Nanaimo Tenant Protection Bylaw

---

When Below-Market Renters Hit Nanaimo’s Market-Rent Wall

The displacement problem City Hall cannot solve with a moving cheque

Nanaimo City Hall is considering a tenant-protection bylaw for renters displaced when older rental buildings are redeveloped.

On the surface, it sounds fair. If someone is being forced from their home because a building is being demolished or redeveloped, there is a reasonable argument that the tenant should receive more than a handshake and a moving truck bill.

But this discussion should not be confused with solving the real problem.

The real problem is not simply that a tenant has to move. The real problem is that many long-term tenants may be paying below today’s Nanaimo market rent — and once they are pushed into the current rental market, they may not be able to afford, or even qualify for, a replacement home.

Points to Ponder

• Does four months’ rent help if the replacement rent is permanently hundreds of dollars higher?
• Can a displaced tenant pass the income test for today’s market rent?
• Where is the affordable replacement unit supposed to come from?
• Is City Hall offering housing affordability — or simply temporary relocation money?

Continue reading the full article...

The proposed Nanaimo approach would reportedly require affected landlords to provide displaced tenants with four months’ rent in compensation, including the one month already required under provincial tenancy rules. Moving-cost assistance may also be included.

That sounds helpful — and in the short term, it probably is. A displaced tenant may need money for movers, storage, utility hookups, first month’s rent, a security deposit, pet deposit, or temporary accommodation.

But then what?

Suppose a long-term tenant is paying $1,100 per month in an older apartment. That rent may not be “cheap” to the tenant. It may already be a struggle. But compared with today’s Nanaimo rental market, it may still be below current market rent.

If that tenant is forced to move and the replacement unit is $1,700 per month, the tenant is now facing a $600 monthly increase. That is $7,200 per year — after tax — just to remain housed.

Four months’ rent may help pay for the move. It does not solve the $600 monthly gap that follows.

This is the part of the discussion that deserves more honesty. A compensation cheque may help a tenant move out. It does not prove they can move in somewhere else.

A landlord reviewing a new rental application is not simply asking whether the tenant received compensation. The landlord may look at income, employment, credit history, references, pets, family size, accessibility needs, and the number of other applicants competing for the same unit.

A senior on fixed income, a single person working modest wages, someone on disability income, or a family already stretched by food, transportation, insurance, and utilities may not pass the real-world affordability test.

That does not make the tenant irresponsible. It means the rental market has moved beyond what many ordinary people can afford.

This is why Nanaimo should be careful not to confuse tenant compensation with tenant affordability.

Tenant compensation may be humane. It may be reasonable. It may be better than doing nothing. But it does not create an affordable apartment. It does not lower market rent. It does not increase a tenant’s income. It does not guarantee approval for a new unit. It does not protect the tenant from being permanently priced out of Nanaimo.

In that sense, the proposed bylaw may soften the landing, but it does not change where the tenant lands.

And that should be the central question for council:

If a displaced tenant cannot afford today’s Nanaimo market rent, how does this bylaw help that tenant remain housed in Nanaimo after the compensation runs out?

That is not an anti-tenant question. It is the opposite. It is the question that takes the tenant’s situation seriously.

Nobody should pretend displacement is easy. For some tenants, losing a long-term rental home can mean losing a neighbourhood, a bus route, a school catchment, nearby family support, familiar services, or access to doctors, pharmacies, and groceries.

The hardship is real.

But if City Hall wants to claim it is protecting tenants, then City Hall should be honest about what protection actually means.

A moving cheque is not housing affordability.

Four months’ compensation may help a tenant survive the disruption. It may give them breathing room. It may prevent immediate financial disaster.

But if the tenant is being pushed from a below-market rent into a market they can no longer afford, the real problem has not been solved. It has merely been postponed.

Nanaimo council should not let good intentions become comforting language that hides an uncomfortable reality.

The question is not whether displaced tenants deserve help. They do.

The question is whether this bylaw actually helps them find an affordable home in Nanaimo.

If it does not, then council should say so plainly.

Tenant compensation may be part of the answer. But it is not the answer to Nanaimo’s rental affordability problem.

Source context: City of Nanaimo tenant relocation assistance materials and B.C. residential tenancy rules. Readers are encouraged to review the City staff material and provincial tenancy information directly.