Why I’m cautiously optimistic about the affordable housing issue

Even if you lean far to the right of centre, there are reasons that affordable housing is good for everyone. Aside from the hard-to-quantify lack of vibrancy and pervading us-and-them atmosphere that surrounds one-income-bracket neighbourhoods, housing that is priced out of reach is economically unsound.

Look at what’s starting to happen in Vancouver — the young people who keep the vital tech industry there afloat, the very industry that keeps the city financially afloat, are getting priced out, and they’re starting to leave. What happens to the next generation if we marginalize lower income residents, and create an environment that makes it nearly impossible for their kids to flourish? If we’re going to purport to be Toronto the Good, we have to help create an environment that nurtures struggling young families and retirees.

Addressing Toronto’s affordable housing shortage is vital to our future. Yes, I have fiscally conservative leanings, but it’s something in which I believe strongly, so I’m always interested in new developments. It’s a big week on that front, as the province introduces new policy measures and promises to invest $178 million over the next three years to help those who need it get access to adequate affordable housing and employment so they can better contribute to stronger communities.

The announcement comes as an update to community-based research the province promised to help update. The Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy launched in 2010. Informed by clients, developers, municipalities and advocates, the changes promise programs that are “more people-centred and co-ordinated” and offer municipalities greater flexibility to deal with the specific circumstances of those in their communities.

It’s easy to talk about “the affordable housing problem” but we who don’t have to worry too much can forget these are real people whose real lives are affected. It’s gratifying to see the update’s first point addresses flexibility, promising to create a framework for a portable housing benefit that gives those who receive housing assistance some choices about where to live.

Being near family and friends — strong social support — is a key factor in minimizing the effects of poverty, including crime, and to helping those whose living circumstances are compromised by domestic violence to get out, stay out, and build productive lives for themselves and their kids.

They’re also promising to invest $17 million over three years for a pilot program for flexible assistance that will help support up to 3,000 survivors. Proposed legislation would create zoning that would force the inclusion of affordable housing units in new developments.

Danforth Village by Options for Homes, a non-profit residential developer.

Access to counselling, life skills training, medication and the construction of up to 1,500 new supportive housing units “over the long term” would be funded by more than $100 million in the next three years; the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative, a 2013 initiative that funnels funds from formerly separate programs into one more flexible pool. Instead of being mandated for, say, shelter beds, the setup allows the money to be used to help create more long-term solutions.

A much-overdue Indigenous Housing Strategy in partnership with Indigenous communities is also in the works.

It’s the largest investment in public infrastructure in provincial history and encompasses not just housing itself, but contributory factors like higher education and skills-development.

Toronto’s Housing Advocate, Councillor Ana Bailão quickly released a statement welcoming the province’s commitment and pinpointed several measures that would help with Toronto’s particular issues, such as a framework to better use current social housing assets through renovation as well as new builds, allowing municipalities to adopt zoning measures to help create affordable housing, and funding energy retrofits of existing rental buildings. She added that the City is hopeful that the imminent Federal budget will provide increased economic stimulus and new measures to improve our existing housing.

Just as quickly, the Ontario Home Builders’ Association (OHBA) made a statement of its own, denouncing the zoning changes.

“We all know that nothing comes for free. Creating more affordable housing units should not come at the expense of housing affordability. Requiring free housing units as part of a new community approval is just another way to have new neighbours cover the bill as the cost of their new home goes up to pay for these new units,” said Joe Vaccaro, CEO of OHBA. “Many people are quick to say that they can produce new housing units with no government money, but that’s because they are making everyone buying a new home pay the bill for them.”

They make the distinction between “affordable housing” and housing affordability, saying that the former can’t come at the expense of higher development charges and fees. They say that successful inclusionary zoning, as it’s applied in several large American cities, must include financial and planning initiatives to support the developments, such as “density bonusing,” which uses state and federal funding.

But what’s the real difference here? Developers know that higher home prices, even if they attribute it to development charges, is a hard sell to consumers, but state and federal funding comes from taxpayers too, whether it’s through sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, or death taxes. We all pay for all of it.

Everyone has a role, and there’s enough evidence to conclude that a society rises and falls on the strength of its treatment of and support for its weakest and most vulnerable. Unfortunately, it’s all destined to be a bureaucratic, money-sucking behemoth, as are all such governmental undertakings, but if we can find our way through it, we have the opportunity to do some tangible good. I’m cautiously optimistic.