In the city I live in (Vancouver, Canada), the laws are very strict on the fact that a building or suite in a building can only be used for what it was registered as intended for. For example, it’s illegal to use a residence for any commercial purposes, like running a business, and you can’t live in a commercial space. Even for mixed-use developments, where there are residential and commercial spaces in the exact same building, the individual units are designated as either residential or commercial. It’s theoretically possible to get the city to reassign the purpose of a space, there are some shops and restaurants that are run out of former residential houses, but it’s a massive pain to do and very unlikely to get approved outside of very specific circumstances, such as when a neighbourhood is actively being redeveloped.

We have a family friend who ran a small hair salon out of their townhouse. She had converted the den of their home into the salon, with her as both owner and the only worker, using tools that she owns herself. When the city found out, they sent a cease and desist letter and threatened her with not only a massive fine, but with revoking her hairdresser license and banning her from the trade. She closed down, and AFAIK was not able to afford the rent on her own commercial space, so was forced to start working at a chain salon instead of running her own sole proprietorship.

But, on the other hand, I can see that if this restriction was lifted, businesses would start buying or renting houses and pushing out families needing a place to live and inflating housing prices, or, similar to what happened with AirBnB, landlords will start evicting families and start only renting to businesses, which I imagine is more profitable than renting residences.

What do you think? Suite usage ordinances, good or bad? From a socialist perspective, do the drawbacks of not having it outweigh the drawbacks of having it? Or vice versa?

  • @ledward
    link
    3
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    deleted by creator