Not all rooming houses are created equal

The problem with one-size-fitsall solutions is simple: Not everyone will be happy. We saw that happen Monday when city council, sitting as planning committee, discussed changes to the rules concerning local rooming houses. Councillors gave preliminary approval to a proposed bylaw that would require anyone renting out one room or more in their home to get a business licence.

The move comes after years of debate about rooming houses. Most of the concerns raised by members of the public over the years relate to houses in residential neighbourhoods that are occupied by several unrelated people, renting bedrooms and sharing kitchens and bathrooms. Many of these rooming houses are operating illegally, under the city’s radar. The transient nature and the social or criminal concerns raised by the behaviour of some of these tenants led to the call for stronger rules.

The licence requirement would force landlords to go on the record with the number of rooms they offer for rent, giving the city a better sense of how many are out there.

However, there is no simple way to apply new rules to those types of rooming houses and not others, councillors learned. And as this new set of rules took shape – leading to Monday night’s preliminary OK – council heard from a different kind of rooms-to-rent owners.

Some of them spoke out at Monday’s meeting, pointing out to councillors that they are local people who own a small number of larger older homes that they rent out to students. Most are in the “student ghetto” area, just north of downtown and along bus routes to Trent and Fleming. These speakers told council that they run the houses by the book, insisting on leases, meeting with parents and making sure the young, often first-time tenants have a plan in place to peacefully co-exist, “like a family,” one of them said.

Their buildings are up to code and wellmaintained, and they make up a network of local landlords, updating each other on changes and key information to make sure their tenants, and the people living around them, are safe and secure.

Why, they wondered, should they be lumped in with the others, the often absent landlords whose buildings become targets of neighbourhood noise complaints, of police visits, of health and safety violations? Forcing them to take out licences will add to costs, which will either force them out of this situation – leaving students at the mercy of less scrupulous landlords – or drive up room rents, making them unaffordable.

Provincial law, pointed out Coun. Dean Pappas, who said that as much as cities would like to, zoning and bylaws can’t be applied based on who’s living in a house only on the properties themselves.

“We have to put them all in the same basket, no other choice,” added Coun. Keith Riel.

The public has one more chance to speak to council about this issue, at the meeting of full council on June 26, before the final vote on these rules. Some of these landlords may speak then. But there’s not much to be done. The city has to do something to solve a longstanding problem, and this bylaw is the wisest approach. Unfortunately, as in many cases, the handful of people doing the right thing will be affected.