Murray and Dechene said the CACA was not opposed in principle to conversions at first, but became alarmed when tenants began to tell stories of undue pressure from Nicor, the property management company. According to the rules, 75 per cent of tenants must agree to the conversion when city vacancy rates are less than three per cent.

“At a summer meeting at Connaught School between tenants, Nicor and the city, we listened to the testimony of many tenants who expressed deep mistrust of Nicor and who indicated that the hardships they would experience from their buildings being converted was not being satisfactorily remedied,” Murray said.

The community association felt the concerns had been addressed when the city administration, after further investigation, recommended on Nov. 5 that the applications be denied.

“We are surprised, then, to find ourselves at Council faced with a recommendation for acceptance of the conversion applications.”

The CACA also took issue with the landlord’s statement that the slumlike condition of the buildings would only be remedied by condo approval.

“We have a situation where a landlord has come before planning commission and confessed that their properties are dangerously decrepit. In such a situation, for the sake of the tenants still residing in these buildings, shouldn’t the first step be an inspection from Public Heath and City Bylaw Enforcement, not a condo conversion approval?”

- Trish Elliott is a CACA board member

CACA PRESENTATION

 CATHEDRAL AREAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION BEFORE REGINA CITY COUNCIL

RE: REPORTS RPC 08-57, RPC 08-60 AND RPC 08-61

The Cathedral Area Community Association is here to urge council to accept the original recommendations of city staff in reports RPC 08 57 through 61 as presented to Planning Commision on November 5, and deny the three condo conversion applications: 2060 Lorne, 2358 Rae and 2125 Lorne. Also, we’d like to note that we are not in favour of approving the applications for the conversions of 2121 and 2141 Rae which have been tabled and will be considered at the Dec 3 Planning Commision meeting.

When the possibility of these condo conversions was brought to our association’s attention, we were somewhat concerned. However, we are not opposed to development in the Cathedral Area, nor are we in principal opposed to apartment blocks being converted to condominium dwellings. We do, however, want to ensure that when such conversions are being considered, the process that developers have to go through is fair both to them and to tenants, and that issues such as the availability of rental accommodation in our area be considered.

After discussions with city staff, we became convinced that the process they were going to enter into with Nicor in this case seemed to address most of our concerns. We opted to wait and see how the situation would develop.

Over the course of the process, we began to worry that all was not well with these conversions.  And there seems to be a disconnect between the process that was laid out to us and the result.

Once it was underway, we began to hear complaints that Nicor was not conducting itself professionally and may in fact have been placing undue pressure upon tenants to get them to agree to the conversions. Moreover, at a summer meeting at Connaught school between tenants, Nicor and the city, we listened to the testimony of many tenants who expressed deep mistrust of Nicor and who indicated that the hardship they would experience from their buildling’s being converted was not being satisfactorily remedied.

We heard how Nicor meddled in the second tenant survey even though they’d been requested by city staff not to.  If this is the case, then the survey system appears deeply flawed and open to abuse.  This must be rectified or we cannot expect the public to have any faith in the process.  The applicant should not have any impact, whatsoever, on the survey process. And we should not reward their interference at the end of the process.

The original, November 5 city staff reports, addressed our concerns. They seemed thorough. Their recommendations to deny the applications based on the problems that arose during the process seemed sound.

We are surprised, then, to find ourselves at Council faced with a recommendation for acceptance of the conversion applications.

Planning commission, we feel has failed to ask some important questions about these applications.

For instance, Nicor claims that many of their tenants are in support of the conversion. Many, however, may or may not meet the city’s policy minimum that 75% of tenants must support such an application. Also, all five staff reports seem to suggest that information coming from Nicor about tenant attitudes has not always been reliable --- this was the reason for the second tenant survey. We would think, then, that a vague suggestion from Nicor that some number of tenants are in their corner would not be sufficient for Planning Commission, and some burden of proof would be shifted onto the applicant.

Also, Nicor has suggested repeatedly that these conversions must go through because these five buildings are “slumlike” and in need of millions of dollars worth of repairs. To our knowledge, no breakdown of this figure has been requested of Nicor. Is this “millions of dollars” the amount necessary to get these buildings up to condo-resale condition? Might a reasonable maintenance investment be less costly? We simply don’t know.

Also, we have a situation where a landlord has come before planning commission and confessed that their properties are dangerously decrepit. In such a situation, for the sake of the tenants still residing in these buildings, shouldn’t the first step be an inspection from Public Heath and City Bylaw Enforcement, not a condo conversion approval?

Again, the CACA is not in principal opposed to condo conversions and we want to see smart, sustainable development in our community.

But, as was to our satisfaction demonstrated in the staff reports, in this case the applicant has not acted up to a level of professionalism that we would think is acceptable. Because of this, 20 other condo conversion applications have been languishing in a queue. We feel that such behaviour should not be rewarded and council should deny these applications. They should be put at the end of the line, and staff should be allowed to proceed to other applications that have been sitting in limbo.

In addition to all of this, we are concerned about the effect that approving these applications will have on the range of housing alternatives available in the Cathedral Area. If we are to have a sustainable rental market in the central zone, we wonder how much closer to a 3% rate we can skirt and what effect taking these 3 buildings off the market will have.

Comments

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment 2.0!