Raise the Hammer

It is not always easy to ensure demographic change happens in the best possible way for the entire community, and absentee landlords who do not maintain their properties degrade the quality of life for both their tenants and the broader community.

However, I was surprised to learn that AWWCA is not actually a neighbourhood association (like most others in Hamilton), but is an association representing only the interests of "resident home owners":

A condition of membership is:

"They own the dwelling in which they reside or they are related to the owner of the dwelling in which they reside." http://awwca.ca/become-a-member/awwca-me...

It is difficult to find solutions if membership of a community association excludes much (most?) of the actual community: students and other renters (as well as landlords) are not allowed to join the association!

It might be helpful to allow any resident to join AWWCA as full voting members, as is the case for every other neighbourhood association I know of. Excluding a major portion of the community is not a good way to build good community relations and reinforces the "us versus them" dynamic.

You might find that there are many students who would be interested in helping to find solutions to your problems. (And the "property owning" requirements just seems a bit too feudal for a democratic society.)

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-09-17 11:41:00

Not that it's any of my business what folks do in Ainslie-Woods/Westdale, but to be fair, AWWCA does have a "Friends of the AWWCA" membership category (albeit it is non-voting). This isn't necessarily off-side, any more so than having a membership fee is. Neighbourhood associations are private clubs, not representative public bodies, and are only as inclusive as they want to be. In fact exclusivity is part of the point--to advocate for the interests of a homophilic/likeminded group (i.e. invested residents) limited to a given geographic area.

Regardless, inclusiveness in these groups can't be fully judged from a review of bylaws and policies

For example, I am happy to argue that the Beasley Neighbourhood Association is one of the most inclusive NAs in Hamilton, and certainly the most inclusive group I've ever belonged to. At our meeting last week we had around 40 attendees, and almost half of them were from outside the neighbourhood (myself included), and all were welcome to contribute to and influence the discussion, if not necessarily cast a vote on matters.

See, the constitution states any adult living in Beasley is automatically a member, but to vote you have to have attended at least one previous meeting, and anyone from outside Beasley can become an associate (non-voting) member, with the provision that they can become voting members through a majority vote at our AGM.

So there's a lot of exclusive language there, but that's just part of policing boundaries, and despite the BNA having no membership fee, I would defend any NA's right to charge a nominal fee (i.e. $2, like the North End Neighbors) as a sign of commitment from the member (putting money where your mouth is).

It's the people, not the policies that will ultimately determine the inclusivity of the group. My (limited) experience with the AWWCA suggested to me that the tie that binds is a desire to protect the neighbourhood from descending into a student ghetto. Fair enough. Extending voting rights to everyone with a pulse will not likely change that, and it's not great policy anyway, even if it "feels" fair (ask the MSU, a great voice for Mac students, if they would ever extend similar membership to Westdale residents).

Groups decide their own mission and membership requirements, and if people find them exclusive, it's the perfect impetus to start a new group with a bigger tent.

I agree that it is hard to know what an actual association is like from the by-laws, but for an organization that bills itself as a "community association" and has as part of its mission statement "To preserve, protect and enhance the Ainslie Wood/Westdale community environment and the quality of life for all residents." it does seem a bit counter-productive to restrict membership to resident property owners.

And the problem with the "friends" category is that it sounds pretty exclusive: "The Board of Directors may approve such applications if it considers the applicant will support the aims and objectives of the Association as outlined in the AWWCA’s mission statement."

That's their prerogative as a private organization, but it would just be clearer if they called themselves a "resident property owners association" and made it clear that they are not really an organization promoting the interests of the whole community (like most neighbourhood associations aim to).

A student's union clearly promotes the interests of students, a business improvement area promotes the interests of local businesses, but a "community association" is not really the same as a "property owners association". If the McMaster Student's Union had decided to call itself the "McMaster Community Association" and claimed its mission was to improve conditions for the entire McMaster community, but only accepted students, I would also say it was exclusive and counter-productive to its mission.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-09-17 13:58:18

No pilot. Just do it. Other communities have piloted. $100 to license a good rental unit is nothing. The costs come in when a $100 to license a bad unit comes with fixing the place up. - Rental Property Owner who wants licensed units.

I agree that neighbourhood associations are closed clubs. I have emailed to the Strathcona Neighbourhood closed club, I was told I would be invited to meetings which I was not.

How can they say they are representative of an entire neighbourhood when it is closed and you cannot even get an invite.

Hanlon's razor - "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence". A bunch of unpaid volunteers slipped up and forgot to add you to their email list? Fascists, the lot of them!

That was their excuse the first time. Closed club, that is clear.

I do not trust these neighbourhood associations when the small minority, speaks for the many.

Would Mac not want to capitalize on the housing required and build more residences like Western among others have done? There is great opportunity gone to waste.

My understanding is taht the cheaply-run rental homes where the owner is mostly interested in the climbing price and not rents mean that rent for a room in a house in Westdale is pretty cheap. Particularly when nobody is enforcing codes and you've got 8 singles crammed into a 3 bedroom by cutting up the attic and the basement and the garage.

So when somebody builds a purpose-built rental building in Westdale for the students, they actually have trouble filling it as who can compete with illegal half-assed houses on price?

