The issue of large homes and secondary suites is once again raising its head in Surrey.

While the two solitudes on this issue have been bridged somewhat, there is still a significant divide. Those who oppose large homes and the secondary suites that are often included in them want to see neighbourhoods of single-family homes, and any suites within them legalized.

Those on the other side of the divide are from two separate camps. Most belong to ethnic groups where several generations of a family live together. This is their way of life, and it needs to be respected.

There are also those who want to own a large home and collect rent from multiple tenants.

In the midst of the latest controversy about whether homes larger than 3,550 square feet should be allowed on lots of 6,000 square feet or more, it has been revealed that two members of Surrey council have illegal suites in homes they own. In addition, an attempt by Mayor Dianne Watts to legalize a suite in her home, which began more than 10 years ago, was never concluded – even though the suite has since been turned into her home office.

Here are a few observations about this situation.

First, the size of a home makes a significant difference to the feel of a neighbourhood. Residents in St. Helen’s Park, one of Surrey’s first subdivisions, successfully fought large homes being allowed in their neighbourhood years ago.

My aunt and uncle were among the first to buy a home there in 1955, and my aunt continued to live there until her recent death. It has always been a tight-knit neighbourhood, which was obvious from the large number of neighbours who attended her memorial service last week.

Second, the wheels of government at Surrey city hall move at a glacial pace, as is obvious by more than a decade of inaction on the rezoning application by Watts. She didn’t even know the matter had not been dealt with. A friend who worked for the city for many years recently told me there is a great deal of chaos in many municipal departments, and given the never-ending pressure to subdivide land and build housing on it, that isn’t surprising. Far too many things fall through the cracks.

Third, in terms of large homes not being allowed in Surrey, that horse escaped from the barn long ago – and the door is still open. Almost all new homes built today, including hundreds in my Clayton neighbourhood, include multiple secondary suites. Most are built on small lots, often about 3,000 square feet, and the home, enclosed walkway, garage and carriage house takes up almost the space on the lot. Yards are minimal and there is nowhere near enough parking. Nor is there any transit service.

This type of housing is being built for one reason – it sells. Younger people cannot afford to buy a home without additional sources of income to help pay the mortgage. This comes in the form of tenants.

Large, multi-family homes are important for many people, for cultural, social and economic reasons. Surrey has no intention of legalizing secondary suites – a fact it tacitly acknowledged years ago when it began collecting extra utility fees from homes with suites, legal or not.

The city will continue to see more and more large homes, whether they are legally allowed in some neighbourhoods or not.