Posts: 10,244
Threads: 64
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
293
Yesterday's announcement of $500M for affordable housing, directly from the federal government to municipalities, includes $8.3M for Waterloo Region.
https://twitter.com/Redman4Region/status...6660862978
I assume (and hope) that this will be used for new projects, incremental to what the region already has planned. Depending on the size and type of units, and whether land has to be purchased, this could create 40-50 more affordable units in the region.
The federal government has an additional $500M available "for projects that are completed within a year of federal officials giving a green light for funding." That timeline probably dictates the conversion of existing buildings (such as hotels) rather than development of all-new properties.
CTV's story is here:
https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/waterloo-re...-1.5163770
Posts: 7,558
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
195
10-28-2020, 03:19 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-28-2020, 03:20 PM by danbrotherston.)
(10-28-2020, 01:34 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Yesterday's announcement of $500M for affordable housing, directly from the federal government to municipalities, includes $8.3M for Waterloo Region.
https://twitter.com/Redman4Region/status...6660862978
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">An unprecedented 8.2 million investment to <a href="https://twitter.com/RegionWaterloo?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RegionWaterloo</a> today will support our most vulnerable through the creation of new affordable housing units & enable us to make real progress on our goal of ending chronic homelessness.<br><br>Thank you <a href="https://twitter.com/FCM_online?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@FCM_online</a> for your advocacy. <a href="https://t.co/NIqeBAyhA6">https://t.co/NIqeBAyhA6</a> <a href="https://t.co/OP62XUuCU3">pic.twitter.com/OP62XUuCU3</a></p>— Karen Redman (@Redman4Region) <a href="https://twitter.com/Redman4Region/status/1321178116660862978?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2020</a></blockquote>
I assume (and hope) that this will be used for new projects, incremental to what the region already has planned. Depending on the size and type of units, and whether land has to be purchased, this could create 40-50 more affordable units in the region.
The federal government has an additional $500M available "for projects that are completed within a year of federal officials giving a green light for funding." That timeline probably dictates the conversion of existing buildings (such as hotels) rather than development of all-new properties.
CTV's story is here:
https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/waterloo-re...-1.5163770
40-50...isn't the line for social housing like thousands long?
This is a completely intracticable problem...the money would be better spent changing policy to force housing to be more affordable.
Basically, every building/development today should be something like 10-20% affordable.
Either that or we need to multiply funding by 30-50 (perhaps spread across a few years). Where is there 40 million dollars per year in the budget (I mean, besides the police budget, oh wait, I answered my own question).
Posts: 10,244
Threads: 64
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
293
There are somewhere around 5,000 people on the waiting list for affordable housing. Now, not all of them are homeless: some of them may have housing that is too small, or too expensive. But, even so, it will be a long list. However, 40-50 (my guess) is not all that is being built. The region has multiple affordable-housing projects under way, so the number of new units will be significantly higher.
The region's official plan targets 16% affordable units of the total built, and an average of about 600 affordable units per year. I suspect we are not reaching that number at the moment, but I don't have any data handy. The plan is here:
https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/livin...ousing.PDF
As for changing the policy, the federal government doesn't have authority over housing. That's a provincial responsibility, and largely delegated to municipalities. Requiring a minim percentage of affordable units would need to be done through zoning bylaws.
Better yet, I would suggest driving that through property tax differentials: the greater the percentage of affordable units, the lower the taxes. Buildings with no affordable units (both multi-residential and SFH) would attract higher taxes (and development fees) than today, while buildings that are completely affordable could have either zero or very low property taxes. While this in itself would not be enough to resolve the shortage, it would help, and it's far quicker than redoing all the zoning bylaws.
Posts: 787
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2020
Reputation:
75
(10-28-2020, 04:08 PM)tomh009 Wrote: As for changing the policy, the federal government doesn't have authority over housing. That's a provincial responsibility, and largely delegated to municipalities.
Is it that they don't have authority, or don't choose to exercise authority? Where can I read more about the current legal framework?
Posts: 7,558
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
195
(10-28-2020, 04:08 PM)tomh009 Wrote: There are somewhere around 5,000 people on the waiting list for affordable housing. Now, not all of them are homeless: some of them may have housing that is too small, or too expensive. But, even so, it will be a long list. However, 40-50 (my guess) is not all that is being built. The region has multiple affordable-housing projects under way, so the number of new units will be significantly higher.
The region's official plan targets 16% affordable units of the total built, and an average of about 600 affordable units per year. I suspect we are not reaching that number at the moment, but I don't have any data handy. The plan is here:
https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/livin...ousing.PDF
As for changing the policy, the federal government doesn't have authority over housing. That's a provincial responsibility, and largely delegated to municipalities. Requiring a minim percentage of affordable units would need to be done through zoning bylaws.
Better yet, I would suggest driving that through property tax differentials: the greater the percentage of affordable units, the lower the taxes. Buildings with no affordable units (both multi-residential and SFH) would attract higher taxes (and development fees) than today, while buildings that are completely affordable could have either zero or very low property taxes. While this in itself would not be enough to resolve the shortage, it would help, and it's far quicker than redoing all the zoning bylaws.
This could make sense for rental buildings since one organization both pays the taxes and operates the affordable housing, but for owned buildings it would be strange, why should I, a homeowner get a reduction in property taxes, just because the developer who who developed my property also built affordable housing. I think a lot of things should be taxed (I realize they cannot), but that isn't one of them, we should not seek to normalize the idea that affordable housing devalues nearby property.
