The Affordable Housing Task Force

[CRCP]

Forum member comments on the Affordable Housing Task Force follow:

[John Zeger]

The creation and actions of the Affordable Housing Task Force have not following principles of proper public participation from the onset. The so-called "Task Force" consists only of two city councillors, Norm Letnick who chairs it, and Michelle Rule and includes no members of the public. The recommendations that it is making that will be open for public review were hatched in a meeting that was closed to the public and only developers, businessmen, and politicians were invited. Now this "Task Force" is opening it's eight recommendations to public scrutiny at a series of four open houses beginning October 30 and ending November 3 after which the final recommendations of the "Task Force" will go to city council on November 20. This gives the "Task Force" a little over two weeks to assess the feedback from the public and to consider other options that may be introduced by the public at this stage as it is only at this stage that the public has had an opportunity to get involved at all and then only to comment on some recommendations that they had no part in designing. All in all, it seems to me that the public and their opinion has been given short-shrift in this process while the development players in the city have been calling the shots in order to assure that any recommendations made would not infringe on their opportunity to make windfall profts.

[westsideguy]

One of the biggest problems I have with this task force is that the questions posed in the original ‘survey’ were poorly designed and provides little or no chance or real input by real people. Only 1242 surveys were completed (1.16% of the population) which is statistically invalid.
They claim that 84% of the renters surveyed can afford between $350 and $850/month, which is a sad scenario as the ones that can afford $550 or less are the people we see at the Drop-in Centre looking for a meal because they cannot afford to pay for food after they have paid for their shelter costs. Consider that welfare rates allow for a maximum of $325/month for shelter (including utilities) for one person. To get $555 out of welfare for shelter costs, there has to be three people all on welfare, all looking for work, sharing one rental accommodation.
The last time I checked the average ONE bedroom pace in Kelowna was renting for $650, and two bedrooms was closer to $800 – far from being anything close to being affordable to those who need housing the most.

Survey results: phat-co.ca/pdf/housing_report_08_2006.pdf

[Rick Shea]

An item on Castanet last week stated that there are 20,000 people in low income households in Kelowna who are one paycheque away from being homeless. As well, the Courier last week stated that 30,000 people use our food bank.

It's a sad commentary on our city, in my opinion. Despite all the affluence around us; despite all the supposed benefits of attracting business, tourism, growth, developers, and so on; we have that many people who are so close to the edge.

What are the solutions? In the short term, I just gave another donation to the food bank, and Linda and I have given many, many items to Harmony House, the Salvation Army, and other similar groups. We've even dropped by the kiosk at K.L.O. and Lakeshore and donated some unused winter coats to some of the "regulars" there. While useful and valuable, those are only short term, small scale, measures. More permanent and larger scale solutions will require some major social changes here, and I haven't seen any evidence that Kelowna is ready for those changes.

The Affordable Housing Task Force seems, to me at least, to just be more of the same old, same old.

[John Zeger]

Of the eight recommendations made by the Affordable Housing Task Force the one that is conspicuously missing is "inclusionary housing". Inclusionary housing is requiring of developers that they provide a certain percentage of all housing units in a residential project as affordable housing. In a conversation with Councillor Michelle Rule she told me that it was the opinion of the city attorney that inclusionary housing is "ultra vires" or outside the authority of the city as this power isn't given to municipalities under the Community Charter. However, this power is given the City of Vancouver in their charter. Instead of just taking "no" for an answer and leaving it at that, Kelowna city council should be lobbying the provincial government to amend the Community Charter to give all remaining B.C. municipalities this authority as many are facing acute problems owing to a lack of affordable housing and inclusionary housing is the best way to ensure that this is provided at no expense to taxpayers. The Union of B.C. Municipalities (UBCM) is meeting this week to discuss matters of common interest. I'm wondering if the members of Kelowna city council attending will be pressing for such an amendment to the Community Charter at that time or just looking for new ways to shut out the public from decision making such as with the Alternative Approval Process? The eight recommendations of the Task Force can be found on the City's website at www.kelowna.ca or by clicking on www.kelowna.ca/CityPage/Docs/PDFs//Development%20Services/Affordable%20Housing%20Flyer.pdf .

[John Zeger]

The Task Force on Affordable and Special Needs Housing recently made public eight recommendations for how Kelowna could increase its stock of affordable housing. Some of these recommendations are good and others are bad, but none by themselves offers a comprehensive solution for solving the City's affordable housing crisis.

One such solution is inclusionary housing. Inclusionary housing requires that developers provide a fixed percentage, usually between 10 and 20 percent, of affordable housing in all residential projects. Inclusionary housing has the advantage that it can create hundreds of units of affordable housing annually and at no cost to taxpayers. It is capable of creating all types of housing including single family detached without the need for a change in the Official Community Plan. Inclusionary housing can create housing for very low income households and can dispurse these units throughout the community without creating pockets of poverty.

The Task Force has stated that according to the Local Government Act, the City presently does not have the authority to implement an inclusionary housing bylaw. Vancouver has such enabling legistation as do other cities in Canada. When you complete the survey on the draft recommendations of the Task Force, mention under "Comments" that you would like the City to request that the Province give all B.C. municipalities the authority to enact inclusionary housing.

[John Zeger]

I would like to offer my opinion on the eight recommendations of the Affordable Housing Task Force. These are my opinions only and not those of CRCP.

Recommendation 1: Legalizing illegal secondary suites -- I have no problem with this recommenation as long as the suites conform to the building code and health regulations.

Recommendation 2: Density bonusing -- This is an overused way of getting more affordable housing here on the part of an unimaginative city council. Suffering from a bankrupcy of ideas, their favourite way of creating more affordable housing is to increase densities and to make high rises taller. Unfortunalely, in some areas of the city densities are already too high leading to urban congestion and negative impacts on the psychological well-being of the residents there. We should be downzoning some parts of the city and not increasing densities.

Recommedation 3: Partnerships with businessess -- This is acceptable as businesses would take responsibility for creating affordable housing for their employees and growth would pay for itself instead of being subsidized by taxpayers.

Recommenation 4: Create a not-for-profit Kelowna Housing Corporation -- I'm not in the least surprised to see this recommendation on the list as this was Norm Letnick's brainchild when he was on council in Banff. Although this idea doesn't revulse me like density bonusing, it still has some drawbacks. First, by creating a housing co-op, it is only possible to save on the profits of developers. This would bring the cost of housing down only by 20-30% and units would still be out of reach of very low income households. As the affordable housing units created this way will be in projects owned by the housing corporation at specific locations, affordable housing will not be integrated with the community but rather will stand apart. This could potentially create future social problems associated with discrimination. Lastly, this option is not completely cost-free to taxpayers as they will have to collectively kick in $200,000 per year.

Recommendation 5: Create 20% of all residential units on the KSS site as affordable housing. A good idea! CRCP suggested that two years ago.

Recommendation 6: Allow housing units in low intensity industrial and commercial zones. A good idea. This is consistent with new urbanist thinking of having residences close to places of employment reducing transportation needs.

Recommendation 7: Change the OCP to a 2 zone increment density increase in return for affordable housing. A bad idea! See my comments under Recommendation 2.

Recommendation 8: Change the OCP to require a mix of housing units in all new developments. I like this suggestion but wonder if it is achievable as some areas of the city such as the downtown are already being developed as high density. This would require fast work on the part of city council to stop the high density development in parts of the city but may be worth it. An interesting idea worthy of further exploration.

[John Zeger]

Citizens for Responsible Community Planning (CRCP) is reiterating its long-held support for "inclusionary housing" and is recommending this to the Task Force on Affordable and Special Needs Housing as a priority solution to Kelowna's affordable housing problem. In this regard CRCP has prepared a fact sheet on Manditory Inclusionary Zoning, what it is, how it has been used elsewhere, and the authority and precedence for its use in Kelowna. CRCP is recommending to the public that it support the implementation of manditory inclusionary zoning and reject the Task Force's recommendations involving density bonusing. CRCP is distributing this fact sheet at the open houses to be held on the Task Force's recommendations this week.

