Secondary Suite Legislation to be Passed 19th July: What Price Democracy

Secondary Suites Legislation to be Passed on 19th July

What Price Democracy?

Some time ago, (October 15, 2009) in this publication, Rafe Mair stated Peach Akerhielm "is not fit to govern." The Councillor who made many feel ashamed to be from Lions Bay over the ill-fated diving bylaw and towards whom many residents fume because they have been given tickets for parking their cars in front of their own homes, has done it again. This time, she, along with colleagues Councillors Ronsley and Taylor, is about to railroad her brain child secondary suites legislation into law. In spite of calls for a more measured approach from Mayor Broughton and for a more research and evidence-based approach by Councillor Simons, without strong and concerted effort by this community, this bylaw will be passed into legislation this coming Monday, 19th July and enacted on 7th September, 2010.

If the premises on which this proposed bylaw are based don't confound you, then the way it has been herded through the legislative process very well may. If you are not concerned with secondary suites legislation--fair enough. But, if you are concerned with participatory democracy you may want to look into how this legislation came to the point of being adopted by Council. Voices of reason and dissent--both those within Council and those of residents--have been consistently belittled and dismissed out of hand. I speak from personal experience. Council Simons has been criticized by other council members for having the temerity to actually do her job by talking to her constituents--of whom I am one-- eliciting their opinions, and asking them to make their views--of whatever persuasion--known.

It has been strongly implied that my own submission to Council is "a plant" by the forces supporting Councillor Simons. Such a characterization can do nothing but place doubt on the value given to this submission. If you spoke with Councillor Simons over this issue then your views, too, are likely to be viewed with skepticism. This is dangerous. The implications of Ms. Akerhielm's remonstrances to Councillor Simons, which I take very seriously, are that Councillors shall not seek the views of those they represent, shall not represent those they are sworn to represent, and that constituents are incapable of coming to their own views and articulating them.

The attitude that a Councillor not seek the opinions of his or her constituents and that those opinions not be presented to Council has the effect of closing down dissenting opinions, challenging freedom of expression, and privileging the opinions of some over those of others. Taking into account the opinions of constituents is the basis of democratic governance as is the right to make representation to Council. To imply otherwise, shows either blatant disregard or total ignorance of the democratic process. I have often thought that, upon election, officials be required to take Democracy 100 and Public Administration 100. That view has been considerably strengthened of late.

This attitude--which I find is one of contempt--towards the electorate by our representatives (which, let us not forget, we did not elect) is mirrored by that of Ms. Ronsley. A participant in one of Ms. Akerhielm and Ms. Ronsley's public consultation meetings, described her attitude towards those who voiced legitimate concerns over the proposed legislation as "flippant", "demeaning", and "patronizing". It is no wonder many of us choose not to attend village "consultations". We know only too well the way alternative opinions are often dismissed. Ms. Ronsley has stated that most views presented at these public meetings were "misguided" and "misinformed". She has dismissed the views of the people she represents as mere "quibbles" over details. Other participants' views, perhaps including mine, were dismissed by Ms. Ronsley because comments seemed--to her eyes-- to have been "elicited" or their owners seemed to "have an agenda." With respect to comments being elicited, Ms. Ronsley must have a very poor opinion of the electorate indeed if she thinks we can all be manipulated so easily. I ask Ms. Ronsley: Why is this proposal being rushed through the legislative process with unseemly haste in spite of some of your own colleagues and administrators counsel to the contrary? Just what is your agenda, Ms. Ronsley?

The clauses in this proposed legislation which may have the most far-reaching effects are as follows: owners of secondary suites must reside in the same building as the rented-out suite; only one secondary suite is allowed per residence. (If the owner is not resident in the same building as the suite, he or she has one year to move into the residence in which the suite is situated after which the second suite will be closed. (My oh my! Won't the lawyers have fun with that!); nanny suites (and also, I think, the quarters of other caregivers) will NOT be exempted from the surcharge levied against each secondary suite; each residence of a newly-made secondary suite will be required to have three off-road parking places with clear and unimpeded access for the renter's vehicle; the surcharge applicable to each resident owning a secondary suite will be in the region of $380 per annum.

The details of the entire proposed secondary suite legislation can be found on the Lions Bay website (www.lionsbay.ca). On the left hand side of the main page is a list of links. If you click on the secondary suite link you will find all the published information from Council on this issue. Of most relevance are the "secondary suites administration", "zoning amendment given third reading", and "grandfathering" links. It is also most instructive to read, or, preferably listen, to the minutes pertaining to this issue. There is also a link to Council minutes on the website.

What is planned by Ms. Akerhielm and Ms. Ronsley, over the concerns of village administrators, is to have each residence owner make a declaration as to whether or not they have a secondary suite in their residence. This declaration will be attached to 2011 utility bills. The onus will be on each owner to state they do NOT have a secondary suite. Those who give incorrect information will be "charged and fined". (I can see the lawyers rubbing their hands with glee over that one, too!) Whether or not the village has legal powers to enforce this legislation has not been determined. The plan for a village legal defense fund would suggest, however, that legal challenges are expected. But, be damned. The proposed legislation must go ahead regardless of whether or not village tax payers will be on the hook for untold amounts of money in staff time, legal fees and insurance payouts.

The two reasons given by Ms. Akerhielm and Ms. Ronsley as justification for the proposed legislation are "fairness" in the "cost burden of Village services, between those whose houses hold two dwellings/families, and those whose houses hold only one dwelling with one family" and control over compliance with building codes. The first reason presupposes that a: there already exists an imbalance in the amount of services used between single and dual occupancy residences and b. the village will benefit financially from this legislation. There is some merit in regulating the construction of suites so as to ensure comfort and safety of residents. However, simply legalizing secondary suites would resolve this problem. It is unnecessary to impose draconian measures such as no exemptions for caregivers and other punitive sanctions and surcharges.

Under the banner of "fairness" which Ms. Akerhielm and Ms. Ronsley place their proposed legislation, it is patently unfair that a single residence owner who rents out his or her rental suite to either a couple or a single renter be charged the proposed surcharge to redress unsubstantiated "imbalances" in resource allocation, when a family of six next door with two SUVs to wash, a swimming pool, and an expanse of lawn to water are not so charged. Why is it that those who rent their suites in order to gain needed income and those who rent, perhaps, because they are not able to afford a house, are the ones to pay for an "imbalance" which has not been demonstrated. What is fair about large households with huge water consumption and waste creation being subsidized through a regressive tax by smaller numbers of people using less resources? As others have said, it is much fairer to bill individual households on the amount of garbage created and the amount of water used.

Again, Ms. Akerhielm and Ms. Ronsley have presented no demonstrable link to show that dual occupancy residences consume more village resources than do single occupancy residences. Neither, as far as I am aware, has any research been done to support this opinion. Yet this assumption is the corner stone of their proposal. Village managers have told us there is no money to be made for the village in this legislation. This is legislation that will benefit no one--neither residents, Council, the administration, renters, nor owners. Indeed, it is quite possible that there will be considerable costs involved in implementation, administration and legal contingencies. Council does, indeed, appear to be anticipating legal challenges and yet this proposal will go ahead. There must be another "agenda" driving this--and, it ain't mine. Then, again, it might just be what it seems: a poorly-thought out reaction to a problem, real or not, that can be dealt with through existing legislation. It might just even be legislation brought forward by someone just because they could.

It is incumbent upon those who propose legislation to support their proposition with evidence. However, Ms. Akerhielm and Ms. Ronsley appear to be content to pass their legislation and deal with whatever chips fall wherever they fall when they fall. The attitude of Ms. Akerhielm and Ms. Ronsley seems to be to gather facts surrounding an issue after implementing a policy rather than before. This is making policy fit ideology without consideration to the unique circumstances of our own community. By the time this Council's term is up (which can't be soon enough for me), the village will have to hire an army of administrators to sort out problems created unnecessarily--problems which, historically, we have been quite capable of solving ourselves without the threat of criminalization.

The secondary suite legislation is being proposed by two councillors, and supported by another (who lives in a jurisdiction not covered by this proposed bylaw), who were not elected and, as far as I am aware, did not bring up this proposed policy before the electorate prior to polling day. At the very least, the electorate deserves the opportunity to express its opinions on this matter in either a referendum or a legally-binding survey.

The blame does not rest solely with our representatives. They came forward and gave of their time for little reward when others did not.  However, this situation has arisen because most of us have chosen not to involve ourselves with the politics of the village. No pressure has been brought to bear on Ms.Akerhielm or Ms. Ronsley to challenge their assumptions or hold their bombastic style to account. This complacency has now come home to roost as, according to Ms. Ronsley, there has been so little public input over this issue that, in her opinion, it is of no importance to most residents. (There is, of course, some dispute about just what constitutes "little" public participation.) However, as Mayor Broughton has rightly noted, people need time to digest this proposal and work out how it could affect them before they will speak out. The fact is that most people are not aware of the implications of this legislation, and, by the time they are aware of them, it will be very difficult to do anything about them.

Whether or not you agree that secondary suites should be legislated (although, largely. the situation works just fine as it is) the nature by which this proposal has been brought forward, justified and pushed through Council in the face of evidence that it will not meet its stated aims and the way in which opposing views have been dismissed are of great concern. If you care about this issue, you may speak for two minutes before Council on Monday, 19th July. Alternatively you may make a written submission. Please make your views known--for democracy's sake.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/hide comment form

Write comment

Name

Email

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Add Comment