The State of Affordable Housing

Mayor John Tory this week called a lack of initiative on bringing affordable housing to market “unacceptable.” He made the call from a city-owned lot on Madison Avenue that has been vacant since before it was designated for affordable housing more than a decade ago.

Tory was there to announce an Open Door initiative, through which the city would fast-track development of freed-up city, provincial and federal land (if they can get it) to devote to affordable housing. Tory called predecessor Rob Ford’s failure to spark new development a “massive failure” and said the city gets in the way of building. He said the city’s targets for affordable housing for 2020 are still shy 6,810 rental and 734 owned homes; only 2,800 have been realized in the last five years. Tory claimed the city would “roll out the red carpet” for developers who stepped up. (A rally in support of affordable and social housing was scheduled for last night, just after we wrapped up this column. Tory plans to open an RFP on the Madison Avenue plot next month.)

The Toronto Star says more than 90,000 people are on the list for more affordable housing, and with the expected contribution from the provincial and federal levels looking like it will be in the form of land only, one wonders how exactly he plans to open those doors and roll out that carpet. He said that he hasn’t yet explored other options in detail, including siphoning off Section 37 funds towards affordable housing. An interim report from a committee under Senator Art Eggleton is due in July.

City planner Jennifer Keesmaat of course defended the city, saying that the failure to develop was owing to a shortfall in funding from other levels of government.

There’s no question our government has an obligation to help those in need find suitable housing. Even at our substantial rate, though, tax dollars only go so far. Potholes or apartments? Schools, police and fire departments, or subsidized housing? Where should the free market stop and government intervention begin?

I admire developers who feel compelled to do something for the community, and most of them do. While for some it may be a genuinely altruistic venture, for others it may be strictly PR, but the end result is the same — valuable amenities that benefit the community, public art that enhances the environment, employment by the score. Some may think developers make too much money, but it’s no different from being in the car business, the clothing business, or the widget business — for-profit ventures exist to make their owners and shareholders wealthier.

There aren’t any easy solutions to our lack of affordable housing. Forcing developers to include a certain percentage of affordable units in their developments is too small-scale, and often undesirable to (some hypocritical no doubt) potential buyers.

Is it the government’s job to incentivize builders by bringing the profit margins on affordable housing up closer to scale with market-value development? Or by allowing them to make up the shortfall on other developments through, say, additional floors, even if it skirts regulations?

Demolition in Regent Park

If we let the city decide how to build affordable housing, we’re in danger of creating slums. Before Regent Park’s recent gentrification, it was one of the most blown-out and undesirable areas in the city. Unless people have pride in where they are, why should they care? By truly integrating all walks of life, we create more vibrant cities, where everyone can “win” instead of furthering the divide between the haves and the have-nots by segregating those who can’t afford market value housing. Let’s face it — with the wildly active growth in the GTA housing market, you don’t have to be “poor” to be unable to afford a home here.  If we build dedicated “affordable” housing, are we in danger of creating a class system with the potential for discrimination? Labelling Theory might say yes.

Developers do development better. We need them involved to create the sort of affordable housing we really want. We also need to let them make money doing it, as well as getting the red tape out of their way. What’s the solution? Heck, if I knew, I’d run for mayor myself.

What do you think?