It being
pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this
matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection
therewith:
·
J.
Hoffer, Cohen Highley, representing the London Property Management
Association – providing the attached submission.
·
S.
Palmer, 301 Consortium Court – indicating that she is speaking for several
landlords and property managers to express concern related to the lack of
focus on non-compliance with the by-law; questioning what is being done about
those landlords who are not applying, and indicating that the fee increase is
not justified.
·
C.
McKone, 23 Applewood Lane – noting that he is representing a small group of
landlords, with 32 building currently licensed under this by-law; advising
that he has embraced the program even though he disagrees with it and that
the fee increase is penalizing people who are doing a good job.
·
G.
Anthony, 530 Elizabeth Street – posing questions related to the references
cited about the City of Oshawa by-law and suggesting that the City of London
is not comparable because the rental revenue levels are quite different.
·
S.
Morrison, 803 Waterloo Street – indicating that he owns 6 or 7 rental
properties in Old North and noting agreement with previous comments in
opposition to the proposed fee increase; advising that this program is
already very expensive for small landlords and that it is not fair that other
rental properties aren’t paying anything; further noting that the increased
license fee will result in less building maintenance and will negatively
affect his business; suggesting that the by-law isn’t increasing safety, but
is a punitive tax on small landlords.
·
V.
VanLinden, 431 Ridgewood Crescent – offering to the committee a “tenant’s”
point of view, noting she has lived in this type of rental housing most of
her life; noting that low-income individuals choose this type of housing and
support for affordable housing, while stating that she opposes such a steep
fee increase; advising that over 4,000 Londoners rely on the foodbank and
likely some of these people are living in the affected properties and
requesting that such an increase not be allowed.
·
Resident
– noting that he started to liquidate his rental properties with the
implementation of the by-law as he did not want to be bothered with the
additional hassle; noting that fire inspections are only pass or fail, and
that there is an issue with that legislation in that a lot of properties
aren’t substandard but can’t be deemed in compliance; suggesting that the
costs of the program should have been known and that the City is now trying
to “bait and switch” and this is unfair to homeowners.
·
E.
Sims, 65 Nottinghill Crescent – indicating that she is a small landlord and
does not feel the fee should be increased on a program that serves no
purpose; suggesting that the fee increase will result in less investment by
owners on rental properties, and that the amount will be imposed on tenants.
·
L.
Palumbo, 502 Central Avenue – noting that he is opposed to the fee increase
but not the principles of the by-law, and he thought that the services of the
program were already provided through other fees; advising that responses
should be based on complaints from tenants and that no one should be living
in unsafe housing; advising that most properties are already in compliance
and landlords are generally doing a good job; suggesting that a licensing
program should be required and questioning the costs amounting to $420,000;
noting that the fee increase is targeted to a small portion of the community
and that funds should be raised through fines for non-compliance, not the
registration of those in compliance.
·
S.
McNally, 133 Toulon Crescent – noting that he is opposed to the by-law and
that infractions should raise funds not the licensing fee.
·
M.
Black 1609 Hillside Drive – noting that prior to the program all inspections
were already being done by responsible landlords; advising that he owns
several properties; suggesting that the by-law was originally implemented
due to problems in specific areas and that new density and development is
taking the pressure off some neighbourhoods; advising that the market is soft
and problems are correcting themselves, and that fee increases will be passed
along to the tenants and the increase is not necessary.
·
D.
McKelvey, 32 Hope Street – advising that he renovates old houses and recently
brought one back from ‘oblivion’ but cannot afford to do this work in London
anymore because of this by-law.
·
A.
Kaplansky – indicating that an 800% fee increase is not justified and that
the City should spend less time in court fighting development if its
concerned about budget constraints; indicating that development should be
promoted.
·
M.
Shmukler, 1643 Hillside Drive – advising that he was considering new windows
in some of his properties but will have to reconsider this work due to the
proposed fee increase.
·
D.
McBurney, 4-466 South Street – indicating support for the by-law but noting
that the increase is significant; suggesting that the program needs to be
expanded, reminding of the reasons it was created in the first place –
sub-standard housing; noting that rental prices in London are over-inflated
creating an artificially high market and that the City takes on ancillary
costs and has paid utilities for bad landlords.
·
B.
Zhang, 258 Brunswick Crescent – noting his opposition to the increase of 800%
and his agreement with other comments made; and questioning where $420,000
goes annually for the program.
·
W.
Dow, 1174 Fogarty Street – advising that she owns a rental property near
Fanshawe but is not getting the expected revenue due to restrictions and that
she adheres to the by-law; noting that she sells real estate and when she
advises potential purchasers of the licensing requirement sales are
negatively affected.
·
D.
Torhjelm, 442 Whisker Street – noting agreement with the previous comments
made and expressing frustration with the need for the program at all;
questioning the percentage of landlords that are licensed and suggesting that
if the issue is compliance the City should be going after the unlicensed.
·
M.
Dow, 433 High Street – noting that the financial cost of the program is an
affront to the taxpayer; and advising that she works 2 jobs to maintain her
property and that the fee increase will be a deterrent.
·
D.
Hynes, 591 Rosedale Street – advising that he owns 2 rental homes and doesn’t
raise rent unless he has to and suggesting that $100.00 may not seem like a
lot, but it is a substantial increase.
·
J.
Pinheiro, 22 Drummond Place – suggesting that the increase is based on
over-run services to cover the costs and questioning what additional
increases may be in store.
|