Halifax’s Proposed Landlord Registry Sparks Both Praise And Ire
HALIFAX — After years of waiting, Haligonians have finally seen what a landlord registry might look like in the city. On January 24, staff presented their recommendation to Halifax Regional Council for first reading.
That first reading passed by a 15-1 vote in Regional Council on Tuesday.
The proposed registry would give the HRM a comprehensive list of all rental properties in the city, something that staff says is hard to do under the current rules. Most importantly, it would allow the city to undertake “proactive” inspections of rental units, rather than the city simply responding to complaints.
Fines ranging from $150-$10,000 can also be levied against non-compliant landlords. But staff stresses this would be a last resort after working with a landlord to bring them up to code.
If council implements the staff recommendations, there will be a grace period of nine-and-a-half months for landlords to come forward and register under the new system.
Such a registry will come with a price tag, however, at a time when council is debating a hard budget that will likely result in tax increases this year. The report estimates it will cost nearly $1.2 million over the next four years to hire four additional staff members needed to fulfill the role of the registry.
The staff report notes that they did not think it best to fund the registry by making landlords pay a fee- a cost that would be eventually passed on to the renters.
Staff is also proposing amendments to By-law M-200, which outlines minimum requirements for building maintenance and other standards for owning a rental property in the city.
The new registry gained very different reactions Tuesday from landlords and tenants. ACORN, the leading tenant’s advocacy group in the Maritimes, complemented what staff brought forward to council. IPOANs, the group representing investment property owners in Nova Scotia, critiqued it.
Hannah Wood, a leader for Nova Scotia’s ACORN chapter, applauded the registry for taking the onus off tenants to get the city to inspect rental units. She is also pleased to see upgrades to the M-200 laws.
“It’s a more proactive approach to keeping the standards right,” said Wood. “[Complaint-based] systems are always flawed, especially one like this where the chance of retaliation is so high because you have to identify who you are and your unit in order to see where the problem is.”
“Acorn is very happy at finally seeing the wheels turning on this matter as we’ve been fighting for it for several years.”
ACORN was hoping, however, that landlords would pay a registry fee to help fund the new system. But staff recommended against it.
“We wanted them to pay a per-unit, per-year price,” explained Wood. “And that way it pays for itself because we all know that programs that pay for themselves are more likely to last.”
ACORN is now looking for clarification on another big issue surrounding the registry: whether it will public and easily searchable.
“We were told, and certainly we asked, for the landlord registry itself to be searchable and to be public so that people could see who their landlord is — the actual owner’s name as opposed to a corporation — and also we could see their history of compliance.”
Staff at HRM has recommended to not make public the “full list” of properties in the registry.
“At this point in time, staff do not plan to share the full list of rental properties that will make up the rental registry,” the staff report reads. “Regarding Part 3 of the 2019 Motion of Council, requiring M-200 violations to be released on HRM’s open data website, this work was underway for a period of time but has been suspended while the new electronic permitting system is being implemented. Releasing the M-200 violations data can resume in the coming weeks as the implementation of the new system is nearing completion.”
Kevin Russell, the director of IPOANs, believes the $1.2 million of taxpayer money could be better spent elsewhere. He says there is no need for a landlord registry because there are bylaws and provincial legislation in place already that govern landlords and the buildings they own. What’s needed is just better enforcement, he says.
“The fact is, our industry is governed strictly by the provincial government, and then, from an HRM perspective, we have bylaws that are in place now that deal with these issues,” said Russell. “We believe these bylaws aren’t properly being enforced.”
“You have building code bylaws, you have fire code bylaws, they’re all on the books. And other than the fire law, the other ones are not being enforced.”
Russell also warns that adding more “red tape” to renting out properties will only discourage landlords. IPOANS has warned the province before that issues like the two percent rent cap is already causing landlords to sell.
“The outcome of this of this legislation will mean a reduction in rental units because, quite frankly, rental housing providers are tired of being slammed with new government regulations that are hindering their ability to make a living,” he said. “This is just another example, and it’s a red tape issue.”
“I can tell you from what I’ve been hearing from my members and nonmembers, this is an industry that they’re considering exiting. And if you look around the world, other jurisdictions that have gone through this process with rent control and heavy municipal regulations, the fact is that you will have the small rental housing providers leave the industry.”
Derek Montague is a Huddle reporter in Halifax. Send him your feedback and story ideas: [email protected].