Councilor Everitt is right on this issue. Aside from the inconsistency between legal and illegal suites, there are other issues.

As an example you can have an apartment with 40 suites and one business license, however if you have 8 rental houses they want you to have 8 business licenses. One for each residence. So you pay say $2000.00 in license fee’s, versus $250.00.

At the very least they should charge you one license to cover all your residences. Keep in mind that the owner of the residences pays taxes, and utilities on all buildings, plus he can only claim the Home Owners Grant on his official residence, and therefore pays the higher rate on his rental properties.

This whole licensing scheme was ill conceived and was nothing more than a thinly disguised tax grab. It failed to deal with the illegal suite issue, which is a much bigger problem than the licensing issue.

So, another example of bad judgment coming from Administration, and the Finance Committee, without being properly vetted, to ensure that it is fair and equitable.

Seems the problem is always the **rush** to increase our taxes or costs, and to hell with good judgment.

Your right palopu,but ill conceived is an understatement, this Mayor and staff seem to have only one objective money, money and careless what the outcome is or how negative it will be on investment or small business. Should be interesting discussion.

Maybe Everitt owns a bunch of suites and doesn’t like the fact he may have to pay a licence fee for them.

Posted by: Huh on March 28 2014 7:47 AM
Maybe Everitt owns a bunch of suites and doesn’t like the fact he may have to pay a licence fee for them.

——–

If that’s true this sounds like a conflict of interest to me.

Maybe Everitt is trying to do the right thing. I doubt that he would bring forth this type of a proposal if he was a landlord.

Make those who rent out one rental unit exempt like it used to be. Some of us are forced to rent the respective places out due to moves.

Posted by: Palopu on March 28 2014 8:14 AM
Maybe Everitt is trying to do the right thing.

—————

It’s an election year; he’s looking for votes.

“Council policy should be fair and equitable; for example business licenses don’t apply to illegal suites.”

That sounds fair, it’s illegal so you don’t have to pay. Shouldn’t it be it’s illegal so you DO have to pay? Pay 10x more else shut it down! What is the citie’s definition of an illegal suite anyway? Is there a number to call to report such suites? Are they activiely trying to shut down illegal suites?

I agree with Palopu! If you are a landlord one business license should suffice for all your properties.

So if you own 2 or 3 stores downtown do you only have to have 1 business license to cover all stores?

What everyone is forgetting is that these extra costs are passed on to the renters, who often are low income families. I think Everitt is right on the money with this. It was just another poorly thought out tax grab by the city to start charging these extra fees.

—and by the way, instead of making innuendos about what the Councillor’s motives are, “Huh”, why don’t you have a quick look at the City’s business registry and see if he owns rental properties.

Hmmm, maybe Northleft owns a bunch of suites and doesn’t want to pay the license fees too.

Exactly….just a money grab by the city again.

one business can own several locations on one business license but if a person has a couple rentals or a duplex they need 2 business licenses.

If you want to rent out your house because you move or move in with girlfriend, etc you need to get a business license. It makes no difference to the city who is living there other than you pay more property taxes.

As a landlord, I agree with another look at this new fee. All my units are legal,so I pay full taxes as well as utilities for them. For years the City has talked about identifying the location and number of rental units here. Let them do that first, close down any units that are dangerous fire hazards and follow through on safety violations. They will need to consider what will happen to tenants that find themselves with nowhere to live. I also agree that if a business license fee is imposed, that it be one fee regardless of the number of units leased. It is one business and the fee should be applied accordingly.

Bang on Banner.

Banner and Palopu are both correct. I am one of those landlord. Eventually the tenant will be paying for these costs. It was a stupid ill conceived idea to do this. I would like the name of the people who came up with this brainchild.

If you have a illegal suite, why would you pay for the business liscence. it than becomes admitting to having a illegal suite.

There is a catch on this, and the city are just going to be making it more difficult for people to find a place to rent, or it becomes too expensive. Of course if your one of those overpaid city administrators, you have no idea what the rest of the world is living in.

In theory this is how it should go. If you own an extra home and rent it out you get a business license for the extra home you rent out, there done. If you own several homes that you rent out, you register as a business, get a single license for your “rental business” and get one license to run your business managing your rental homes (multiple homes). Again there done. This BS about licensing every home is stupid and more than likely a misunderstanding on the part of the “novice landlords” and “slum lords” who know nothing about business and business practices in a city. Illegal suites and illegal rentals are just that illegal and can’t be licensed until they comply with the provincial building codes.

If you have two places of business you have to get a business licence for both address.

A video rental store does get a license for every video it rents out. A property management business doesn’t get a license for every location it manages. That’s like an apartment block getting a license for every rental suite within the building.

@Professional

No misunderstanding here.

“A separate Business License is required for each rental property you own and from which you receive a rental income.”

This is a direct quote from a letter I received from Bylaw Services after the new bylaw came into effect October 7, 2013. It used to be that “Previously,buildings with only one or two dwelling units were exempted from the business license requirement.” and
“The 2014 Business License fee is $155.00 for each rental property.”

All quotes are from the same letter signed by Guy Gusdal Manager, Bylaw Services.

Well “Duh” I guess if you can’t make a cogent argument, just sling some more mud. NO I don’t have any rental property and I know the city needs more revenue, but it’s going to be the renter that pays this in the end, and a lot of them can’t afford any more. Their rent pays the property taxes that the city collects already, so they aren’t getting a free ride. I’m not supporting the landlords here, but the renters.

Must be close to an election. You don’t hear squat from him all year and now he’s getting all vocal with changes needed. Sounds opportunistic.

Thanks for the clarification Banner.
Yeah that’s a little out in left field.

“I guess if you can’t make a cogent argument, just sling some more mud” .. priceless, this coming from someone who calls others derogatory names. You sound too defensive to be at arms length of this issue. Landlords can only increase the rent 2% over inflation each year, so the argument that rent is going to climb steeply is moot.