Basement Suites, "Should they be legalized?"

July 10, 2006 – Alberta Green Party Policy Meeting


Subject: Basement Suites, "Should they be legalized?"

Can this be a provincial issue? Can it be a federal issue? It is both. It is not though, a civic issue as the issue owes its solutions to the powers of enacting laws and regulations by the provincial and federal governments in a variety of ways.

Building codes and fire codes, and electrical codes are set at both levels, and if not met, the insurance industry will not cover a building, nor will organizations like the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (a federal government crown corporation) will not insure your mortgage.

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.

A house not built according to code may not be eligible for mortgages.

From the political side:

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.

This is an idea well worth considering. It has a great deal of merit in dealing with the housing shortage in Alberta that is affordable and decent.

It is also an idea for a proactive and visionary policy that the Alberta Green Party should adopt and it is a policy idea that the average person in Alberta can grasp, understand, and agree with a reasonable way for the government to deal with a real problem, by just getting out of the way.

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 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).

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, there are almost no existing basement suites that 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.

Since 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.

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.

The Issue:

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.

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:

This 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.

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.

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 dissaprove 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 dissaprove 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.