I Survived A Secondary Suite...

Some might consider me a survivor. Others might have called me the scourge of West Lethbridge. I was young and wasn't really paying attention. I was just happy to have somewhere to live. To the surprise of some, I spent a year at the University of Lethbridge in hopes of getting into accounting. I'm relatively good with numbers and I took every high school accounting class I could, so it only seemed logical. So during that year, I needed a place to live (my first away from the farm). It didn't take me long to find a place. Found it on Temple Boulevard. Nice middle-aged man had the house to himself and was looking to rent out the basement. I suppose it wasn't a FULL secondary suite as I didn't have my own kitchen, but everything else was my own. Entrance, bathroom, bedroom and even a parking spot connected to the back alley. He was a Christian chap, so I tried to mind my P's and Q's and didn't have parties or anything. My place was basically to sleep in anyways, as I was a full-time student with a part-time job (and as it turned out, volunteering at the university radio station took up the rest of my time). As I've watched the on-going battle over secondary suites in Calgary, I can't help but look back on my days in my old place and wonder if someone is missing out on an opportunity that I had. The debate has been heated on both sides, with those against claiming it will ruin their communities, with everything from a lack of parking to an influx of drugs and prostitutes (that was actually one argument made). Those for the suites say nothing will really change as most of the suites are already in place, they're just considered "illegal" unless the owner has gotten the proper permits, etc. What I have found interesting in this whole debate is that it feels like an "us vs. them" argument again, but someone is missing in this whole equation: the homeowner/landlord. I was lucky in that Gerry (I think that was his name, it's been a few years hahaha!) was an upstanding guy. He actually lived in the place, cut his grass, checked in on me. He was the opposite of a "slumlord." Maybe I'm being too much of an optimist here, but is it possible that most who are anti-secondary suite aren't actually opposed to the renters, but they're opposed to the idea that there will be homeowners who will rent out every single room in their home without actually checking in, only there to rake in the profits? Hate to burst any bubbles here, but I saw it when I first moved to Calgary. I went to a place in Inglewood where the owner showed me a room (Room #4 with an actual number on the door). It was one of six or eight rooms (can't remember) being rented. The room would have fit a bed and a dresser. That's it. You shared everything else. Needless to say, I didn't move in there. It really feels like this whole argument is over something that no one has been able to actually eloquently address. It's about the homeowner/landlords. The renters want something resembling choice (aka affordable) and a safe place to live, while residents want their community to remain safe and everyone to be responsible. They want to be able to trust their neighbours, yet they don't. So instead of having to deal with it later (aka those "personal interactions" we all seem to deplore), they're being proactive and saying "no" outright. It's "nothing personal" for the potential renters, it's just there's that possibility that a bad apple could move in and they don't want that. And really, no one does. But therein lies the problem. There are bad apples in every single group involved in these debates. The majority of renters are just simply looking for a place to live. The majority of potential landlords are mindful of their community but might also need some income, or wouldn't mind having someone in the house, or they feel they can help ease the housing crunch a bit. I'd also like to think the majority of communities are welcoming to the idea of legalizing secondary suites as they realize it will have little to no impact, especially if the first two groups are good apples. Unfortunately, this is kind of like the debate over policing the Red Mile during the Calgary Flames playoff run. Police say the vast majority of revelers are good. But there are the few they need to keep a watchful eye on. The "bad apples" who ruin it for everyone else. There's a difference between the two though. Police are letting the Red Mile party continue while they weed out the bad apples, while the Secondary Suite party was shut down before it even started. And the good apples are being left with a court summons even though they didn't do anything wrong. By no means am I saying that concerns on either side of the argument are misguided. I just hope to add a little insight into the back-and-forth, and that everyone keeps an open mind.