Canada is experiencing a crisis of unaffordable housing. One recent survey concluded that housing in Greater Vancouver was “impossibly unaffordable.” Another survey found that only 23% of British Columbian renters pay less than 30% of their income on rent, almost half spend 31%-49%, and 25% spend more than half of their income on rent.That raises the question of what is affordable housing.The experience of my wife and me mirrors what is happening generally in Canada. In our early years, we rented, but eventually we were able to buy a home. Our first house was 73 years old when we bought it, it had 1200 square feet (400 on the first floor, 400 on the second floor, and 400 in the basement), and it cost about 1.5 times my salary at the time. It had three bedrooms, an office, a separate garage, and a fenced yard and was perfectly adequate for my wife and me and two children.Our second house was 15 years old, had 1600 square feet (800 on the main floor and 800 in the basement,) and cost about three times my then salary. It had four bedrooms, a carport, and a large yard.Our current house (a townhouse) was 13 years old, has 2300 square feet on three levels, and cost about twelve times our current combined incomes. Fortunately, it is affordable to us because we paid off the mortgage on our previous house and have no mortgage on this one.From this perspective, I have some ideas about what is affordable housing and what is not.1. Mobile homes are affordable, and simple bungalows are affordable.Governments at the federal and provincial levels have announced ambitious targets for increasing the number of “housing starts.” However, using “housing starts” as a measure of whether Canada’s housing affordability will improve is misleading. Replacing a million old homes with a million new homes does not increase the total number of homes.A better measure would be the total number of homes available, since “housing starts” include additional homes being built but also replacement homes being built in place of older homes that are being torn down. Further, it is not just the number of homes that determines affordability but the type of homes. If a $250,000 mobile home or a small, $700,000 bungalow is torn down and replaced by $1.5 million, 3,000-square-foot home with 10-foot ceilings, a sculpted roof, and marble countertops, it does not increase the supply of affordable housing. It decreases it. Yet local governments welcome “redevelopment” that replaces affordable housing with more expensive housing because the new houses look better and can be taxed at a higher rate. Local governments might pat themselves on the back when they approve a multi-million-dollar development project to build new homes on the site of a former mobile home park, thinking it will improve the housing situation. But the former owners and residents of the mobile homes will likely be unable to afford the new homes that are being built and will be in danger of becoming homeless.2. Housing in small towns and rural areas is generally affordable.Yet, Canadians are flocking to big cities. People need to go where the jobs are. But there are large numbers of homeless, unemployed, disabled, and retired people living in our cities. They don’t need to be there. Governments building $1 million studio apartments in big cities to house the homeless are foolish. The middle class can’t afford to live in big cities, so why should we try to house the lower class there? To be sure, government and social services would need to be provided to people relocated to rural and suburban areas, but this would be less expensive than trying to house the poor on the most expensive real estate in the country.3. Rental housing is not affordable.Social theorists argue that the era of the single-family house on a separate lot is irretrievably gone. That may be, but home ownership (even if it is a condo in a large tower) is essential for a stable society. Home ownership gives people a permanent stake in society, a solid base for their lives. On the other hand, renters, like medieval serfs, are subject to the control of other people, their landlords — and governments. The old model of adults buying a home and paying off the mortgage during their working life made sense. Their home became an important part of their retirement plan. Seniors can live quite comfortably on a pension if they own their own home. The same seniors will find their pensions (fixed incomes) inadequate if they are having to pay ever-increasing amounts for rent.4. Apartments are not affordable housing in the general sense.Apartments, in large towers or in basements, are great for students, for young adults, for single people and for seniors. They are not suitable places to raise children. Children need space, fresh air, and opportunities to socialize. In our large cities, two working adults can barely afford a single bedroom apartment, whether owned or rented. They do not have the space, the money, or the time for children. If governments think building more glass and steel towers is a blueprint for a sustainable society, they are sadly mistaken. Throughout history, large cities have been unable to sustain themselves but have relied on bringing in people and resources from the rural areas. 5. Government subsidized housing is not affordable.Yes, governments will always have to subsidize some housing — for the very poor, for instance. However, governments cannot build housing and offer it at subsidized rental rates for more than a small percentage of the population. To attempt to do so simply places an unaffordable burden on taxpayers. If most people can’t afford housing, they most certainly can’t afford the taxes they would have to pay in order to have governments supply them with housing. Given that we are in a crisis, is the situation hopeless? Is there anything that can be done? There actually are some solutions, and they don’t necessarily require huge investments of government money.1. One of the obvious solutions is to slow the flow of immigration until the housing supply can catch up.2. Instead of rubberstamping redevelopment proposals, local governments could choose to protect trailer parks and other forms of affordable housing.3. Local governments could revise zoning bylaws to allow small, affordable houses to be built. Many bylaws require new houses to be a certain size and have expensive features.4. Local governments could give encouragement and even tax breaks to builders who would build low-cost housing and co-op housing.5. Local governments could speed up the processing of building permits. Delays cost builders money, and those costs are inevitably passed on to the eventual owners.6. Governments at all levels could reduce taxes on housing. These include “development charges” at the municipal level, PST at the provincial level (and taxes such as British Columbia’s Property Transfer Tax), and GST at the federal level.7. Considerable amounts of underutilized land owned by governments could be made available for housing.8. Unemployed homeless people could be relocated to less expensive and safer areas. Not only would it be cheaper to provide housing for them there, but it would also reduce demand for housing in cities and thus lower prices.More could be said about each of these points, and more could be added. There is much that could be done if governments have the will and ingenuity to do it. The current approach is simply not good enough.It just pays to remember, taxpayers and the people who need housing are the same people.James R. Coggins (www.coggins.ca) is a writer, editor, and historian based in Chilliwack, BC....
