GreasyPhilVille
There's an old adage in hockey.
"It's not how, it's how many."
That refers to goals, often of the 'garbage' variety, scored from right in front of the net.
But when it comes to housing, the 'how' can be just as, if not more, important than the'how many'.
To wit, check out the following, just in from Dan Fumano in the Vancouver Sun:
An “inclusionary housing policy” essentially lets developers to build larger residential developments than they would be otherwise be allowed. In exchange, they must provide a certain percentage of below-market rental homes.
Details vary between jurisdictions, but typically require between five and 20 per cent of a project’s units be secured at below-market rates, with the rest made up of market rental or strata homes.
About 9,200 below-market homes in Metro Vancouver have been approved or completed through these policies in recent years, the report says.
No one suggests that is sufficient to meet the region’s demand for affordable housing. But it seems likely the rental housing crunch would be worse today without those homes.
For context, there are about 34,000 independent social housing units currently in existence across all of Metro Vancouver — so 9,200 units, most approved just within the past few years, represents a significant number.
These homes, geared toward moderate-income renters, are no replacement for the more deeply affordable social housing that government agencies like B.C. Housing build and operate...
And, dare I suggest it, there are also the issues of long term stability and community involvement to consider as well.
_____
.
6 comments:
As with the approach to all of the crises we face, all levels of government nibble away at the edges, not wanting to alienate that part of the electorate that is just fine with the crisis in question as long as it can be kept out of sight, our of their back yard. Short of taking on massive public building and management of truly low-cost housing, we are unlikely to see an end to the housing crisis, along with the concomitant homelessness, to which there are ties to the equally thorny substance abuse crisis, where the nibbling at the edges takes the form of half-hearted decrim and safer supply initiatives, seemingly doomed by the lack of scale and dedication to the underlying idea and processes.
Don't get me started. I seethe every day when I ride my bike past that Little Mountain field on the way to work.
Backgrounder on Metro Vancouver managers, participants, elected or appointed individuals, alternatives, the systems water sewer etc.
https://metrovancouver.org/boards/documents/BoardCommitteeOrientation%20Booklet.pdf
Danneau--
Agreed.
And then there is the matter of working families just looking for some stability.
______
Gar--
I actually had a bit of a rant in the post about Little Mountain, but I took it out given what just writing it was doing to my blood pressure.
_____
Thanks NVG--
Returning to Danneau's point....
Can't help but note the following from the Metro Vancouver Handbook for Board & Committee Members at your link regarding their 'Core Services' mandate:
"...Provide regional parks and affordable housing directly to residents..."
Imagine that!
.
We will not find a solution to the present housing crisis, until government funds a scalable public housing policy. it is the only way.
What we see now is mere window dressing, more to secure votes in the next provincial election, than provide affordable housing.
As for Little Mountain, it shows the crass ignorance of the monied folks on affordable housing. It is criminal that it remains fallow. It also shows that government is not interested and as I just said, what government tells us, is mere window dressing.
As I recall it was the B.C. Lieberals who sold that land to some developer with great terms. It may have been how they paid for it or didn't have to start paying until later. Nothing was done really. My suggestion, just expropriate the land,'give them back the money they did pay for it and then start building co-ops. At one time the federal government provided the guarantee on the mortgages. I moved into one back in 1982. Some of the original members still live there. It cost us $3M at 19% interest but we did build 53 townhomes in the /City of Vancouver. Co-ops are an alternative to home ownership. the monthly charges are based on income so you need high and low income earners. (its usually between 25 to 35% of gross income. Many co ops have committees which maintain the gardens, the buildings and hire professionals as needed. They work. they offer stablility and you don't need developers. You go out and get an architect and a builder, etc. Co-ops aren't for every one, but most people would find them quite pleasant to live in. The membership committee decided who was offered a unit.
The use of developers is not going to work all that well adn its not stability. In the Netherlands about 40% of the housing stock is government owned. switzerland, its higher.
Post a Comment