Basement Suites "Should they be legalized?"

This is part of a research project I did for a local Calgary MLA, with regards to how best to help legalize safe basement suites, granny suites, in-law suites and such.

With a few changes and some standards set up, a large number of housing units can be made legal and give an incentive to people to put them in. It provides low income housing, and it provides seniors with a possible solution to being able to stay in their homes longer.

Basement Suites "Should they be legalized?"

The Issue:

Currently, since there are no building codes specifically designed for Basements suites in Alberta, Municipalities have by default, been applying building codes which were originally designed for Duplexes and Apartments instead - which in most cases, means that Municipalities do not have the power to approve basement suites, since they cannot meet these codes

For some people, this is a bit of a “square peg in a round hole” type approach, which has lead to some impossibilities in terms of compliance.

For example, duplex and apartment building codes require an 8 foot ceiling, and a separate furnace in each living unit. Since most houses built decades ago, were not required back then to build 8 foot ceilings in the basement, most basement suites today have ceilings somewhat lower than 8 feet, and thus it is impossible for a homeowner to comply with this requirement (or the two furnace requirement).

Consequently, because municipalities do not have the tools in their toolbox ( appropriate building codes which would allow approval) this forces the municipality to refuse approval of the unit, even though it might be correctly zoned and a perfectly acceptable suite otherwise, and even though affordable housing is always a very big problem (especially in Calgary Currie!).

Thus, society is left with this big dilemma of the so-called illegal suites – suites which have been built without municipal approvals in place, which essentially therefore have not then been inspected and may have other safety and financial issues worrisome to all.

Should these suites be legalized? - if they can be done so in a manner which improves safety and life-and-death requirements, but reduces (or grandfathers) requirements on “nice to have” but non life-threatening issues, such as requiring an 8 foot ceiling? In other words, if we allow lower ceilings in return for requiring installation of smoke detectors, would we then allow - and could we get - homeowners to have their suites approved in a proper manner?

The approach, is to give the power to municipalities through the Provincial building codes, to be ABLE to make a decision on whether or not the suite should be allowed (once it has come to their attention), something they currently cannot do.

In return for more pragmatic conditions of approval, safety improvements WILL be required, such as smoke detectors, and windows large enough to crawl out of. However, these requirements are low-cost, and will greatly enhance safety, and thus are not seen as an impediment when compared to the alternate case. Readers should be aware that this is an extremely controversial issue.

NIMBY issues (you can do it somewhere else, just Not in My Back Yard!) seem to be the biggest obstacle, the exclusionary desire to “zone” or eliminate the housing for “those” people as a roundabout way of making sure there are no undesirables in the community, who might threaten the children of the community.

Some apartment owners object and do not want the competition either……and social advocates insist the government should be building much better housing for the poor or buying them their own houses in the first place. Few jurisdictions anywhere in the world have really tackled this issue – although we all know that across North American, millions of people are probably living in such units – thus, Alberta has a chance to really show some leadership here, if our committee is successful in finding the right solutions. All of which makes for an important political discussion in which your comments and votes can really count!

We believe we have solutions to propose, which would allow current safety and security to be enhanced, while at the same time creating a municipal permitting process to essentially allow manipulates to be able to make their own choices in these matters - and thus resolve the legal dilemmas municipal authorities are faced with. Currently, we are holding hearings across the Province, to find out what people think - as well as soliciting feedback from the public through mechanisms such as this web-site. If we succeed against the odds - it will likely be of benefit to many, and serve as an example, for many other jurisdictions across Canada and the U.S. - since so few have ever tackled it before. Wish us luck - and let us know what you think!

Read why so few have ever tried to tackle this issue below, and make up your mind where you stand - then comment below, read and react to other's comments and rate them on a scale of one to ten - and then go to the voting page on the main menu to register your opinion.

For The Idea:

Keeping these suites "illegal", is not a good solution - from a pragmatic practical standpoint, it is only discouraging and preventing a number of desirable goals from being achieved, such as ensuring tenant safety, and ensuring a good supply of affordable housing units on the market being created.Almost all the complaints about basement suites being undesirable, is not really the point here. They are already there, for the most part, and as such many of the fears about creating problems such as parking complaints, etc, wouldn't change much under this proposal - and in fact may even be alleviated.

Opposing this initiative on the basis that you are opposed to basement suites in general, is not what we are doing here- this initiative is not about where or if they should be allowed or where they would be allowed, it is only about how should they be built - if and only if they are allowed by the Municipality. Primarily, it is about whether or not the Municipality, "should" be given the power to make a decision to approve a suite, under different codes than what currently exist - a power that they don't have now - they can only condemn them.

