10-03-2022, 11:05 PM
Some of the reasoning behind some sort of a ratio for adding affordable housing to increased density requests:
1. Most of the land in desirable areas (ie along the LRT route, or in the downtown core) is already owned by private developers or is priced to a level that is out of the reach of affordable housing groups (eg Habitat for Humanity, SHOW etc)
2. We will have to wait an awful long time to cobble together $300,000 to $500,000 "peace offerings" from developers in order to get ANY affordable housing built.
3. No matter which way you cut it, society is having to pay for the cost of building affordable housing (or not when you consider the other social costs). If the housing market is hot enough that developers can't wait to build it, a tax on new housing would one way to fund these projects. The alternative is to not tax new builds and put the entire burden on existing housing stock to fund new affordable housing projects.
1. Most of the land in desirable areas (ie along the LRT route, or in the downtown core) is already owned by private developers or is priced to a level that is out of the reach of affordable housing groups (eg Habitat for Humanity, SHOW etc)
2. We will have to wait an awful long time to cobble together $300,000 to $500,000 "peace offerings" from developers in order to get ANY affordable housing built.
3. No matter which way you cut it, society is having to pay for the cost of building affordable housing (or not when you consider the other social costs). If the housing market is hot enough that developers can't wait to build it, a tax on new housing would one way to fund these projects. The alternative is to not tax new builds and put the entire burden on existing housing stock to fund new affordable housing projects.