Tenant Protection or More City Jobs?

---

Tenant Protection or City Hall Job Security?

A small redevelopment issue should not become another permanent City Hall process

Nanaimo City Hall is considering a tenant-protection bylaw for renters displaced by redevelopment of older rental buildings.

Helping displaced tenants sounds reasonable. Nobody should pretend being forced from your home is a minor inconvenience. But council should be careful not to confuse creating another bylaw with solving the real problem.

The basic question is simple:

Is Nanaimo helping displaced tenants find affordable homes — or creating another layer of City Hall administration around a problem it cannot actually fix?

Points to Ponder

• How many tenants will this bylaw actually help each year?
• How much staff time, consultant work, enforcement, and reporting will it require?
• What tenant protections already exist under provincial law?
• If the City adds more cost to redevelopment, what City-imposed costs will it reduce or rebate?

Continue reading the full article...

The proposal being discussed would require certain landlords redeveloping rental buildings to provide displaced tenants with additional compensation. The suggested approach reportedly includes four months’ rent in total compensation, including the one month already required under provincial rules, plus moving-cost assistance.

That may sound modest. It may even be reasonable in some cases.

But before Nanaimo creates another municipal bylaw, another compliance system, another enforcement process, another reporting requirement, and possibly another demand on staff time, council should ask a very basic question:

How large is the actual problem this bylaw is supposed to solve?

According to City material, Nanaimo has approximately 108 purpose-built rental apartment buildings representing about 4,200 rental units. But the number of recent redevelopment cases appears far smaller. City staff have indicated that since 2020, only six sites involving about 140 units have been anticipated or are in the process of redevelopment.

That changes the discussion.

If the number of actual cases is limited, then a simple, clear, low-cost policy may be justified. But a complicated administrative machine is not.

This is where taxpayers should pay attention.

City Hall has a habit of turning every problem into a process. A process needs staff time. Staff time needs budget. Budget needs taxes. Then, before long, a limited problem becomes another permanent function inside City Hall.

That may be good for administrative job security. It does not necessarily mean it is good housing policy.

Tenants already have some protection under provincial law. For demolition or conversion, landlords must provide significant notice and compensation under the Residential Tenancy Act. Nanaimo is not starting from zero.

The City’s proposed bylaw would add to that protection. The question is whether the added protection solves the tenant’s real problem.

If a displaced tenant cannot afford today’s Nanaimo market rent, then extra compensation may help with the move, but it does not guarantee the tenant can remain in Nanaimo. The cheque may cover a moving truck, damage deposit, or a few months of rent difference. It does not create an affordable home.

Council should be honest about that.

There is also another side to the issue. If City Hall keeps adding costs, delays, uncertainty, paperwork, and social-policy obligations to redevelopment, some owners may simply decide not to redevelop.

That may sound like a win to some people in the short term. But in the long term, it can mean older buildings remain older, repairs become patchwork, maintenance becomes minimum, and Nanaimo’s aging rental stock is left to deteriorate instead of being replaced.

That does not help tenants either.

If Nanaimo wants to require additional tenant compensation, council should also ask what City-generated redevelopment costs can be softened, deferred, rebated, or removed to keep projects viable.

Could some amenity charges be credited against verified tenant compensation? Could permit fees be reduced for qualifying rental replacement projects? Could approvals be faster and more predictable? Could the City stop adding delay while pretending delay has no cost?

If City Hall believes tenant compensation is a public good, then City Hall should be willing to share some of the cost. Otherwise, council is simply transferring another public-policy cost onto redevelopment and hoping the numbers still work.

That is not balance. That is cost-shifting.

A better bylaw would be simple, limited, and measurable.

Council should require an annual public report showing:

• how many buildings were affected;
• how many tenants received compensation;
• how much compensation was paid;
• how much staff time and City cost were involved;
• whether any new staff or consultant spending was required;
• and whether displaced tenants actually found housing in Nanaimo.

That last point matters most.

The purpose of the bylaw should not be to create paperwork. It should not be to let council make compassionate speeches. It should not be to create another reporting structure that quietly expands over time.

The purpose should be to help real tenants facing real displacement.

If the bylaw does that, keep it simple and prove it.

If it does not, then Nanaimo should not pretend another City Hall process is the same thing as a housing solution.

The test is not how compassionate the bylaw sounds.

The test is whether it helps displaced tenants stay housed without building another costly City Hall machine.

That is the question council should answer before moving ahead.

Source context: City of Nanaimo tenant relocation assistance materials indicate approximately 108 purpose-built rental apartment buildings with about 4,200 units, while only six redevelopment sites involving about 140 units have been anticipated or in process since 2020. Provincial tenancy rules already provide notice and compensation requirements in certain demolition or conversion cases.