This is not creating a "two-tier" housing scheme, but rather it is improving upon a currently-occurring situation that is undesirable from a number of standpoints. Safety is NOT being compromised AT ALL in this initiative - quite the opposite - the goal is to ENHANCE safety requirements - such as requiring smoke detectors, requiring windows large enough to crawl out of, etc.

The demographics of people wanting to rent basement suites, is often quite different from those in upscale apartments - they are servicing different types of customers, and thus basement suites are not in direct competition to apartment investors. People living in basement suites, often cannot afford normal apartments - and thus basement suites are only competing with homeless shelters. Furthermore, "preventing competition" as a consideration of why such suites should not be allowed, should not be allowed as an objection in a free-enterprise economy.

These situations exist now - it is not creating a "new category" of sub-standard housing. Poor people are living in basement suites now - and most of them are not properly inspected and may present safety concerns.

There are no building codes, specific to basement or secondary suites now - the only codes being applied, were developed with apartments or duplexes in mind, and thus are not applicable to the unique circumstances of secondary suites in older existing homes. Thus, almost no existing basement suites could comply except at tremendous cost - and thus, homeowners do not try to get approvals through the authorities - they know they would be rejected. So what happens in reality is that they build them anyway, but just don't tell the municipal authorities, because they know the municipal authorities could not approve them, even if they wanted to.

Because homeowners do not apply for permits, other minor safety code features that might have been achieved through a pragmatic, proper permitting process, do not get installed - and thus tenant safety is compromised, as a result of too-stringent safety demands.

If you set the bar too high - people CANNOT comply, and therefore WILL NOT APPLY. If you are reasonable about it, more people would apply properly - and it would be better to get some major safety features - than none at all - which could be the current situation.

In fact, if you allowed approval of these suites, landlords considering upgrades or creation of a new suite, would not be so worried about having their entire investment continually at great risk - and would therefore have incentive to spend more money and do better upgrades than what they do now. No one spends a lot of money on basement suites if they know they could be shut down at any time - approved suites, could allow for substantially more investment and quality, by responsible landlords.

Safety is a spectrum - not a "black and white". Overly demanding and prescriptive safety codes being applied to anyone trying to legally build a basement suite - or used against a landlord when inspecting and closing down a basement suite - might result in tenants being put into even more dangerous situations - such as being homeless and out on the street, during winter especially. Thus, safety, is always a trade-off - and must not be judged on a too-narrow criteria or single criteria only - such as just looking at "fire safety" - but should be judged on "overall safety" instead, that can be achieved at at reasonable cost ( otherwise landlords will not do it, and will continue to not comply.)

Many of the building codes specifications, which would prevent an approval of an affordable basement suite, actually offer very little improvement in safety -they are primarily more quality of life issues, or a convenience issue. As such, they might be adding considerable costs to a prospective landlord, but are only creating very little safety improvements for a tenant - and thus are just another barrier preventing affordable housing. For example, does a single family house, wanting to put in a basement suite,really need to have two furnaces? If having to put two furnaces into a basement, in order to get municipal approval, prevents people from applying for a permit in the first place - and going underground instead and not seeking an approval - does this make sense to keep it as a minimum building specification? Or can this requirement - developed for duplexes - be dropped?

Without basement suites, tens of thousands would be homeless, or face much higher apartment/duplex rents, or be forced into multiple person living arrangements with compromised privacy, etc. - all of which can create numerous other problems, also creating safety concerns.

Basement suites in existing homes, especially older existing homes, cannot comply with modern building codes without enormous costs being incurred - thus building codes,specific to such situations, and "grandfathering" should be considered.

Absentee "slum landlords" problems could be more effectively dealt with if proper permitting, inspections and other bylaws could be implemented and complaints more effectively acted upon. Most people would want to comply, if they had a choice to be able to do so - very few people are in any way actually malicious.

It is possible that the permitting process could include different requirements and/or different specifications for absentee landlords, vs. resident owner-occupied landlords.

On-site Parking requirements could be a condition of proper approval for a legal basement suite. Thus, a proper approval process, might greatly improve upon the current situation, where basement suites are already existing anyway, and creating parking problems on a block. The Bar-b-que out back might have to go, in order to create on-site parking to get the cars off the street - but municipal authorities could require that, as a condition of approval of what is currently an "illegal" suite where everyone is currently parking out front. It would help, not hurt, the current situation.

