|
RE : Proposed By law Change regarding secondary suites.
The councilors are explaining in their update email it was determined in the OCP. that suites should pay a fair contribution for the extra services which they use. fair when it comes to services, what about people who use very little water, and those who only have one garbage can per week, are you also intending to make their contribution fair? Whilst I agree that everything should be
What exactly are these extra service costs in Real Dollars that Basement Suites create, do you have any actual statistics from Lions Bay to prove that suites are using more water, and producing more garbage, or are you just making that assumption? There are many people who have 4 or more children who use far more water, and create far more garbage than some of the basement suites.What is wrong with paying for the number of cans you put out, by having a permanent, one time only, pre- numbered and assigned, hard plastic tag, attached to each handle. Just like parking permits are issued once a year, homeowners can then pay for the extra service that they need, by purchasing extra tags. Suites would need the extra tags, and so would the other residents who create more garbage.
A new survey of each home with no. and age of people occupying could result in the approx calculation of the amount of the water usage charge and also provide the no. and age of people residing in each dwelling in case of emergency, re: fire and earthquake. Age statistics would also provide the means to survey the older generation just to see how many older people are really interested in AGE FRIENDLY dwellings. Personally I do not think water is a problem, as long as it keeps coming down the creek, the next thing will be you charging for, will be people who leave hoses running and washing cars too much! or heaven forbid putting in water meters!
The solutions discussed above would not require the need to Legalize suites or create a billing system to charge for extra services or require the need to hire more office staff, it would also ensure that residents only use CANS and not plastic bags, like many still do, and would be a much fairer way to charge everyone than what you are proposing. I am not in favor of charging a set fee for services for suites, and neither am I concerned as to what the larger Municipalities charge, as we are a small community and we do not necessarily need to follow like sheep. Personally, I am content to see things left the way they are, rather than put any more work on the Administrative staff in the office. The wheel is not broke, why fix it? Regards, Philip Bromiley
Here are my thoughts and my opinions on secondary suites. The subject of legalizing secondary suites has come up many times in the past with our previous Village councils. Has anyone in your current council ever gone back and read the real reasons why this has not been done before. Have
we not learned from the past that the most economical way of dealing
with this issue for the rest of us tax payers is to IGNORE the suites?
Why do we have to keep wasting time and money revisiting issues that
were already put to bed? As
soon as you legalize suites then the Village possibly becomes
responsible for the safety, of all the current and future buildings
that have basement suites built in them.
The
administration will be a nightmare for all concerned and will no doubt
create the need for yet another administrative person to be hired in
the village office. Even
if one suite is not recorded and a problem comes up with that suite, a
problem such as a fire that burns down a neighbor’s home created in a
Rental Suite, and there was no insurance, then the rest of us could be
liable for the Insurance cost involved in dealing with that problem,
which could become pretty expensive.
The current problems with suites that I see are as follows: Safety
- Electrical and construction, entrance and exit, fire, and carbon
monoxide alarms, type of windows and doors, fire rating, fire
separation walls and insurance liability.Health - Septic Tanks. Cost of services. - Water consumption, and garbage collection.Roads - Parking. On the safety issues , are we prepared as a Village to take on the cost of administration of all these safety issues, and thus may
be responsible financially, if a law suit evolves from inspection
mistakes....similar safety issues already exist in many older regular
homes right now, are we then going to inspect all dwellings for similar
defects? Safety is a big concern¸ but right now it is up to the suite
owner to take out proper insurance , and it is the suite owner who is
clearly Liable at the moment, because they are illegal. Health
- Septic tanks...well yes some of these are at risk of being
overloaded...meanwhile the council continues to ignore the
many older homes with broken systems, so, are we now going to inspect
all sewage systems throughout the village? What is good for one is good
for another...think about the cost of that administration. Services
- This should actually be a non issue, as many homes with three or four
children, make far more garbage and consume more water than many of the
suites, and what is wrong with charging people for extra garbage by the
can? Parking - I believe there is a bylaw that allows for towing vehicles from the side of roadways? Yes there are a few HOTELS....so if they are NOT LEGAL and are creating problems, then go after those owners.
Legalizing suites will not necessarily bring in more families; the viability of the school will stand alone like it always has. The
cost of upgrading to current safety systems may just prevent people
from moving here anyway, and consequently we may have less children for
the school. Let’s
remember this is a small village, and basement suites have existed for
the 38 years we have lived here, maybe there are more now, but do we
really want to encourage even more? I
keep hearing that everyone wants to have the village atmosphere remain
the same, yet this will bring on the GESTAPO approach to solving
problems, neighbor will rat on neighbors, is this what we want?
And
for those neighbors that do have a problem with an illegal suite
then council should have a system available for you to deal with that
individual problem....not just legalize it and hope it goes away. I
spoke to our first Administrator, Bernice Pullen, remember those days
when we only needed three people in the Village office? And everything
still got done, and those three still had time to volunteer
with village gardening...mind boggling, Bernice said that she always
advised the council NOT TO GO THERE because of the potential Legal suit
costs, and administrative time involved.
This reasoning has not changed. We
are not North or West Vancouver...we do not have the tax base or the
amount of homeowners who could absorb these sort of costs, and neither
do many of us want to. The
very fact that not many people show up at a meeting does not mean that
they agree with this future bylaw change, it just means that they are
not interested enough to go to a meeting to discuss it. I
have read all the facts posted by the two council members who are
proposing these changes and have decided that they have not considered
neither the Realistic $ Cost to the Village nor the negative social
impact it will make to the evolution of the community as a whole.
This
Village continues heading towards BIG GOVERNMENT, big town
thinking, which ultimately brings more costs, when we should be heading
for LESS GOVERNMENT and less costs. I
would like to know who really benefits financially from this change, as
it certainly will not be the average tax payer, or the renter, or even
the carbon footprint god! Regards, Phil Bromiley, A Homeowner who I hope will never need, or want, a suite!
| Comments () >> |
 |
| Write comment |
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet. |
 |
Opinion 
