What we propose to increase affordable housing on Salt Spring

• We should continue to build subsidized non-market affordable housing near villages and public transportation as has been already done by local non-profit organizations.

• Data should be gathered on how many legal ADUs already exist, are they being rented affordably to island workers, and how many units should there be for island workers. This will provide realistic goals for the bylaw.

• Identify a body that would hold housing agreements to assure affordability and renting to island workers, monitor for compliance, match renters with owners and other tasks as needed.

• Create mechanism to donate properties to the government or non-profit organizations for affordable housing purchase or rental.

• Allocate a limited number of owners who already have a rental suite near transportation and villages and will sign a housing agreement assuring affordable rent for an island worker.

• Rezoning or new allowances for ADUs should only be added if acceptable to First Nations such as the Tsawout.

• Crack down on STVRs. This is worth the cost. Distribute regular mailings to all island households informing that this practice is not legal.

What was proposed Bylaw 530?

Bylaw 530 would have allowed a second residence, called an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), either attached to the main residence (suite) or detached (cottage) on most residential properties on Salt Spring. The Islands Trust estimates that 5,215 properties would fall under this bylaw.

Trustees have stated that the bylaw was being proposed to help with the shortage of affordable housing for island workers, to allow current illegal ADUs to become legal and address renters living in unsafe conditions.

Why did we oppose Bylaw 530?

• Little Uptake, Big Risks: Both supporters and opponents of this bylaw agree that there would have been little up-take in the short term for a variety of reasons (high construction costs, risks to landlords associated with long-term tenancy, etc.) and that this bylaw would not have substantially helped with the affordable housing shortage.  Those who can afford to build ADUs would have most likely rented them as Short-Term Vacation Rentals (STVRs) or used them personally for family and guests. The likely result would have been increased development, increased pressure on both our natural environment and infrastructure, and little affordable housing.

• Property Price Increases: Upzoning of properties under Bylaw 530 would have increased their land values whether they provided an ADU or not. This, in turn, would exacerbate the affordable housing crisis by increasing property taxes to current property owners.

• Wouldn’t Make Rentals Affordable: The bylaw had no provisions to ensure that ADUs would be rented at an affordable rate or to island workers.  Given the current cost of construction, it is unlikely a suite or cottage that is renovated or built would result in a rent that is affordable.

• More Short-Term Vacation Rentals: Bylaw 530 stated that ADUs could not be used for STVRs, but this was meaningless as the Trust had admitted that it is not able to effectively enforce their current STVR prohibition.

• First Nations were in Opposition: The Tsawout First Nation, which owns and manages the Fulford Harbour Reserve here on the Island, was in opposition to proposed Bylaw 530. They stated that Bylaw 530 would “significantly change the environmental trajectory of the island by pushing the living capacity well past the standards that were originally outlined in the Salt Spring Island Official Community Plan. Furthermore, Bylaw 530 does not address the potential impacts increased development and living capacity will have on Tsawout First Nations rights to manage the traditional territory for now and future generations.” The Islands Trust had publicly committed to First Nations reconciliation so there would have needed to be a resolution to their concerns before Bylaw 530 proceeded. Read their original letter.

• Not Consistent with OCP: The bylaw violated our Official Community Plan (OCP), which states: “B.2.1.2.1 Zoning changes should be avoided if they would likely result in a larger island population than is expected under the development potential zoned in 2008. Exceptions to this policy are to be few and minor and only to achieve affordable housing and other objectives of this Plan.”

• No Data, No Plan: In 2013 and 2020, in an attempt to increase affordable housing, Island’s Trust implemented bylaws that allowed secondary suites and/or cottages to be occupied full time on about 2,000 properties. Data were never collected so it is unknown how many of these units provided affordable long-term rentals to working islanders. How can the Island’s Trust effectively plan without knowing the impact of their decision-making?

• Increased Stress on Limited Water Supply: During the building inspection process, the property owner must show they have an adequate water supply. This does not consider potential effects on other wells.  As more residences are built and occupied, stress on limited groundwater resources is likely to increase.

• Illegal and Un-Safe Rentals Would Remain: Landlords currently renting out several trailers or other unpermitted units are unlikely to fund expensive upgrades to bring their units up to code, or to reduce multiple units to the one suite/cottage allowed by the bylaw.  Illegal and unsafe rentals will survive as long as there is a market and enforcement is lacking.