News   Jul 09, 2024
 621     1 
News   Jul 09, 2024
 1.5K     2 
News   Jul 09, 2024
 571     0 

Suburban house split up into 18 bedrooms

As for by-laws, I am afraid that many of them are made solely for political gains. That's exactly why they are so hard to enforce. Rooming houses exists for a reason, and they will continue to exist as long as the underline problem is not fixed.

I have read that there are legal rooming houses now, but it seems they've existed for some time. Is there a way of creating new legal rooming houses? This illegal one seems to indicate that there is a very high profit potential; if there is a way of building or creating new ones, I'd expect them to pop up all over.
 
I have read that there are legal rooming houses now, but it seems they've existed for some time. Is there a way of creating new legal rooming houses? This illegal one seems to indicate that there is a very high profit potential; if there is a way of building or creating new ones, I'd expect them to pop up all over.

According to the report, not in scarborough. Also, it will not be profitable after all the taxes and overheads associated with red tapes.
 
From the Star:

License suburban rooming houses, Moscoe says
Feb 05, 2008 03:32 PM
donovan vincent
city hall bureau

Rooming houses in North York and Scarborough should be licensed to help prevent cases like the illegal 18-bedroom property that operated in Scarborough, says the head of Toronto's licensing and standards committee.

Councillor Howard Moscoe described Monday's Toronto Star story about am 18-bedroom Scarborough home being used as an illegal rooming house as "outrageous.'' Licensing rooming houses – as is in done in downtown Toronto – could enable the city to set limits on things like the number of units per home, parking standards and the minimum amount of space per person, he says.

Four or five units per rooming house could perhaps be one of the standards, Moscoe said Tuesday.

Moscoe says he proposed the idea of licensing suburban rooming houses a few years ago, but met with resistance from other councillors.

He said Tuesday that he might revive the idea and bring it to members of his licensing and standards committee sometime soon.

Lushan Lu, the owner of the illegal east-end rooming house, subdivided his large Scarborough home a few years ago, creating 18 bedrooms and eight bathrooms.

Now he's returning it to its original form.

That comes after he pleaded guilty in court this summer to city zoning bylaw infractions. He and co-owner Zhuan "May" Wang were each fined $5,000.

Tenants in the home on New Forest Square, in the Kennedy Rd. and Steeles Ave. E. area, were paying $400 a month rent.

If Lu and Wang had just one person per room in their house they would collect more than $7,000 each month.

The case marked one of two successful prosecutions by the city this past summer of illegal rooming house operators.

The other, Run Ying "Lucy" Wang, was fined $72,000 for zoning violations relating to two homes in her name on nearby Shepton Way.

The cases reveal the suburban spin on what is often seen as a downtown problem.

And city officials say there are hundreds of illegal rooming houses run by landlords exploiting people desperate for affordable housing.

Lu's property, which city officials say was being run like a hotel, was advertised on the Internet. The website offered potential tenants, mostly new immigrants to Canada, a ride from Pearson airport in a van, though Lu insists many made their own way to the house.

What's surprising is that Lu's property looks like any other suburban home. The nondescript, two-storey, red-brick house boasts a two-door garage and a large pine tree dominates the front yard.

While the Star could not gain access to the house, it is hard to imagine 18 rooms crammed into the residence.

And it's no easy matter for officials to stop landlords operating outside the law.

Toronto officials with Municipal Licensing and Standards, the fire department and city councillors in North York and Scarborough are using the fire code and property standards rules to close hundreds of illegal rooming houses operating in those two communities.

However, it's a slow process.

An illegal suburban rooming house is typically in large, expensive homes, and the landlords are making big bucks off the backs of desperate tenants. The operators rarely flinch when ordered to pay fines because they're making so much money, city councillors say.

"These illegal rooming houses aren't just a blight on the neighbourhoods, they're exploiting the people who live in them," North York councillor John Filion (Ward 23, Willowdale) says.

In downtown Toronto, the victims of illegal rooming houses are often long-time residents who are homeless or trying to escape that lifestyle.

The Star recently profiled a property on Queen St. W., which earned the nickname "the Dungeon."

Though it wasn't a rooming house, the conditions were deplorable, and city officials condemned the basement, where they found a number of men living among live and dead mice, and human feces.

But unlike those tenants, the residents in illegal suburban rooming houses are typically foreign students, or new immigrants to Canada seeking a better life.

"I think it (illegal housing) is an issue all over the place. It just manifests itself differently in different parts of the city," Filion adds.

The problem has popped up in the 905 region, too.

