Councillor's plan to protect renters is a recipe for slums

'Whereas Vancouver has a shortage of quality, affordable rental stock," says the first line of a motion from Tim Stevenson that's to be considered Tuesday by his newly elected colleagues on city council.

The rest of the Vision councillor's motion boils down to a convoluted -- though undoubtedly unintended -- plan to ensure this lamentable situation endures until it eventually gets worse.

There are several aspects to Stevenson's motion, which must first be passed by council and will require the agreement of the provincial government if it's ever to become law. But the standout provision is to freeze rents for the tenants of suites that undergo substantial renovations.

Specifically, it calls on the province to amend the Residential Tenancy Act to "require landlords to allow tenants evicted for the purpose of renovations to reoccupy their units once renovations are completed at the same rent as they were paying prior to the renovation."

But, between the lines, this is a recipe for fostering slums.

Think about it. A landlord who collects $600 a month for a suite could spend tens of thousands of dollars on upgrades, then continue to collect $600 a month.

Or he could keep collecting $600 a month without raising a finger (or spending a cent.) You don't need a degree in rocket science to figure out how this will end.

David Goodman of Macdonald Commercial Real Estate Services, a longtime specialist in rental properties who publishes the Goodman Report, notes that most of Vancouver's purpose-built rental stock dates from the 1950s or '60s.

A combination of perverse policies from Ottawa, Victoria and city hall have ensured since then that developers favour condos over rentals.

The new bylaw would ask building owners, who already operate on tight margins, to subsidize tenants by making new investments that are guaranteed to show no return, he said. But in fact, if it passes it will merely ensure the existing stock is left to deteriorate with nothing ever fixed up unless or until a suite becomes vacant, he said.

As a result, "no investor will touch an older building."

And Vancouver already has a situation where investors spurn new rental buildings.

Stevenson also calls for provisions to enforce maintenance standards in the city's worst slum buildings, and to tinker with rental laws in ways that may or may not have an impact, whether positive or negative.

He and his colleagues would do better, in my view, to craft some policies to put rentals back on builders' agendas. Among them, work with Ottawa and Victoria to end some of the tax disincentives. Untangle city hall's red tape. Convince developers to provide rental housing in exchange for things like extra height or extra density for new housing projects.

Tuesday's vote -- for a high-sounding fix that's doomed to fail, or for consideration of more productive approaches -- will give voters their first insight into how this new council is likely to operate. I'm hoping for the best.

But Victoria should prepare for the worst.

The Campbell government needs to stand by with a big rubber stamp that says "NO."

dcayo@vancouversun.com

Visit Don Cayo's blogs, one on taxation and one on globalization, at www.vancouversun.com/blogs