People living in basement suites pretty much includes the majority of the population at one point of their life or another - they most certainly are not "undesirables", any more than any other renters in apartments of duplexes are. It is a stage of life issue, an affordability issue, a "going-to-school issue, or a life-style choice - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with living in a basement suite in order to save money on rent, for anybody.

Studies show that most complaints or concerns about secondary suites in houses, are a myth.

Property values tend to increase, not decrease in communities that allow secondary suites. It tends to only increase density - in communities that have experienced a significant and continuing decrease in density first - namely older, inner city communities.

Most suites, are not problematic to the neighbours at all, most tenants are not problematic at all, and tenants often are people who take the bus, thus helping improve bus services into a community. Having a properly approved basement suite, increases property value for the homeowner, allows for proper insurance, allows for proper financing (CMHC will not give high-ratio mortgages to young people if they have a "mortgage helper" basement suite tenant living in the basement - which is really strange, when you think about it!) and so on.

Seniors/widows and widowers could earn some badly needed income, students could use the cheap rent, communities wouldn't be emptied out as the kids grow up and leave, young couples could use the "mortgage helper when buying a new home" - there are many benefits.

Allowing secondary suites would allow the private sector to create hundreds if not thousands of affordable housing units, without one dime of government/taxpayer investment required.

Conclusion:

The many benefits of allowing secondary suites, greatly outweighs the negatives - they should be allowed in properly zoned areas, starting with a major overhaul of Provincial building codes which are creating major barriers to legalizing basement and other secondary suites. The power to ultimately approve or disapprove of such suites, will still rest at the Municipal level, and Municipalities have many other tools in the tool box to deal with any negatives that may be created. However, unless the Provincial building codes are changed to allow for such approvals, Municipalities currently do NOT have the power to approve these suites at all - they have no discretion on this, they must apply the Provincial building codes. This does not allow Municipalities to be able to make those common-sense, logical decisions - instead, they are forced to "go by the book" and disapprove all such suites, if for example, they don't have an eight foot ceiling. The Provincial building codes should be changed to allow Municipalities the power and the discretion to deal with these suites locally.

Against:

Apartment owners and investors, must now compete against low-cost housing being allowed in single family homes, which under the current proposal,would have lesser building code regulations than what apartment owners are forced to comply with - it is unfair competition. Why should apartment owners have to build 8 foot ceilings if basement suite owners don't have to?

If all basement suites were to be closed down, apartment rents would initially sky-rocket - but this would then lead to much new building of new apartments, new investment and so on - and then prices would eventually come back down again after a while.

Codes for all this new construction would be equal across the board, and eventually there would be more competition amongst landlords and prices would eventually come down again. Allowing low-cost basement suites, prevents apartment landlords from making enough money to build more modern and up-to-date apartments instead.

Secondary suites in housing leads to too many people in one house and too many cars on the street out front. This becomes a nuisance and a detriment to the neighbours.

Politically, NIMBY ( not in my back yard) issues from the neighbours, and secondary suites being rented to younger people or undesirables who just go around partying, creates all sorts of problems and fears in the community, and thus is not an area that politicians want to touch with a ten-foot pole. It is not something a neighbourhood would want to have or see promoted, since young people especially tend to live in these suites, and thus are a source of concern and fear to the neighbours, many of whom may be senior citizens and who like their sleep at night and not having to worry about who is living next door..

Absentee landlords are often perceived to be among the worst sort of property owners in a neighbourhood. Allowing outside investors to invest in rentable houses with multiple suites, should be discouraged in any community, and any attempts to "legalize" basement suites, would likely just promote more absentee landlord problems in a neighbourhood

Basement suites create parking problems on a block.

Basement suites bring undesirables into a neighbourhood, in terms of transient renters who do not have the same sense of community responsibility.

Conclusion:

Many basement suites exist and they should almost all be shut down. They are often compromising the fire safety of the individuals, they are really substandard in terms of quality of life quite often, and have little or no benefit to the neighbours or the community. No attempts should be made to encourage upgrades, retrofits of fire alarms, larger windows or doors, as all of this may just encourage more basement suites in a community and further legitimize what should never have been allowed in the first place. Giving Municipalities the right to use their discretion, and giving Municipalities the right to grant approvals or grandfather existing suites, will only result in more of these units being legitimized....the Province should prevent this from happening. Municipalities should NOT be given the discretion nor the power, to allow for legalizing of basement suites.