MANDITORY INCLUSIONARY ZONING

Inclusionary zoning requires or encourages developers of market residential projects to contribute some proportion of units, generally from 10 percent to 25 percent, as affordable housing. Inclusionary zoning has the advantage that it can produce hundreds of affordable units annually at no cost to taxpayers, can create all types of housing including single-family detached, and helps to promote diverse communities where households of a wide range of incomes can live. Inclusionary zoning can be either mandatory or voluntary. In mandatory programs developers are required to contribute some affordable housing as a condition of development or rezoning approval. In voluntary inclusionary zoning, developers are offered density bonuses and other incentives as inducements to contribute affordable housing. According to CMHC “incentive-based programs produce much less affordable housing than mandatory ones” and “the most successful inclusionary programs have been mandatory.”

Inclusionary zoning has created tens of thousands of affordable units in the United States since 1974 and is the fastest growing method for producing new affordable housing there. It has more recently been introduced in Canada in BC and Ontario. As of the year 2000, 15 BC municipalities were using inclusionary zoning including Vancouver, Langford and Ucluelet. Vancouver has a policy that large private residential developments in the downtown provide 20% of units for non-market housing as part of any rezoning application. Langford requires all rezoning applications of 10 or more single family lots to include 10 percent of all units as small lot units to be sold at a price not to exceed $150,000 to qualified purchasers. Ucluelet’s Official Community Plan contains the objective “to zone land inclusionary and to require that anywhere from 15% to 20% be deemed for affordable housing in multi-family developments.”

Although the Task Force on Affordable and Special Needs Housing has stated that “According to the Local Government Act the City has no power to force developers to include affordable housing in their developments unless they are requesting an increase in density,” this is not entirely correct. According to a BC Government publication, municipalities such as Kelowna already possess many tools needed to implement mandatory inclusionary zoning. These include forms of inclusionary zoning where developers are required to include an amenity such as affordable housing as a condition for approving an application for a rezoning or comprehensive plan zoning.

In spite of its obvious advantages and wide-spread use, mandatory inclusionary zoning was not included among the Task Force’s recommendations because it is opposed by some local developers. Instead of mandatory inclusionary zoning, the Task Force has offered density bonusing (recommendations 2 and 7). As the allowable densities in some areas of the City are already too high, increasing them further will over-burden our infrastructure resulting in crowding, increased traffic congestion, and a need for more costly park space. Citizens for Responsible Community Planning, your community watchdog, (www.saveparadise.com) recommends that residents oppose Recommendations 2 and 7 and that they write “I support mandatory inclusionary zoning” under “Comments” on the Task Force survey.

[John Zeger]

The recommendations of the Task Force on Affordable Housing will be made to city council on Monday, November 20. I expect that whatever recommendations it will make will go easy on developers as they have have been involved in formulating the recommendations from the beginning whereas the public has been shut out of that part of the process and has only been invited to comment on the Task Forces' recommendations after they have already been designed.

There was an article in the Capital News on Wednesday, Nov. 15 that suggested that perhaps the recommendation on density bonusing (recommendation #2) may be in trouble because developers don' t like it.

One recommendation that should pass is the non-profit housing corportion. This was Norm Letnick's brain-child when he was a councillor in Banff and he is simply taking that concept and applying it to Kelowna. A couple of problems with this type of development is that the maximum cost reduction of housing will be about 25% so that it will not serve very low income people of which there are quite a few here. Furthermore, this is not an inclusionary type of housing in that affordable units are located in every housing project but rather there will be identifiable housing corporation projects in different areas of the city. These will be become visible as "housing corporation" projects and a stigma will be attached to living in one of them. This kind of scheme does not contribute to building a sense of community in which all residents are viewed as equals.

I would prefer creating affordable housing from the existing housing stock as is the case with the secondary suite proposals. One of these should be implemented. However, if new affordable housing units need to be created, they should be done so using the inclusionary model and be made a requirement of developers in all residential projects including single as well as multi-family throughout the city.

[Rick Shea]

johnzeger said:

Furthermore, this is not an inclusionary type of housing in that affordable units are located in every housing project but rather there will be identifiable housing corporation projects in different areas of the city. These will be become visible as "housing corporation" projects and a stigma will be attached to living in one of them. This kind of scheme does not contribute to building a sense of community in which all residents are viewed as equals.

Rather than build an inclusive community, this is just another example of warehousing and ghettoizing a segment of society that people really don't wish to deal with.

