Victoria Coun. Ben Isitt is right to be concerned about homes being demolished when housing is in short supply, but council should be cautious with his suggestion to implement a moratorium on demolitions.
It鈥檚 the city鈥檚 job to see that homes are built properly, but it would be a stretch for the city to restrict the conditions under which a home can be demolished.
Isitt notes that the number of single-family homes being demolished in Victoria seems to be climbing. In 2014, 19 demolition permits were issued for single-family homes and three for duplexes. Last year, 57 demolition permits issued were for single-family homes and two were for duplexes, and the number appears to be climbing this year.
Isitt says the city should consider an emergency interim bylaw to stop demolitions of single-family homes. To his credit, he also said he plans to do more research on the issue before bringing anything to council.
That鈥檚 wise 鈥� the effects of such a measure could reach beyond the target issue and create more problems than it solves.
Certain restrictions on private property are necessary and desirable. Construction standards are necessary for health and safety. Zoning restricts what a property owner can do, but it is to everyone鈥檚 benefit to preserve the quality of life of a neighbourhood.
It is indeed alarming to see what appear to be perfectly good houses demolished. It is painful to see heritage homes being barged to the San Juan Islands.
New construction is often justified as being more energy-efficient than keeping old structures, but it鈥檚 also often pointed out that the greenest house is the one that is already standing. Older homes use more energy than newer ones, but renovations and retrofitting can close the gap, saving the consumption of resources required for new construction.
But should a city say: 鈥淭hou shalt not demolish鈥�? Probably not. That鈥檚 a move rife with the potential for unintended consequences.
A property owner with intentions of replacing an old house with a new one could, if denied a demolition permit, simply leave the building empty. A vacant building deteriorates and would eventually reach the point where demolition becomes necessary for safety and health reasons.
Some old houses that look sound could have structural problems, such as crumbling foundations or rotted beams. A home could contain asbestos or other hazardous materials. Imagine a home in which dozens of cats were kept 鈥� that results in contamination that no mitigation can ever erase.
Isitt says there are instances when the only option is to demolish, but demolishing serviceable housing stock 鈥渃ontributes to an already overheated real-estate market,鈥� affects housing affordability and fuels land speculation.
But who gets to decide if a house should be saved or demolished? That鈥檚 a decision that would require a detailed inspection, cost estimates, opinions from building experts and detailed analyses far outside the city鈥檚 purview.
And a municipality should be very careful about telling people what they can and can鈥檛 do with private property they own. As Mayor Lisa Helps said: 鈥淚 guess that鈥檚 the glory and peril of private property is that the owner can do what they want within reason or council approval.鈥�
It is difficult to see a moratorium on demolitions having much effect on skyrocketing home prices. The issue is so much larger than the relatively few houses being demolished. Helps wants to see what other measures have been proposed or are being used to address housing affordability in sa国际传媒 That鈥檚 a more positive approach than placing restrictions on private property.
The issue is that demand outstrips supply in a desirable region of the country. There鈥檚 not much a municipality can do about that.
