Timid Tinkering and Partisan Politics Won't Fix Vancouver's Housing Crisis - Canadanewsmedia
Connect with us

Politics

Timid Tinkering and Partisan Politics Won't Fix Vancouver's Housing Crisis

Published

on


I have written about why non-market housing is the solution to the crisis in Vancouver, and offered ideas on how we might pay for it.

My drive to do something real about the problem — not the “handwringing” many candidates for Vancouver office seem wont to do — is provoked by my growing sense of alarm over the immensity of the housing crisis and my fear that few candidates seem willing to offer hard choices for fear of losing voter support.

I must also admit that being forced from the electoral field of combat by my recent stroke has liberated me from the considerations common to any candidate, permitting me to discuss solutions from the toolkit of the political right (cutting other spending) and the political left (raising taxes) without first considering my own political goals (winning).

In the end I think our housing crisis is so severe that it will require a solution that goes beyond traditional partisan lines, where we collectively agree that a business-as-usual approach will no longer suffice and that withdrawing into our ideological redoubts for the pleasure of lobbing salvos against those who hold opposing political views is an indulgence we can’t afford.

Here is why. It will probably cost more than $1 billion a year to solve this problem — $1 billion spent each year for the next 10 to 20 years.

To come up with that kind of money we will have to reconsider existing expenditures and find new revenue sources.

Some of this money will come from provincial or federal sources, we hope. Certainly Vancouver has the strongest claim to it, given the gravity of our problem.

But if history is any guide, we shouldn’t count on it. Politicians at higher levels of government like to spread money around in as many districts as possible, and we can expect more of the same. So it’s fair to say that if we are serious about solving the problem we better roll up our sleeves. We are largely on our own.

Facts are facts. The Vancouver housing market is completely broken and the “fixes” being proposed by some candidates won’t make a dent in the problem.

According to a recent report, it would take the average young Vancouver family more than 20 years of setting aside 10 per cent of their gross income to save enough money for just the down payment on a Vancouver home. And how can they save 10 per cent of gross income when they have to spend 50 per cent of net income on skyrocketing rents?

No wonder a recent survey indicated that more than 60 per cent of Vancouver millennials are considering moving away for fear of staying house poor forever.

So we must reluctantly conclude that barring a 200-per-cent housing price collapse (which has never happened) or a 200-per-cent increase in average wages (which will never happen) we need a new housing “non-market” for the 50 per cent of Vancouver wage earners that the housing market does not and cannot serve. That’s more than 100,000 people and their families who would need about 100,000 affordable non-market units — provided by co-ops, land trusts and non-profit housing corporations.

They need them right now. But if we start today, and there is an electoral revolution Oct. 20, we might get them in 10 years — if we have the money.

The city is coming around to this point of view. In its recent Housing Reset proposal the city set a target of 72,000 new affordable units to be constructed over the next 10 years and proposed to direct $2 billion in city resources to this end.

That sounds like a lot of money until you compute how many units that gets you when the cost of land and construction now works out to about $1,000 per square foot.

So $2 billion gets you two million square feet of housing, or only about 2,000 units. If we assume the cost of construction will be recovered through rents, we can increase that number to maybe 4,000 units.

Four thousand units is more than a drop in the bucket, but less than a sizeable dent in the problem. How does the city plan to get the other 68,000 units needed called for under its plan? The documents are unclear. We are led to surmise that an unspecified allocation of Community Amenity Contributions (CAC) and Development Cost Levies (DCL) from developers, coupled with relaxations of parking requirements and density bonuses, will generate the other 95 per cent of much needed affordable housing. It won’t. Not even close.

Call me skeptical. Especially since the city’s efforts to get new rental units built produced well under a thousand units in 2017. To induce the construction of this modest amount the city had to forgo many millions in Community Amenity Contributions and Development Cost Levies. And in the end, most of those units were not even affordable to families of average means!

All this leads me to suggest that Vancouver’s proposal to allow city-wide duplexing with secondary suites and the mayor’s own “what the hell” Hail Mary pass proposal to rezone the entire city for apartment density won’t help improve affordability.

Why not? Surely more supply will lower cost, right?

Probably not. Take a look at ads for Vancouver homes. Houses now, no matter the type — high-density apartments, townhouses or single family homes — sell for similar prices, between $900 and $1,200 per square foot. Even these variations are not primarily a consequence of density, but rather of location, with west side homes more expensive per square foot no matter the house type. So higher density does not produce lower cost.

And it won’t help to blame the developers for price gouging when adding density. They are not the ones reaping the rewards. It is the landowners.

