From: "steve hartwell" <steve.hartwell@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: house apartments
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:15:18 EST
Reply-To: "steve hartwell" <steve.hartwell@canrem.com>
Distribution: ont
Organization: Canada Remote Systems



Hi Frank, you said let's do it thru the newsgroup, so here goes.

UG>       From: FRANK WARMERDAM
UG>    Subject: house apartments
UG>
UG>OK Steve, you asked for it.
UG>
UG>First, why are you collecting this input?  Will it be passed on to
UG>the government bodies considering these changes?  Incidently
UG>I read a pamphlet making mentioning most of the below, perhaps
UG>it is your source text.

UG>In article <1992Jul20.718.2841@dosgate> you write:
UG>>- improve the powers of entry available to municipal officials;
UG>I would support moves that make it easier for the government to
UG>enforce reasonable housing requirements, as long as it does not
UG>trample on peoples right to privacy.
UG>
UG>>- clarify that unrelated people may share a home as a household;
UG>This is only reasonable in a free country.
UG>
UG>Some overall feelings.  I feel that urban intensification is better
UG>than urban sprawl.  Intensification improves the effeciency of
UG>public transit, fire services, and roads.  IMHO this is a good
UG>thing.
UG>
UG>>  - on the other hand, these people may wind up in the parks and
UG>under >    bridges because of the disappearance of anywhere to
UG>sleep inside
UG>Too much government restriction on housing is unfairest to the poor
UG>who can not afford the remaining expensive housing.  This is
UG>unfortunate.
UG>
UG>>  - there could be a terrific stimulation to the construction
UG>>    industry thus creating many jobs & economically stimulating
UG>jobs >    in other sectors
UG>>  - new home buyers would be able to suppliment their mortgages
UG>with a >    rental, thus stimulating home construction and the
UG>realty sectors
UG>This I doubt.  The new housing starts made possible by this
UG>regulation would be offset for the most part by a reduced need for
UG>new housing. The construction of large apartment buildings would
UG>likely be somewhat depressed.
UG>
UG>>  - rents for these apts. could be half what most people now pay,
UG>thus >    adding a huge shot of healthy competition to the market,
UG>and >    perhaps resulting in doing away with rent controls
UG>Apartment scarcity at this time is partly a result of goverment
UG>restriction.  This is bad.  I don't like rent control, even though
UG>I currently benefit from it.
UG>
UG>>  - more tax revenues will be generated
UG>This will be offset my a growth in citizens to take care of.
UG>
UG>>  - car traffic on a street with a significant number of apts.
UG>could >    possibly be higher
UG>This is a valid concern, but one with which I have little sympathy.
UG>Those with a house want to keep their neighbourhoods tranquil and
UG>underutilized to improve their quality of living.
UG>
UG>>  - seniors could live affordably with their children and
UG>>    grandchildren without actually being 'underfoot' and
UG>maintaining a >    separate life of their own instead of being
UG>shoved into >    institutions, or suffering violent crimes in
UG>unsafe >    neighbourhoods. On the other hand, what if it's an
UG>in-law you >    can't stand - would they run around naked on the
UG>streets trying >    to find out where their keys are - 'mother died
UG>in the backyard'
UG>This could vastly improve the quality of some people's declining
UG>years.
UG>
UG>>  - there are very few Canadians these days who can ever dream of
UG>>    finding affordable apartments, let alone houses.
UG>This is an overstatement.  Nevertheless housing prices in Metro
UG>are artificially inflated.  However, older houses in rural areas
UG>are often quite reasonable.
UG>
UG>>  - homes with apartments could be revenue makers instead of just
UG>>    mountains of debt that the bank seizes for non-payment of
UG>>    mortgage, or the municipality seizes for taxes. And coupled
UG>with >    work-at-home movement could drastically cut down on car
UG>pollution
UG>People ought to have the right to enjoy, and employ their homes
UG>however they want, as long as it does not unduly infringe the
UG>rights of their neighbours.  When in doubt, don't stop people from
UG>renting and so forth.
UG>
UG>> I am VERY much looking forward to the MOUNDS of messages I expect
UG>to > get. It should make for some exciting and interesting chats.
UG>Hopefully this is more than just a 'mail grab'.

 Hi Frank, thanks for the comments. Ontario is hoping to legalize
 house apartments soon, I am gathering 'feedback' and it will go to
 them for consideration. I'll post more info on the subject now.

---
  ACCESS/MAIL 1.00 #0274  CANBUILD - THE Construction Conference
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044