Rooming House Public Consultation – LIVE BLOG

7:06 Councillor Young gives introduction.

Agenda by Vanda Conway
Goes into presenting some research, then public comments.

Roughriders play tomorrow.

Low vacancy rate. Rapidly growing economy.
Noise, on street parking, more garbage, and internal changes. Obnoxious behavoiur like loud evenings.
Enforcement issues are many to gather evidence to proceed with prosecution.

16000 requests for service over years, but only ~250 complaints about rooming houses.

Fred Searle points out the definition is outdated.

7:26 CTV interviewing Jason Carlston.

Option 1) remove definition of Rooming House.
Con: no control over numbers of boarders. (Fail to see this as a con; we won’t need many more City workers and police.)

Option 2) rooming houses changed to owner present or not, limit to 4 boarders. 5-8 with public notice and Council approval.

Requiring 3 parking stalls for basic rooming hosue? Outrageously dumb. Subsidizing driving. Reduced green space. More flood risk with more driveways.

Pro? Parking standard applied. This runs counter to City’s stated objective of reducing carbon emissions. Auto subsidy I pointed put to the crowd.

3) regulations up the wazoo. Proactive enforcement they list as a con. Yay bigger government in your home? “Policing continually”.

Cons and pros are not neutral in presentation. Why the bias from the City?

Speakers:

Frontier Centre Peter M. says the parking requirement is not good.

A woman said she wanted no boarders in R1 zone, and licensing. I think it’s clear she wants the licensing mostly with the intention of it detering the ability of her neighbours to legally take on roommates at all.

A young woman with dreds (Shayna Stock?) points out the church is an intimidating place for a public meeting. How has city reached young boarders for comments?
Fred fumbles the answer. The City is only aware they should do this, they haven’t yet.

Wilma Staff asks about ones already built and about fire codes.
Complaint basis.

Mike Young suggests less regulation. If we have it, and it’s for safety, why is it not the same for families with same number of people? He starts getting heckled when he asks for crowd input with the loaded question “Does anyone want low taxes?”

Fred says it’s a challenging area to regulate. So they’ve considered not regulating it.

Next woman can’t remember a fire in a rooming house, so thinks there are no safety questions raised yet.
Without regs on housing what would we have for safety enforcement?
“Complaints”, answers the City.

I spoke and said the City shouldn’t threaten people working on fixing the housing crisis.

Brian Black wants option 3 with the most regulation, but the current regulations to deal with the parking, garbage, and noise are not being satisfactorily enforced, so why should we assume a new regulation would be better enforced?

The law limits the legal ability of people from taking on a boarder for Grey Cup, or as a live in care giver.

People left wanting a turn at the mic.
Last comment was against option 1 “100%”. I thought the comment was disturbingly authoritarian while praising Canada.

ADDED: Paul at the Dog has a review.

Advertisements

About John Klein

My full time blog is at AbandonedStuff.com My personal site devoted to my Regina politics work is at JohnKlein.ca

One thought on “Rooming House Public Consultation – LIVE BLOG

Comments are closed.