In June a home in Markham caught fire, killing landlord Roberto "Ali" Valdini. Before his death he'd been to court repeatedly since September 2006, answering to fire code violations.

The home, on Steeles Ave. E. near Yonge St., is in an area zoned for single-family homes, but it had been subdivided into 11 units.

Markham Fire Department's acting deputy chief Glenn Dick says electrical problems are suspected as the cause, though the office of the Ontario Fire Marshal is still investigating.

Illegal rooming houses are potential fire hazards because they have numerous self-contained units and therefore more tenants using electricity to power things like computers and hot plates in their rooms. That can overload circuits, and cause a fire, Dick says.

Rooming houses are licensed and regulated in Toronto, but preamalgamation rules prohibiting them remain in force in North York and Scarborough.

Toronto's public health department licenses lodging houses in Etobicoke.

Lu, a software developer who ran unsuccessfully as a city councillor in Scarborough in the 2006 municipal election, was reticent to talk about his rooming house.

The married father of two says he bought the home around 2002 and subdivided it sometime a few years later. He rented out rooms because his wife doesn't work.

In addition to that property he has another house a few doors down, in which he now lives with his family.

Lu says he learned the first property was illegal after consulting city documents on his own. The city got wind of this house after receiving a complaint.

City officials spoke to him several times, says Bill Blakes, a district manager for the Municipal Licensing and Standards office in Scarborough, and Lu got a warning letter in June 2004.

Licensing and standards investigators made several requests to enter the property during their probe, but were rebuffed before the owner finally agreed.

In June 2006 investigators determined the property was a rooming house, which legally is defined as: A living accommodation being rented by more than two persons who aren't members of a single family that would normally occupy the dwelling.

Obtaining a search warrant to enter suspected rooming houses is no easy feat, says Lance Cumberbatch, director of investigations for Toronto's municipal licensing division.

"We have to persuade a justice of the peace. We might see a lot of cars or a lot of garbage being put out, but in the past that's not been enough," Cumberbatch says.

So often it's up to the owner to grant entry.

AoD
 
To me, the only thing this guy did wrong was he didn't have all the safety features required (smoke detectors, better wiring and what not). If he addressed that, it really doesn't matter whether he is housing 18 people or 1000 people, as long as he could do it reasonably safely. Also, he charged too much, $300 or even $200 accommodations are plenty in the city, but that's for the market to decide. The next thing we know, the city is going to tell us that we need a license to have children.
 
The problem with rooming houses is that they can wreck an otherwise nice neighbourhood simply by the types of people they pander too, thus bringing in prostitutes, drug addicts, panhandlers, parolees, ex-convicts and lunatics into neighbourhoods that would otherwise not have such people.

I know, I know, this is complete NIMBY'sm, but so what? I say it should be NIAOBY, Not In Anyone's Backyard, as the city should be waging war on rooming houses, and the outlying cities that send their poor and downtrodden to Toronto for shelter and care. Yeah, it's a totally selfish way of thinking, and I'll take those flames and more for speaking my mind here, but why should anyone who has the means and the sense to own a private house in a nice area have to live amongst such folk? Because it's a diverse city? Because we're all supposed to get along? Because these folks need a helping hand? Because everyone has a right to housing? Because everyone has the right to live wherever they'd like? Because we're supposed to be nice and tolerant of others as they impact us negatively? Rubbish, I say. Most of the rooming house owners live no where near the rooming houses they operate, as they know they make terrible neighbours. Who wants to live next to ex-cons, whores and shaky ladies if you don't have to? Thus, I can fully understand the annoyance of those who live in normal communities, and then one day, out of nowhere they've got 20 or so druggies living on their street, and are then faced by an indifferent city council and police.

Now, in my neighbourhood of Cabbagetown, the rooming houses were there first, so they have the right to stay, but if I lived in, say, the Beaches and some lout converted a house into 20 legally-compliant rooming house units, I'd say this shouldn't be allowed, as you're now introducing a negative, potentially dangerous population into an otherwise nice, peaceful community, which did not become that nice by chance, but through the constant and continuous contributions of the people in the area. Thus, those people have a stake in the community, and should have say what sort of housing should be permitted, NIMBY or not.
 
The problem with rooming houses is that they can wreck an otherwise nice neighbourhood simply by the types of people they pander too, thus bringing in prostitutes, drug addicts, panhandlers, parolees, ex-convicts and lunatics into neighbourhoods that would otherwise not have such people.

