It disappoints me greatly that the Guelph Planning Department has decided not to recommend support for the extension of the “100-metre separation rule”, (presently a condition for the distribution of lodging houses), to all owner-absent income rental properties with similar numbers of renters. Our neighbourhood and others in close proximity to the university cannot survive the influx of owner-absent investment rental properties without City intervention. At present, whole areas are changing from neighbourhoods into bedrooms of the university.
The proliferation of owner-absent rental properties since occupancy rules were changed from “three unrelated persons” in one dwelling to “rental of 4 bedrooms” has opened wide the doors to owner-absent rental property in neighbourhoods around the university. Furthermore, the creation of the accessory apartment concept, while an excellent way to provide affordable housing and to respond to the need for densification, has been combined with the newly acquired ability to rent to four unrelated people to create very lucrative businesses. Because the University provides, in the many students it attracts to our fair city, a great demand for affordable accommodation, the neighbourhoods in close proximity and even some further out, who are serviced by frequent bussing, have been overwhelmed by a flood of this type of rental housing. Whole neighbourhoods are on their way to being bought out by businessmen who rent out and then go home to live elsewhere. Surely, this is not the result the mayor and councilors had intended for their citizens who live in Wards 5 and 6 when they amended the description of rental occupancy to “four bedrooms” and provided for an accessory apartment in the basement.
When unforeseen effects happen because of by-law changes, measures should be applied to right what is wrong. The “100- metre separation rule”, applied evenly to existing rental properties with 5 or more renters, will restore neighbourhoods close to the University. All neighbourhoods across Guelph will be protected from similar disproportionate investment. Densification numbers will not be diminished. In a university town, the market for affordable accommodation will always be strong. Planning should have confidence in the businessmen of our city. If they can’t all make a living in one location, they will spread out. Students will live where accommodation is provided.
If you are still reading this letter, I thank you for your attention and I implore you to take seriously the cry that is being raised from the South End. Dilution is what we need; even distribution is what we crave. Please adopt the “100-metre separation rule” as the tool to repair the problem that has been created.
Oshawa simply banned “lodging houses” from residential areas in response to the arrival of a university campus and community college in their midst. The Supreme Court upheld their legislation. Surely, the “100-metre separation rule” is milder than that yet fair and effective.
A “100-metre rule” “grandfathered” will only maintain the “status quo”, at present unacceptable. We need a “dilutionary” measure that will restore neighbourhoods yet still provide a share of affordable housing. An ungrandfathered “100-meter separation rule” seems like a very good solution.ES