Whenever the city increases allowable density (absent a corresponding increase in development taxes), the only thing that happens is the price of land goes up. Land is now priced not “per acre,” but “per square foot buildable.” If you double the allowable number of built square feet on a parcel, all that does is double the price of the land. Neither the developer nor the home purchaser benefits. Only landowners do.

Outgoing mayor Robertson created no end of chaos when he tied his proposal to allow citywide apartment densities to the city staff proposal to allow duplexes across the city. The staff report argued intelligently that land price inflation would be modest if duplexing was allowed, as the scale of buildings would be kept in keeping with existing structures. A desire to restrain land price inflation motivated their concern. This would decidedly not be the case if the mayor’s proposal held sway.

Precedents suggest that a tripling of allowable density, as the mayor proposes, would triple land prices while not reducing housing costs one bit, and lead to the demolition of any heritage house that may be on the parcel.

What to do? If adding all this supply won’t work, what will?

Fortunately the same precedents that teach us the ways that the operation of the land market frustrates our attempts to produce affordable housing also gives us a clue as to how the same failed housing market might generate enough money to finance affordable non-market housing. It has to do with using taxing tools to lower the speculative pressures on land as we grow a fund to finance non-market housing.

Sadly this screed is already too long, so details will have to wait for next week’s installment.  [Tyee]

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

The Latest In Politics: Kavanaugh, Rosenstein

Published

on

By


By choosing “I agree” below, you agree that NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic. This information is shared with social media services, sponsorship, analytics and other third-party service providers.
See details.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Women And Politics: What's Changed Since Anita Hill

Published

on

By


By choosing “I agree” below, you agree that NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic. This information is shared with social media services, sponsorship, analytics and other third-party service providers.
See details.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Beer, sausages and politics: German nationalism threatens Oktoberfest

Published

on

By


Despite its political neutrality and impression of inconsequential revelry, in recent decades, the festival has become a stage on which politicians can show off their common touch.
Parading in dirndls, chewing pretzels and singing folk songs, these political elites will celebrate a “Germanness” so seemingly playful that it is acceptable in a country that, since the Second World War, has shied away from patriotism.
Wurstmarkt -- world's largest wine festival
And this weekend, the images will seem more timely than ever. The ruling conservative party in Bavaria looks likely to lose thousands of votes in the state election next month to the far-right, populist Alternative for Germany (AfD), which campaigns against immigration, Islam and multiculturalism.
It also calls on ethnic Germans to have more children to prevent the eradication of the German people. “The preservation of one’s own national people is a priority in politics and for every government,” the party said in its manifesto for last year’s federal election. Roughly one in eight Germans voted for the AfD in that election, many of them angry about the arrival of a million refugees and migrants in 2015.
Polls predict that the Christian Social Union — a conservative party that has mostly ruled Bavaria since the 1940s and is moving rapidly to the right on immigration in a bid to head off the AfD — might lose its absolute majority.
But using Oktoberfest for political advantage is nothing new.
Bavaria's State Premier Guenther Beckstein toasts with Angela Merkel during the Berlin version "Oktoberfest" in 2008Bavaria's State Premier Guenther Beckstein toasts with Angela Merkel during the Berlin version "Oktoberfest" in 2008
The festival has a long and unfortunate history of being used in this way. It first took place in 1810, following the wedding of Crown Prince Ludwig and Therese of Saxony-Hildburghausen. It was seen by some as an attempt by the nobility to win favor among normal Germans.
Then, in the 1930s, the Nazis renamed it the “Great German folk festival,” a celebration of Aryan identity.
After the war, the festival became a politics-free space. Today, politicians of all ideological backgrounds make public appearances.
From Angela Merkel to rebel left-wing politicians such as Claudia Roth, who recently paraded her dirndl there, mainstream politicians have their pictures taken holding enormous glasses of beer, or steins.
It is remarkable that all these politicians have long felt comfortable promoting a “festival that emphasizes its German origin with strength and power in every aspect,” as the official website claims.
Germany approves arms sales to Saudi Arabia, breaking coalition promiseGermany approves arms sales to Saudi Arabia, breaking coalition promise
But even this idea of Germanness lacks a certain authenticity. The kinds of dirndls and lederhosen worn at the festival have little to do with German history. Dirndels and lederhosen were not even worn in Bavaria when the festival first took place.
And it could very well be the case that this gimicky, artificial environment — complete with fancy dress and beer — provides the perfect cover for a politician to roar German songs without looking nationalist.
And it’s this roaring that might soothe some German voters that long for a uniform homeland — without otherness.
And while German politics is currently divisive and the atmosphere in Bavaria is febrile, it’s hard to see this sentiment winning a majority for any party. But as more or the German mainstream apes the policies of far-right nationalists simply to stop their votes from bleeding away, it’s worth asking the question: where could this end?

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Canada News Media

%d bloggers like this: