PAGE 4, WEDNESDAY, APRI L 3, 1985, WHITBY FREE PRESS Published every Wednesday whitby MICHAEL KNELL hy M.B.M. Publishing Community Editor and iliotography Inc. Phone (6ix-61 VALERIE COWEN AdvertIsIng Manager The Free Press Building, 131 Brock Street North, Second Class Mail Voice of the County Town Michael lan Burgess, Publisher - Managing Editor P.0. Box 21H), whitby, Ont. Registration No. 5351 The only Whitby newspaper independently owned and operated by Whitby Yesidents for Whitby residents. Rent controls - a Tory plan designed to buy votes Consumer Minister Gordon Walker's announ- cement that the rent control would be reduced to four per cent this year was the real kick-off to this election campaign...the P.C. effort to buy votes. Rent control and' the need to develop new, af- A weekly nowu onmmn*ts trank on ofanaada's outstanding nows p.auitI BEST OF a wrmnalurS ORGLOBAL NEWS It was more than 30 years ago that I was a night police reporter for the old Ottawa Journal and Constable Tom Flanagan was driving a cruiser for the Ottawa Police Department. Several times in those days, when things were slow, late at night, Tom picked me up, out of sight of the Desk Sergeant at the old Number One Station, which was about where the National Arts Centre stands now, and we'd drive around together for a few hours. Tom checked properties, handled domestic disputes, stopped traffic violators and kept his eye peeled for law breakers generally, while 1, close to the car radio, was secure in the knowledge that little of importance would happen elsewhere in the city without my knowledge. Like ail good policemen, Tom seemed to have eyes not just in the back of his head but ail the way around. He saw things that i didn't, and he would hurl himself out of the prowler to check them out. He didn't smoke and he could run like a deer. As a matter of fact, a reporter on the Citizen referred to him in print once as "fleet-footed Flanagan" and i think the handie stuck for a while. Over the years I've seen his name in the papers from time to time, and now that I'm back in Ot- tawa, I'd been meaning to look him up. I went down to the new police station recently to meet Tom Flanagan, now Deputy Chief, and to be given a tour of the new facilities. I dôn't think Tom has changed very much, but the Ottawa Police Department certainly has. The size of the force has just about trebled, and our society has become incredibly affluent. That's part of the reason I suppose, that drugs are now at the root of the department's most pressing problems. In the old days, booze was the most ac- tive catalyst for petty crime. Another sign of affluence is in the property room, where even in late winter, 500 perfectly good bicycles are in the racks, witing for owners who never show up. When someone loses a bicycle these days, they go right out and buy another one. There is a briefing room now, with desks and audiovisual equipment for off icers going on duty, a far cry from the old standing musters at Number One. The men in the prowlers have to carry brief- cases now, to handie the paper that's thrust upon them. There are new specialized divisions in the force, computers, communications equipment. and a conscious attempt to get closer to the public. The basic philosophy has not altered. As Tom sees it, it's helping people, not simply making arrests, that separates the good cop f rom the cop who ought to be in some other job. fordable rental accommodation is expected to play a big part in the election. All three parties can be expected to swear their ever continuing sup- port of the concept. The Tories will probably promise to maintain it, the Liberals to broaden it while the NDP will probably make it a con- stitutional (socialist) right. Because so many people ln this province rent, not one of the three major parties is willing to of- fend them by calling for this Issue to be examined in the hard, cold light of day. The question that must be brought forward and answered honestly is: have rent controls been of any major benefit other than limiting the rent in- creases of Ontario tenants at the expense of lan- dlords? It is a difficult question to answer. The supporters of rent control say that its major benefit is that because increases are predeter- mined, the tenant will have more consumer dollars at his disposai to spend in the market- place, (and obviously landlords will have less) giving the economy a questionable shot in the arm. But shifting dollars between people won't in- crease the total number of dollars. Supporters of control also note that low and moderate wage in- come earners spend as much as 40, 50 or even 60 per cent of their after tax income on rent. Therefore, they need a degree of governrpent protection and the fortunate people chosen to be theirsubsidizers are again landlords. However, on the other hand, right wing Tories, developers and landlords say that controls have effectively killed the development of rental housing by creating an artifically low value on ren- tal housing. Opponents say that rent control inhibits their ability to compete in the market- place and allow for a reasonable return on invest- ment. A new building, not subject to controls, cannot compete with a controlled building. (They also point out that the other major factors affecting affordable rental housing are high in- terest rates, high building costs, ever increasing hydro, water, sewer and tax bills.) Many landiords aiso fear that continued con- trois may put them into bankruptcy. And if anyone doesn't believe that's possible, just take a look at New York. If their costs of operating are higher than four per cent they will find themselves losing money, as many already are. Many of their costs for 1985 have already risen above four per cent. For example, water and sewer rates are up 6.8 per cent; hydro rates are up f ive per cent and we don't even know what this year's total property tax in- crease is going to be yet, but we'Il bet it will be j--- -< Â~- ~I P~OMISF~ I well over 4 per cent. Many landlords, who are really small businessmen (for the most part), and work at other jobs to make ends meet feel they are being discriminated against, because while their costs are going up more·than four per cent, they can't raise their revenues by more than four per cent. No other industry in Canada today is under such tight control. Why not have 4 per cent controls on everything such as prices, wages, etc.? It should also be polnted out that the gover- nment doesn't provide any similiar protection for the homeowner. The homeowner is alone. If in- terest rates take a sudden jump and are beyond the reach of the family involved, they lose their home. Where is the protection for them? So, it can be argued that rent control discriminates against that group of people who choose to buy their own home and try to keep it by the sweat of their own brow. The only way that rent control can really be justified is if the government guarantees that the landlord's costs shall not increase by more than the ceiling, which would give some hope to the landlord for a reasonable chance to stay in business, despite never being able to receive an increase ln pay (if he's fortunate enough to be profitable). The government should also meet its 1977 promise of building 90,000 new residential units in the province every year for 10 years (it should be pointed out that the government has yet to reach that goal). And, a good percentage of them should be affordable, rental housing units, but the fact of the matter is that no-one including the government can build and rent out units at the artificial rents imposed by the government. Rent control is an experiment that hasn't worked. Some landlords face great economic dif- ficulty because costs increase at a higher than ceiling rate. New accommodation is not being developed without tremendouse taxpayer sub- sidies. Homeowners do not benefit. In fact, they often subsidize tenants through their taxes to the tune of millions and millions of dollars. This program needs to be re-examined. But this newspaper is confident that not one of the three major parties has the guts to call for such a re- examination. After ail, there's an election on and they don't care about being fair, ail that matters is votes, regardless of who gets hurt in the process. And they're also counting on the fact that homeowners don't care how much of their tax dollars go towards subsidizing tenants who in a lot of cases are financially better off than they are. Nobody's going to tell me I break my campaign promises -