool to the idea, which they called a stunt and an attempt to make it seem as if local governments support provincial housing initiatives, which in many cases they do not. Take the forced expansion of Hamilton’s urban boundary for example. Some also observed, correctly, that signing on to hard numbers gives the province someone else to blame if the targets aren’t met.

In our case, the target is for 47,000 new homes by 2031, which is well above the 35,600 target contained in the city’s official plan. Why should city council support a target that isn’t even supported in our own plan?

Because, Mayor Andrea Horwath argued, to oppose the province’s pledge would only “thumb our nose at the government” and make it seem like Hamilton is giving “a black eye” to the province.

Right? Wrong? A bit of both? Horwath knows her council, and many local citizens as well, don’t entirely support Ontario’s housing strategy. But she also knows she, and Hamilton, have to get along in the Ford universe.

A tough balancing act, indeed, but one the mayor and council need to manage.