A taxpayer comments on rental housing licensing:
As a fellow taxpayer, I would like to state my objection to implement a $7.8 million dollar licensing program within the city of Guelph. My objective of this letter is not to make comment on how or why I disagree with many of the hypotheses produced by the report and its authors, as the resulting interpretation would be weighted by my self-interest. I would like to instead, state my objection to the issues within the report that impacts me and all city of Guelph citizens as taxpayers. The decision to implement a certain style or system of licensing should at the very least be vetted by an independent source. The current cost benefit analysis within the report cannot be viewed with any legitimacy knowing that it has been supplied by the very structure looking to install it. The report’s authors are Joan Jylanne, a senior policy planner in planning services at the city of Guelph and Bill Bond, a zoning inspector in building services at the city of Guelph. Their report states that there will be a cumulative 5 year cost of just over $7.8 million taxpayer dollars. Within the report, cost was stated with certainty and revenue was stated as an expectation. My expectation as a taxpayer is for transparency. My lowest expectation prior to making a $7.8 million dollar expenditure would be that the information provided be prepared by an independent consultant and perhaps an author with a degree in economics. If the city of Guelph wishes to convey that our municipality’s brand of licensing will be the very first and only municipality to be either revenue neutral or positive, as a taxpayer I would have preferred an independent consultant declare this. If I could independently claim or provide my own version of financial credibility when applying for a mortgage I might not find this report so objectionable, unfortunately, for myself and all credit seeking applicants this is not the case. Just as unrealistic as it is to think that any business would operate their lending institution upon that same criteria, I also consider this report, and the credibility of information you are willing to accept in forming a $7.8 million decision, unrealistic and disrespectful to all Guelph taxpayers. The current report makes no mention of the economic impact on our localized market. It took me 5 minutes to obtain information provided by CMHC that described Guelph’s rental market and our 2013 projected vacancy rate of being only 1.4%. Within the cost benefit report there is no mention of how licensing will affect the economic factors that dictate available supply, demand, underground demand and price. Therefore there are still important questions to be asked. What will be the impact of increased restriction with a higher barrier of entry and an elevated cost to operate, have on rental rates in an already competitive market with an inventory short fall? My educated guess is that the cost to the lower economic class will increase exponentially. As policy makers and guardians of our tax dollar, the very best of information should be sought before making a $7.8 million dollar decision, if even, just to dismay the conjecture of an internal report being produced solely to support what currently sounds as an already predetermined outcome. SF