CLOVERDALE 鈥� A Clayton resident and landlord is calling Surrey鈥檚 鈥渢hreatening鈥� tactics to get rid of the neighbourhood鈥檚 illegal suites immoral and unethical.
Greg Garner is even questioning the legality of the move.
鈥淚 feel like the city has to open their eyes and realize they cannot go through with this,鈥� Garner told the Now-Leader. 鈥�You鈥檙e going to (be) displacing so many families and putting hardship on so many people.鈥�
During the month of August, the city sent notices to homeowners of 175 illegal suites in East Clayton. Owners have six months to comply.
Garner says he鈥檚 consulting with a lawyer after receiving what he calls 鈥渢hreatening鈥� letters from the city that say if he doesn鈥檛 remove one of his two suites before Jan. 31, 2018, he could face penalties and possibly legal action.
- SEE MORE:
The City of Surrey legally allows one secondary suite per residential property, and Garner has two. He rents out his coach home and his disabled daughter鈥檚 nanny rents his basement suite.
The hitch, Garner says, is that the city taxes him on both.
Since Sept. 19, 2014, he鈥檚 been paying suite fees not only for his coach home, but also on the 鈥渋llegal suite鈥� he鈥檚 being asked to remove.
His property tax documents show charges for a 鈥淪econdary Dwelling Service Fee鈥� and also a 鈥淢ultiple Secondary Suite Service Fee鈥� of $568 each (see photo below).
鈥淭his is so ridiculous to me,鈥� he says. 鈥淯s people who鈥檝e been paying our fees, we should鈥檝e got letters saying,鈥橳hank you very much for paying your fees. You are grandfathered into this program. We鈥檙e going to be cracking down on those who haven鈥檛 paid their fees.鈥欌��
Furthermore, Garner said it鈥檚 unethical for the city to force eviction on 175 homes in the midst of a housing crisis.
鈥淚鈥檝e seen on Facebook, a single mother on Monday got an eviction notice. Another guy鈥檚 saying he was moving his elderly parents downstairs. Again, paying the taxes. In my mind, if we weren鈥檛 paying taxes on it, there鈥檚 not much of an argument here.鈥�
Garner says the fact the city is charging him tax on two suites means it has essentially allowed both of the suites. The city knew this was going on, he stressed.
鈥淚 think these 175 are all people who are paying the fee. So there鈥檚 record. People who are actually following the rules, so they can track us down.鈥�
To make matters worse, said Garner, he just signed a five-year lease with his nanny in the basement suite.
- READ LETTER:
鈥淚鈥檓 happy to pay the fees if my nanny can have a stove to cook on everyday鈥�. she鈥檚 waiting to bring her family over in the next month. I鈥檝e entered into this contract with her so she has stability for her family who鈥檚 coming from the Philippines and has a comfortable nice place to live with landlords who are going to treat her with respect.鈥�
Plus, he added, 鈥淚 can鈥檛 evict a tenant without cause.鈥�
Garner, like many of his neighbours, are . But he said this isn鈥檛 the way to go about solving it.
鈥淚鈥檓 hoping the City of Surrey is going to open their eyes and realize they can鈥檛 do this, and go back to the drawing board and come up with a better solution to the parking problem鈥�. At the end of the day the City of Surrey is responsible for this,鈥� he said of the overcrowded neighbourhood, citing the lack of on-site parking, compact garages, and homes allowed to be built with a basement suite in addition to a coach home.
鈥淭hey clearly made a poor decision on it, but they鈥檙e going to take it out on 175-plus tenants and force them to move because they鈥檙e tired of getting parking complaints?鈥�
Garner said he鈥檚 consulting with a lawyer on the legality of the city鈥檚 move.
鈥淲e have major issues in the City of Surrey, we鈥檝e got shootings and everything else, I jut can鈥檛 imagine that they can focus their energy on evicting 175 people. It鈥檚 just mind-boggling to me,鈥� he said.
Jas Rehal, bylaws manager for Surrey, acknowledged the city is, in fact, taxing some owners on two suites.
鈥淚f an individual declared their multiple suite, and proactively registered with the city, at the bottom of that declaration form, it clearly states that you鈥檙e aware multiple suites may not be applicable and may be subject to a removal order in the future. That鈥檚 our means on how we can go after these,鈥� he told the Now-Leader.
鈥淭hese fees are not necessarily to make a suite legal.鈥�
Asked if this could be categorized as the city profiting off of illegal suites, Rehal said, 鈥渘o, no, no.鈥�
鈥淲e鈥檙e not profiting,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e鈥檙e collecting fees to help alleviate the financial costs associated with servicing. Those fees came in years ago and have been in place well before my time.鈥�
So, why didn鈥檛 the city just say no and force owners to remove suites when it became aware of them?
Rehal said the city wanted to exhaust every other option to resolve the parking issue. The aim was to avoid forcing the removal of some suites, and thus, people losing their homes.
鈥淲e have tried everything else,鈥� Rehal said, adding the city has tried several initiatives over the past five years in attempts to resolve parking woes.
鈥淲e usually give 60 days, but we鈥檙e giving until Jan. 31. That鈥檚 it. Officers are going to go back on each property and sit with each owner. We鈥檒l work with them but at the end of the day, you need to be in compliance.鈥�
Asked what landlords who have lease agreements in place should do, Rehal said owners need to 鈥渕ake sure their properties are in compliance with municipal regulations鈥� and that it鈥檚 the owners responsibility to handle their tenancy responsibilities.
Some, like Garner, have asked if all 175 homeowners being targeted had declared their suites to the city. Rehal said no, that it鈥檚 a mix of declared and undeclared.
Instead, Rehal said this first enforcement push is 鈥渃omplaint driven.鈥�
鈥淲e have a complaint on file for all 175. And a complaint that鈥檚 been substantiated,鈥� he added.
Rehal said city hall has heard from many of the 175 landlords letters have been issued to, may consider holding a forum to discuss the details, if that鈥檚 of interest to the community.
But Garner insists he has never been contacted or visited by a bylaw officer in relation to a complaint, and says he will be asking the city about the 鈥渟upposed complaint鈥� against his property.
amy.reid@surreynowleader.com
Like us on and follow Amy on
