Creating affordable housing
Affordable Housing
Housing is one of the basics of our society. Individuals cannot function well as social beings without a place to call home.
That the housing be affordable is also critical, and that’s a growing problem in Toronto. To register for an affordable housing unit, one must contact the city’s office, Toronto Housing Connections. But then you must be prepared to wait. Currently there are more than 65,000 households on the waiting list (that’s almost 200,000 people) and there is very little turn-over in affordable units.
In the past, the supply was always increasing because the provincial and federal governments funded affordable housing programs, but those programs ended more than a decade ago. Today, programs for new affordable units are tiny and under funded. During the last six years, only 1423 new units of affordable housing were built in Toronto – that’s about 250 units a year. During that time period, many affordable units were lost; some in private buildings that were sold up-market; some demolished for redevelopment. The supply of affordable units has become even more strained. Some households of four or five people are making do by living in a one bedroom apartment, which is severe overcrowding.
New affordable housing has not been a priority for City Council perhaps because senior governments don’t seem co-operative; or because sometimes there is neighbourhood opposition; or because of a lack of political will.
Here are five opportunities that City Council should take:
- Redevelop public housing sites.
City Council has begun to redevelop two public housing sites – Regent Park and Don Mount, just to the east of the Don River. In the case of Don Mount the city will build as many affordable units as it is tearing down. In Regent Park, it will be building less affordable housing than now exists. The city plans to replace the 2200 existing units in Regent with just 1500 affordable units, and then add 300 units for sale at lower costs. The hope is that more affordable units can be built close to Regent.
Redeveloping public housing is a good idea – it means that public streets re introduced to end the isolation of projects; and market units are added to ensure there is a mix of incomes like any most other neighbourhoods. But when redevelopment occurs the number of affordable units should increase so that at the end of the day there is a larger supply of affordable housing.
In Toronto, there are 110 public housing projects – that is, the projects built by the Ontario Housing Corporation in the 1960s and 70s. They are all publicly owned, and almost all need to be redeveloped. With new plans these communities can be changed to the advantage of residents and neighbours alike. On average, most projects can be redeveloped to include several hundred new units, some of which can be market units, and some affordable. We should be able to add 10,000-15,000 additional affordable units in these projects, on land already in the public ownership. The city should start to review opportunities for public housing redevelopment in conjunction with knowledgeable developers who can create viable plans to make these opportunities realities.
- Support Affordable Ownership
A Toronto company, Options for Homes, has shown that affordable ownership is viable, even for very low income households. The cost of ownership is less than rental because of lower management costs and lower property taxes. Family members can provide financial help with mortgages, something not permitted in rent-geared-to-income rental housing. And government loans for affordable ownership are fully protected by mortgages and can be paid back when the unit is sold. This means that the cost to the public is much less than the cost of rent-geared-to-income rental housing.
The city should be strongly supporting affordable ownership schemes. Many households on the waiting list for affordable units would jump at the opportunity to own, and the chance to develop some equity. Neighbourhoods would be pleased to find that redevelopments included ownership units.
Toronto should see low income ownership as a good way to begin addressing its affordable housing needs. If the city comes forward with a strong affordable ownership program – perhaps advocating 5000 new affordable ownership units a year – the provincial and federal governments would probably want to join in with financial support.
- Require income mix in new projects
The boom in new condominiums is amazing. Each year, for the last three or four years, 15,000 new condos have come onto the market in the Greater Toronto area, most in the City of Toronto itself.
And while some of these units are priced at the low end of the scale, they are still beyond the reach of many looking for affordable housing. Another problem is that most of these condos are small. Of the 15,000 new condos offered for sale each year in the Toronto area, less than 300 have three bedrooms. Adam Vaughan has done a study of new housing built in Ward 20 (Triinity Spadina.) He learned that since 1998, 6800 new units have been added to that ward, many in the Railway Lands – but only 86 have three or more bedrooms.
Vancouver has a program which requires that a percentage of new units in each condo project be offered at affordable rates. Toronto had a similar program twenty years ago. We need to put this program in place again. The city could require that 15-20% of new units be offered at defined affordable rates to those on the city’s waiting list. This arrangement would require the city to support affordable ownership, as recommended above.
The city should also demand that condos contain a mix of unit sizes – that at least 10% of units in a condo have three or more bedrooms. This would ensure that new housing is available for families with children.
- Enter the rental market
Rent controls provide limited protection to tenants, and rent controls are necessary. But even better projection is available when the building is owned by a public, non-profit or co-operative.
The city should undertake an aggressive program, working with social agencies, to buy existing rental buildings, and then ensure they are managed locally by local non-profits. If rental buildings are given a co-operative ownership and management structure, then they enter a new property tax classification, saving about $100 per unit per month. That money can be used to put buildings in a good state of repair, and/or to reduce rents. Getting control of rental buildings, both small and large, is a good way to protect the city’s renal stock, and a good way to protect tenants.
This kind of program need not require significant funds. Investments should be made where they make economic senses, and finding pools of capital to support these purchases would not be difficult. What’s required is city initiative and partnership with community organizations and real estate companies.
- Get smart about addressing homelessness
There are about 4000 hostel beds in Toronto – they are full almost every night – and about 5000 homeless people. The situation is not getting any better and simply telling the homeless they can’t sleep in various parks isn’t going to solve the problem.
The cost of operating a hostel bed is about $16,000 a year. As city staff found after the people in Tent City were offered permanent housing three years ago, the cost of subsidizing an apartment for a homeless person and providing social support and encouragement, is about $11,500 a year. It costs less to provide someone permanent housing and support than to provide homeless support.
A recent study by the John Howard Society shows that about 1000 persons a year are released from jail with nowhere to call home. Many of those who get caught up in the criminal justice system are victims of homelessness. The cost of housing someone in a jail is $168.00 per night, or more than $60,000 per year.
We need a co-coordinated approach. If the province agrees to spend on housing one third of the money now used to jail someone, we can start to seriously reduce the number of homeless individuals. If the city devotes more funds to permanent housing subsidies than to homelessness, it too will save money.
The example of offering permanent housing to Tent City residents is telling: after two years 97% of those offered housing were still living there, and about one-third had found part or full-time work. Giving someone a permanent place to live and then providing some social support is clearly the way forward. And it costs the public less money. Currently the city seems caught in a treadmill of homelessness. This can and must change.