So when somebody builds a purpose-built rental building in Westdale for the students, they actually have trouble filling it as who can compete with illegal half-assed houses on price?

That said ... there are seven private, purpose-built student-housing developments at various stages of planning right now.

What multi-unit buildings are not being filled?

My understanding was that the big orange building at Main and Osler (well, main and main, really) had trouble getting filled.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2014-09-18 13:57:51

I don't believe it's ever been filled.

A neighbourhood-specific application of a rental housing licensing/regulation program is a GREAT idea! Of course, it was a great idea when Jason Allen pitched it to members of AWWCA in February; and great when it formed a core plank in his platform in Ward 1 weeks ago: http://www.jasonaallen.ca/platform/#two

As recently as the beginning of the week, you've argued against neighbourhood-specific licensing, citing OHR legislation concerns. Jason has explained why addressing neighbourhood-specific issues is different than discriminating against student renters (for one, because the bylaw is property-centred, not tenant centred). Evidently, his argument was convincing enough to make you a fan.

Does city hall even allow that kind of discrimination? Or would we have to do some kind of zoning thing where we re-zone all residential single-family homes within N km of McMaster as Residential-with-special-student-neigborhood-rules?

It wouldn't be through zoning, it would be through the business license by-law, in a similar way to what Oshawa has done. Zoning would be a nightmare. Just declaring any single-family-home in Westdale and Ainslie Wood that has been converted into rental suites as a business covered by the licensing by-law would avoid an awful lot of complication.

Sorry, I didn't mean that rental homes should be re-zoned... I'd explain in detail what I actually meant, but in hindsight I just realized I know so little about how zoning works I should probably quiet up.

Thanks for clarifying. :) If I read your original comment right, are you wondering if we'd need to rezone Ainslie Wood and Westdale as a Student Rental zone to permit this bylaw? If so, the answer is no, the bylaw would deal with any structure that met the criteria, that was on one of the streets named in the bylaw. And yes, Oshawa's by-law names every single street within a certain radius of Durham College UOIT.

The AWWCA and it's board members having been advocating for a rental license longer than Jason Allen has lived in this city

In trying to figure out the supposed problems that create the supposed need for a rental licence, I found only this: "some unfortunate outcomes including behavior related issues like noise disturbances, visual degradation to many properties as well as safety related concerns."

We already have bylaws for property standards that are activated upon complaint. If current standards are not being sufficiently applied to rental properties, then the solution is better enforcement ... not new and redundant bylaws and associated bureaucracies, that also don't enforce bylaws properly!

Rental licences are redundant, expensive, and ridiculous.

Comment edited by grannysaga on 2014-09-23 08:15:41

Whats to stop the license fees from being dumped on to he renter along with any needed improvements? Nothing. We already have an affordable housing issue. I know within 5 years since the last time I looked the average rent has gone up while the size shrank. Adding more costs will just make them even more expensive.

And how does a license work if they simply rent and not tell the city? If found and the city comes down on them who is going to be rendered homeless? Not the owner. The Renter again pays.

It seems this is more about Nimbyism than any real care for renters. Even the article talks about "undesireable" activity which is not the same as illegal.

It is natural that if you are going to have a school that the students are going to want to live close and that is Westdale for Mac students.

Maybe if more thought was given to how much people charge for rent then perhaps it would be more affordable and less cramming would occur. I don't think any student likes the idea of overcrowding a small unit but do so as they cannot afford not to.

These ideas are all coming from owners who are not facing the same challenges renters and people of limited means are, you would do better to try to come up with a solution by renters. Or better a combination of both but with equal say from all renters to find out the diverse needs and accommodate them in a safe, fair manner to all.

For so far, all I see instead are home owners trying to impose rules on how renters are "allowed" in their neighbourhood.

That being said more rules regarding properties owned by absent landlords are needed on both sides of this issue. Rules though, not fees unless they are consequences and the offending property is not allowed to raise the rent to cover them. And such items would be necessary changes not simply superficial ones to make properties look better to raise rents.

This is just discrimination pure and simple. Sub out students for poor, black, Jewish (which should be familiar to people of Westdale) or renters. It is elitist attitude being pushed by Mary Louise Piggott and Jason Allen. Shame on both of you.

This has nothing to do with the students and everything to do with the landlords. Landowners are failing to live up to the responsibilities of property ownership and are allowing the quality of the property to slide to unacceptable levels. The city does not have the resources to enforce all the bylaws on these rental houses, so they need licensing to

a) Pay staff to do extra enforcement and

b) Have something to revoke.

I fondly remember my undergrad, I'd never want to take away the fun of living in a student neighborhood from Mac's classes, but many people are exploiting the students to pay for their real-estate speculation at the expense of the people of Westdale (both student and homeowner) and it's ludicrous to defend them.

They brought this bylaw on themselves with every unshoveled walk, every unremoved wasp's nest or raccoon den, every rotting front porch, every fire-trap house decaying into the ground.

There are many good renters, and many bad ones who just want to speculate the market while doing as little work as possible... they could have just bought Apple shares instead of screwing up our neighbourhood. You can thank those people for this crap.