Posts: 10,244
Threads: 64
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
293
Why would a reduced tax rate devalue property? In fact, it should make the property more attractive -- just like lower condo fees make a condo building more attractive, and high condo fees tend to make it less attractive (and thus reduce the selling prices).
But if we are to differentiate, and only do this for rental buildings, how do we define "rental"? Some single-family houses are rented, either as an entire house our as multiple units, and many condo units are also rented.
In my concept, everyone would pay the new, higher, property tax rate, unless at least a portion of the property is certified/committed as affordable housing (however exactly we would choose to define that).
Posts: 10,244
Threads: 64
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
293
(10-28-2020, 04:18 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: (10-28-2020, 04:08 PM)tomh009 Wrote: As for changing the policy, the federal government doesn't have authority over housing. That's a provincial responsibility, and largely delegated to municipalities.
Is it that they don't have authority, or don't choose to exercise authority? Where can I read more about the current legal framework?
Constitution Act, 1867. "Property rights" are the key term for housing.
https://lop.parl.ca/about/parliament/edu...ers-e.html
Posts: 6,453
Threads: 38
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
84
(10-28-2020, 01:34 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Yesterday's announcement of $500M for affordable housing, directly from the federal government to municipalities, includes $8.3M for Waterloo Region.
https://twitter.com/Redman4Region/status...6660862978
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">An unprecedented 8.2 million investment to <a href="https://twitter.com/RegionWaterloo?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RegionWaterloo</a> today will support our most vulnerable through the creation of new affordable housing units & enable us to make real progress on our goal of ending chronic homelessness.<br><br>Thank you <a href="https://twitter.com/FCM_online?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@FCM_online</a> for your advocacy. <a href="https://t.co/NIqeBAyhA6">https://t.co/NIqeBAyhA6</a> <a href="https://t.co/OP62XUuCU3">pic.twitter.com/OP62XUuCU3</a></p>— Karen Redman (@Redman4Region) <a href="https://twitter.com/Redman4Region/status/1321178116660862978?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2020</a></blockquote>
I assume (and hope) that this will be used for new projects, incremental to what the region already has planned. Depending on the size and type of units, and whether land has to be purchased, this could create 40-50 more affordable units in the region.
The federal government has an additional $500M available "for projects that are completed within a year of federal officials giving a green light for funding." That timeline probably dictates the conversion of existing buildings (such as hotels) rather than development of all-new properties.
CTV's story is here:
https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/waterloo-re...-1.5163770 Has there been anything to suggest that the Region might buy any hotels for conversion to low-cost housing? I imagine there could be a few places that owners might like to unload at the moment ...
Posts: 10,244
Threads: 64
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
293
(10-28-2020, 05:06 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Has there been anything to suggest that the Region might buy any hotels for conversion to low-cost housing? I imagine there could be a few places that owners might like to unload at the moment ...
Not yet, at least. The question is, which hotels could be candidates? Am assuming higher-end hotels and recent builds/renos are unlikely. Maybe some of the below? - Waterloo (Motor!) Inn
- Best Western Plus Waterloo
- Victoria Motel (only 21 rooms though)
- Quality Inn
- Radisson
- Cambridge Hotel
I have no idea whether any of these are realistic options, but certainly the hotel business has been suffering -- and there is no quick turnaround in sight.
Posts: 7,558
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
195
Do hotels make a good housing option? AFAIK they are being used during the pandemic as shelter, but aren't really acting as a home.
I also think there is a poor value to large affordable housing developments, I suspect spreading them out more leads to better outcomes, but I am not an affordable housing expert.
Posts: 6,453
Threads: 38
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
84
(10-28-2020, 07:50 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Do hotels make a good housing option? AFAIK they are being used during the pandemic as shelter, but aren't really acting as a home.
I also think there is a poor value to large affordable housing developments, I suspect spreading them out more leads to better outcomes, but I am not an affordable housing expert. More any port in a storm than good housing option. If it were up to me, Kitchener would have been insisting on affordable components in the new developments going up in DTK (and elsewhere).
Posts: 10,244
Threads: 64
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
293
(10-28-2020, 08:19 PM)panamaniac Wrote: (10-28-2020, 07:50 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Do hotels make a good housing option? AFAIK they are being used during the pandemic as shelter, but aren't really acting as a home.
I also think there is a poor value to large affordable housing developments, I suspect spreading them out more leads to better outcomes, but I am not an affordable housing expert.
More any port in a storm than good housing option. If it were up to me, Kitchener would have been insisting on affordable components in the new developments going up in DTK (and elsewhere).
Can't force developers to include those unless we require that in the zoning rules -- or the developer asks for variances.
As to would hotel rooms be good? Not as is, but there is no reason why a North American-sized hotel room (maybe 600 sq ft) could not be converted to a very functional bachelor apartment.
And, is it good to have affordable housing all in one building? No, it's not ideal. But if a hotel conversion can be funded by the feds, and can help take a few hundred people off the waiting list, I'm willing to accept that compromise.
Posts: 7,558
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
195
(10-28-2020, 08:26 PM)tomh009 Wrote: (10-28-2020, 08:19 PM)panamaniac Wrote: More any port in a storm than good housing option. If it were up to me, Kitchener would have been insisting on affordable components in the new developments going up in DTK (and elsewhere).
Can't force developers to include those unless we require that in the zoning rules -- or the developer asks for variances.
As to would hotel rooms be good? