Sam Kamra: Ontario’s new cash bail rules raise a bigger question about accountability, crime and our communities

Ontario is about to conduct an interesting experiment in accountability.

Beginning Aug. 17, when a court orders a financial pledge as part of bail, Ontario will require the full cash security deposit to be paid within two business days after an accused person is released. If a court later orders the money forfeited, the province will already have the funds rather than having to pursue the debt afterward.

As someone who has spent more than 12 years working in Toronto and Greater Toronto Area real estate, I find the underlying concept strangely familiar. Real estate has operated on a similar principle forever: a promise tends to become considerably more serious once money is attached to it. Try submitting an offer on a $2-million Toronto house and telling the seller, “Don’t worry about the deposit. I promise I’m serious.” Let me know how that goes.

A real estate deposit provides financial consequences if contractual obligations aren’t honoured. Mortgage lenders take security against property for much the same reason. Ontario’s bail system obviously involves constitutional rights and issues far more serious than a failed real estate transaction, so the comparison only goes so far. But the policy raises an interesting question: Does putting real money behind an obligation improve compliance?

The Ontario government believes stronger financial enforcement can help. The province is also strengthening its ability to collect amounts forfeited by sureties, including mechanisms that can ultimately involve liens against real property.

Critics, however, raise an equally important point. Someone appearing in bail court has not necessarily been convicted of the offence alleged against them. Civil-liberties and legal organizations have argued that cash requirements risk creating different outcomes based on a person’s financial resources rather than solely on risk.

And that’s where the discussion becomes more complicated. Money can be an extremely powerful compliance tool. It can also be an extremely unequal one.

A $50,000 financial obligation means something completely different to someone earning $50,000 a year than it does to someone worth $50 million. Real estate teaches us that every day. A $100,000 deposit might represent one family’s entire life savings. To another buyer, it’s simply part of the transaction. Same deposit. Completely different incentive.

If Ontario wants its new system to improve accountability, success shouldn’t be measured by how much money the government collects. It should be measured by whether people comply with release conditions, whether repeat offences decline and, ultimately, whether communities become safer. Otherwise, we’ve created a better collection system rather than a better public-safety system. And Ontario already has enough people trying to collect money. Ask any landlord.

Crime, public safety and real estate aren’t separate subjects. People don’t buy houses based solely on quartz countertops and the size of the kitchen island. They buy neighbourhoods. They consider schools, parks, transit, businesses, cleanliness, development and whether they feel comfortable walking down their street.

Through my work as a Toronto real estate professional, I’ve seen how dramatically perceptions of a neighbourhood can change over time. Investment comes in. Properties get renovated. New businesses open. Streets improve. Families move in. Sometimes areas that people overlooked for decades become some of the most desirable places to live. That’s one of the parts of real estate I’ve always found fascinating.

It is also one of the ideas behind my newest business venture, RealEstateBuyer.ca. Our focus includes purchasing properties that are run down, dated or require substantial repairs, improving them and ultimately putting them back onto the market. Some properties simply need cosmetic work. Others need considerably more imagination. I happen to love the latter.

Give me the house with the terrible flooring, 40-year-old kitchen, questionable basement and a backyard that looks like nature successfully reclaimed the property. That’s interesting to me.

I’ve had a passion for renovations, construction and design since growing up watching home-renovation television shows. There is something incredibly satisfying about taking a property most people struggle to see potential in and transforming it into a well-designed home that someone would genuinely be excited to live in. But there can also be a broader community benefit.

One renovated house doesn’t transform an entire neighbourhood. Pretending otherwise would make for great reality television and terrible public policy. But sustained private investment in neglected housing can contribute to cleaner properties, better-maintained streets and renewed confidence in an area.

The goal shouldn’t be to simply push lower-income residents somewhere else. Revitalization works best when improvements make communities safer and more attractive while creating opportunities for existing residents and newcomers alike.

Research on neighbourhood change and crime is complicated, and renovation alone certainly doesn’t eliminate crime. The physical condition of neighbourhoods matters. Vacant, abandoned and severely neglected properties can contribute to disorder, while rehabilitation and investment can form one part of broader community-improvement efforts. That is something I want RealEstateBuyer.ca to participate in: improving properties one at a time and putting better housing stock back into the communities where we operate.

As the founder of Listing.ca, and through more than 12 years of working directly with buyers, sellers and investors, I’ve watched consumers become far more sophisticated about how they research properties, neighbourhoods and real estate markets.

Buyers can now examine previous sales, comparable properties, development activity and neighbourhood trends before they ever walk through the front door. Public safety forms part of that decision.

That doesn’t mean tougher bail automatically produces higher property values, just as renovating three houses doesn’t suddenly turn an entire neighbourhood into Rosedale.

Anyone claiming the relationship is that simple should probably have their calculator confiscated. But confidence matters.

Families want to feel comfortable walking through their neighbourhood. Businesses want customers to visit. Investors want communities where people want to live. Homeowners want to believe the place where they’ve invested hundreds of thousands — or, in Toronto, enough money to make the rest of Canada question our collective judgment — remains desirable.

Government policy and private investment therefore have different but complementary roles. Government has responsibility for policing, courts, infrastructure and public safety. Property owners and businesses can invest in housing, maintain buildings and help improve the physical environments in which people live. Neither can fix a community alone.

Ontario’s new bail rules should therefore be judged on evidence rather than slogans. If requiring financial security improves compliance and helps reduce repeat offending, the government should be able to demonstrate it. If the primary result is that poorer accused people remain incarcerated while wealthier people facing comparable allegations can secure release, critics will have a legitimate argument.

Set the rules. Measure the results. Publish the data. Change what doesn’t work. It’s actually not that different from renovating a bad property.

You can have a beautiful rendering and an ambitious plan, but eventually somebody has to do the work. And the finished product is what counts.

Sam Kamra , Sales Representative, RE/MAX Millennium Real Estate and founder of RealEstateBuyer.ca and Listing.ca Toronto & Greater Toronto Area Tel: 416-877-1307 Email: samkamra@yahoo.com Website: SamKamra.ca

This story was provided by Sam Kamra for commercial purposes.