I know, I know, this is complete NIMBY'sm, but so what? I say it should be NIAOBY, Not In Anyone's Backyard, as the city should be waging war on rooming houses, and the outlying cities that send their poor and downtrodden to Toronto for shelter and care. Yeah, it's a totally selfish way of thinking, and I'll take those flames and more for speaking my mind here, but why should anyone who has the means and the sense to own a private house in a nice area have to live amongst such folk? Because it's a diverse city? Because we're all supposed to get along? Because these folks need a helping hand? Because everyone has a right to housing? Because everyone has the right to live wherever they'd like? Because we're supposed to be nice and tolerant of others as they impact us negatively? Rubbish, I say. Most of the rooming house owners live no where near the rooming houses they operate, as they know they make terrible neighbours. Who wants to live next to ex-cons, whores and shaky ladies if you don't have to? Thus, I can fully understand the annoyance of those who live in normal communities, and then one day, out of nowhere they've got 20 or so druggies living on their street, and are then faced by an indifferent city council and police.

Now, in my neighbourhood of Cabbagetown, the rooming houses were there first, so they have the right to stay, but if I lived in, say, the Beaches and some lout converted a house into 20 legally-compliant rooming house units, I'd say this shouldn't be allowed, as you're now introducing a negative, potentially dangerous population into an otherwise nice, peaceful community, which did not become that nice by chance, but through the constant and continuous contributions of the people in the area. Thus, those people have a stake in the community, and should have say what sort of housing should be permitted, NIMBY or not.

I appreciate your honesty. In the end, behind all the smoke and mirrors, the only reason some people oppose rooming house is to keep their real estate values up. To be honest, in this particular case, these tenants are probably hard working new immigrants rather than "prostitutes, drug addicts, panhandlers, parolees, ex-convicts and lunatics" However, I guess people hardly see the differences, they only want to see rich, upper class people in their neighbourhood.
 
I think Moscoe's view is that they are going to exist like it or not. Perhaps trying to regulate their size/location is a way to make everyone not happy, but less angry...and safer.

Not likely. People will choose the cheaper underground ones over the more expensive legal ones, unless we really want to use the police to wage a war against these rooming houses and their tenants.
 
There are rooming houses that have one person per bedroom, and accept students, recent immigrants and other law abiding citizens. I know a person with such a rooming house, and this person lives in the house. It depends on the landlord. Some will take anyone off the street, and it's too bad for them, because the drug addict has an addiction to feed, and they'll never see a lot of their due rent.
 
There are rooming houses that have one person per bedroom, and accept students, recent immigrants and other law abiding citizens. I know a person with such a rooming house, and this person lives in the house.
I think the person you're describing deserves a different category, as I'd call such set ups boarding houses, along the lines of those in the UK, with fewer units, where the owner lives in one of the units, manages the property, cleans the property, etc. A rooming house, in my opinion, also deserves a special definition on to its own, that of an otherwise normal single-dwelling house turned into a large number of units, converted on the cheap, with the owner rarely, if ever, also residing on the property, and purposely located near areas where the whores, drunks, ex-cons, parolees and lunatics are likely to be found, and thus housed. The boarding house does little to negatively impact the neighbourhood, while the rooming house often does.
 
I appreciate your honesty. In the end, behind all the smoke and mirrors, the only reason some people oppose rooming house is to keep their real estate values up. To be honest, in this particular case, these tenants are probably hard working new immigrants rather than "prostitutes, drug addicts, panhandlers, parolees, ex-convicts and lunatics" However, I guess people hardly see the differences, they only want to see rich, upper class people in their neighbourhood.

Indeed, labelling everyone beneath your economic/social bracket as unwantables is a good method of keeeping communities homogeneous. Shutting down ambitious, industrious folk like this whose only 'crime' is persuing the American...er, Canadian Dream goes to show how prejudicial exclusivism can be masked under the guise of bureaucracy. Why admit to your neighbor's face you don't want them in your neighborhood (these guys were snitched on by their neighbors) when policies conveniently supplants your bias :rolleyes:?
 
Two questions I have are:
What is considered to be the official "affordable" rental rate for housing in Toronto? How much "house" do you get for that rate?
 
Indeed, labelling everyone beneath your economic/social bracket as unwantables is a good method of keeeping communities homogeneous.
I'll certainly label whores, ex-cons, parolees, etc... as unwantables as they rarely (with the possible exception of reformed ex-cons) contribute anything positive to the neighbourhood. If a rooming house is marketed towards new immigrants trying to get their start, AND the house was operated well and legally, then I'd be fine with that.
 

Back
Top