Canada is experiencing a crisis of unaffordable housing. One recent survey concluded that housing in Greater Vancouver was “impossibly unaffordable.” Another survey found that only 23% of British Columbian renters pay less than 30% of their income on rent, almost half spend 31%-49%, and 25% spend more than half of their income on rent.That raises the question of what is affordable housing.The experience of my wife and me mirrors what is happening generally in Canada. In our early years, we rented, but eventually we were able to buy a home. Our first house was 73 years old when we bought it, it had 1200 square feet (400 on the first floor, 400 on the second floor, and 400 in the basement), and it cost about 1.5 times my salary at the time. It had three bedrooms, an office, a separate garage, and a fenced yard and was perfectly adequate for my wife and me and two children.Our second house was 15 years old, had 1600 square feet (800 on the main floor and 800 in the basement,) and cost about three times my then salary. It had four bedrooms, a carport, and a large yard.Our current house (a townhouse) was 13 years old, has 2300 square feet on three levels, and cost about twelve times our current combined incomes. Fortunately, it is affordable to us because we paid off the mortgage on our previous house and have no mortgage on this one.From this perspective, I have some ideas about what is affordable housing and what is not.1. Mobile homes are affordable, and simple bungalows are affordable.Governments at the federal and provincial levels have announced ambitious targets for increasing the number of “housing starts.” However, using “housing starts” as a measure of whether Canada’s housing affordability will improve is misleading. Replacing a million old homes with a million new homes does not increase the total number of homes.A better measure would be the total number of homes available, since “housing starts” include additional homes being built but also replacement homes being built in place of older homes that are being torn down. Further, it is not just the number of homes that determines affordability but the type of homes. If a $250,000 mobile home or a small, $700,000 bungalow is torn down and replaced by $1.5 million, 3,000-square-foot home with 10-foot ceilings, a sculpted roof, and marble countertops, it does not increase the supply of affordable housing. It decreases it. Yet local governments welcome “redevelopment” that replaces affordable housing with more expensive housing because the new houses look better and can be taxed at a higher rate. Local governments might pat themselves on the back when they approve a multi-million-dollar development project to build new homes on the site of a former mobile home park, thinking it will improve the housing situation. But the former owners and residents of the mobile homes will likely be unable to afford the new homes that are being built and will be in danger of becoming homeless.2. Housing in small towns and rural areas is generally affordable.Yet, Canadians are flocking to big cities. People need to go where the jobs are. But there are large numbers of homeless, unemployed, disabled, and retired people living in our cities. They don’t need to be there. Governments building $1 million studio apartments in big cities to house the homeless are foolish. The middle class can’t afford to live in big cities, so why should we try to house the lower class there? To be sure, government and social services would need to be provided to people relocated to rural and suburban areas, but this would be less expensive than trying to house the poor on the most expensive real estate in the country.3. Rental housing is not affordable.Social theorists argue that the era of the single-family house on a separate lot is irretrievably gone. That may be, but home ownership (even if it is a condo in a large tower) is essential for a stable society. Home ownership gives people a permanent stake in society, a solid base for their lives. On the other hand, renters, like medieval serfs, are subject to the control of other people, their landlords — and governments. The old model of adults buying a home and paying off the mortgage during their working life made sense. Their home became an important part of their retirement plan. Seniors can live quite comfortably on a pension if they own their own home. The same seniors will find their pensions (fixed incomes) inadequate if they are having to pay ever-increasing amounts for rent.4. Apartments are not affordable housing in the general sense.Apartments, in large towers or in basements, are great for students, for young adults, for single people and for seniors. They are not suitable places to raise children. Children need space, fresh air, and opportunities to socialize. In our large cities, two working adults can barely afford a single bedroom apartment, whether owned or rented. They do not have the space, the money, or the time for children. If governments think building more glass and steel towers is a blueprint for a sustainable society, they are sadly mistaken. Throughout history, large cities have been unable to sustain themselves but have relied on bringing in people and resources from the rural areas. 5. Government subsidized housing is not affordable.Yes, governments will always have to subsidize some housing — for the very poor, for instance. However, governments cannot build housing and offer it at subsidized rental rates for more than a small percentage of the population. To attempt to do so simply places an unaffordable burden on taxpayers. If most people can’t afford housing, they most certainly can’t afford the taxes they would have to pay in order to have governments supply them with housing. Given that we are in a crisis, is the situation hopeless? Is there anything that can be done? There actually are some solutions, and they don’t necessarily require huge investments of government money.1. One of the obvious solutions is to slow the flow of immigration until the housing supply can catch up.2. Instead of rubberstamping redevelopment proposals, local governments could choose to protect trailer parks and other forms of affordable housing.3. Local governments could revise zoning bylaws to allow small, affordable houses to be built. Many bylaws require new houses to be a certain size and have expensive features.4. Local governments could give encouragement and even tax breaks to builders who would build low-cost housing and co-op housing.5. Local governments could speed up the processing of building permits. Delays cost builders money, and those costs are inevitably passed on to the eventual owners.6. Governments at all levels could reduce taxes on housing. These include “development charges” at the municipal level, PST at the provincial level (and taxes such as British Columbia’s Property Transfer Tax), and GST at the federal level.7. Considerable amounts of underutilized land owned by governments could be made available for housing.8. Unemployed homeless people could be relocated to less expensive and safer areas. Not only would it be cheaper to provide housing for them there, but it would also reduce demand for housing in cities and thus lower prices.More could be said about each of these points, and more could be added. There is much that could be done if governments have the will and ingenuity to do it. The current approach is simply not good enough.It just pays to remember, taxpayers and the people who need housing are the same people.James R. Coggins (www.coggins.ca) is a writer, editor, and historian based in Chilliwack, BC....