[John Zeger]

The Okanagan newspaper reported on Nov. 18, 2006 that the proposal to make 20% of all housing units on the old KSS site affordable housing got the most support with 83% of respondents to the questionnaire. This is the principle of inclusionary housing! It is a simple matter of applying this to any development that is applying for a rezoning and it is estimated that 75% of all multi-family developments go through a rezoning in Kelowna. The enabling legislation is there and was used by the municipalities of Langford and Ucluelet. But Kelowna's city solicitor disagrees with the opinion of the city solicitor of Langford and maintains that it would be illegal here. I say that Kelowna should get another legal opinion as I'm not confident that our city solicitor is making a correct interpretation.

[John Zeger]

Besides the impression of the general incompetence of city council, a couple of other interesting details emerged from their discussion of the recommendations of the Affordable Housing Task Force on Nov. 20, 2006. One was the announcement by Task Force Chairman Norm Letnick that the Task Force was not recommending that Council proceed with Recommendation #2 (allowing increased densities in return for a prescribed amount of affordable housing). Letnick told Council that developers had told him that the compulsory nature of this recommendation might result in less affordable housing being built rather than more. (When did developers ever want to do anything in the public interest?) Instead the developers suggested that DCCs on the affordable units created be exempt from DCCs. Of course what Letnick didn't mention was that if this would done it would amount to a tax subsidy for development by the public as there are costs incurred by new development such as roads, sewers, parks, etc. that are normally borne by developers. This is a BAD IDEA and should never see the light of day.

Finally, kudos to Councillor Michelle Rule for recommending that the city approach senior levels of government to make statutory changes that would allow the application of things such as the blanket application of "inclusionary housing" without it involving a change in zoning or density.

[John Zeger]

Staff came back to council on Dec. 11, 2006 with estimates of the staff time it would require to implement some of the Task Force's recommendations. Then the fun began. Councillors Blanleil, Day, Gran and Clark, especially Clark, didn't like much of what they heard making comments like the creation of affordable housing through a public housing corporation would infringe on the private sector's role, never stopping to ask themselves "How much affordable housing has the private sector created on its own in the last few years?" It is unfortunate but true that the private sector has to have its arm twisted to produce housing at affordable prices and that is what should be done. But Councillor Blanleil doesn't like anything that would restrict the freedom of the private sector in this area, so in the end nothing will be done.

Councillor Norm Letnick looked very frustrated through the whole discussion and I don't think he expected this sort of reaction on the part of the rest of council. I believe that he thought that they would treat him like a hero for coming up with solutions to a serious problem and praise him to the sky thereby paving his way to becoming mayor which rumour has it he is savouring. Instead the rest of council poured cold water on his head and he appeared angry sitting there all dripping wet.

My prediction is that this council will do nothing meaningful in regards to creating more affordable housing because they are too timid to take any bold action. Anyway they are much too busy and want to get on with more important things like approving development applications.

[nick]

It doesn't surprise me a bit that council is treading lightly around the idea of inclusionary housing. Residential construction, and all the satellite and support businesses the revolve around it, is huge business these days, and therefore more than a few votes are involved. Politicians by their very nature are prone to cowing before the desires of big business.

Sadly, as in many things where it shouldn't be the deciding factor, this too will probably come down to money.

One basic question that comes to mind is that, with the cost of construction today, can housing that qualifies as 'affordable' even be built without incurring a financial loss? My knowledge of residential construction is spotty at best, mostly gleaned from the experience of buying and renovating my own house, but one thing that sticks in my mind is that square foot cost of new residential construction is in excess of $200.00 per square foot these days. That would mean that a modest unit, say 1000 sq. ft. would be in the $200,000 range. Does this not already put it beyond the means of most of those who would be in need of affordable housing?

Another question: the definition of "affordable housing" says, correct me if I'm wrong here, that total expenditures on housing should not amount to more than 30% of income. Is this calculated on gross income or take-home pay, and does it include utilities and taxes?

I think there is much wisdom to the principle of inclusionary housing. There is nothing wrong in my mind with asking developers to take a little responsibilty in keeping a supply of affordable housing on hand, but I think a moral line would be crossed should they be asked to do it at a loss.