A7

John Rocca
Commentary

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

2 Comment(s)

John Chilibeck's column, "The big stick begs a big question: will it be used?" asks whether the sweeping powers Saint John council has given the building inspector will actually be used where needed.

Enlarge Photo

Kâté LeBlanc/Telegraph-Journal

A burned building greets visitors to Saint John on Sewell Street. City council has given its building inspector new powers to enforce the repair or demolition of unsightly properties. Saint Johners are debating how this ‘big stick’ should be used.

While I agree that there are many substandard properties in Saint John that require the building inspector to take action to ensure that people can live in a safe and comfortable environment, I hope we do not lose sight of the fact that most people who live in these properties will need our help when the building inspector takes action.

The new powers given to the building inspector will be valuable in dealing with unsightly premises. But I am concerned that far too many people assume that taking action against dilapidated rental properties also means that the owners will fix up buildings without any impact on the tenants. This will not be the case.

This erroneous conclusion is based on the assumption that there are many greedy and unscrupulous property owners who have refused to fix up their properties solely to maximize their profit, and once told to fix them or else, they will fix them, resulting in an improved quality of life for the occupants.

We need to understand that the end result of the exercise of the building inspector's new powers is that only a small percentage of these properties will be fixed up. The majority will need to be demolished. But whether they are renovated or demolished, the end result for occupants of these properties is the same. They will need to find new places to live, either because they cannot afford the new rents property owners will need to charge to recover the cost of repairs or because their home will now be demolished.

None of us will shed any tears to see the dilapidated buildings demolished. Most of us will say, "good riddance." I too will not shed any tears but I would only say "good riddance" with two caveats.

Some of the properties that will be impacted are properties with unique architecture, especially those in the Uptown area. Surely we can find a way to bring the private and public sectors together to save these properties and renovate them for the existing occupants. These buildings are part of the history and culture of this city and should not be discarded simply because they do not make financial sense.

More importantly, we must remember that the people most negatively impacted by the building inspector's order are the occupants of a building, not the property owner. And most of the occupants are the most vulnerable in our society, the 20 per cent of our population that lives under the poverty line. They can't afford to pay market rent if forced to leave, no matter how laudable the reason why they must move.

Are we also going to say "good riddance" to them?

We need to ask ourselves, what is our motivation in asking the building inspector to use the big "stick" approach? Is it to ensure people can live in safe places, or is it to remove unsightly and dangerous buildings so that we are not embarrassed by them - even if this hurts vulnerable people?

If the reason is to help people live in a safe home, do we not have a moral obligation to help these families find safe places to live before the property is demolished or renovated? If we do not help them, have we really done them a favour by removing them from one unsafe environment only to put them in another, and far more dangerous, environment - the street?

We need a plan of action to help people find new and safe accommodations in place before the building inspector acts to save our historically significant buildings.

We have options. There are solutions. For example, the city could consider asking its Saint John Housing Corporation and the province's NB Housing corporation to set aside a certain number of their units for soon-to-be-displaced families.

The use of "sticks" has its place. It helps us keep murderers out of society and helps us demolish buildings that should be demolished. But 'sticks,' by their very nature, are blunt forces that are effective only in limited circumstances. They do nothing to address the vast majority of the needs we have as people and as a society.

Just as putting people in jail does not make the majority of prisoners model citizens, we need to remind ourselves that taking action against owners of dilapidated properties does not mean we have automatically improved the lives of the occupants of these buildings.

People do not live in unsafe properties with leaky roofs and without running water or heat because they like living in them. They live in them because we, as a society, have not provided the least fortunate amongst us with safe housing at rents they can afford.

I would argue that a more effective way to ensure unsafe properties are upgraded or demolished is by giving poor people the opportunity to live in safe buildings. Then watch how fast property owners will either will fix up their properties to attract tenants or demolish them to reduce their losses.

This is the most effective 'stick' we have to remove dilapidated properties from our communities and provide safe housing for those less fortunate amongst us.

Saint John developer John Rocca is President of Ellerdale Investments Ltd.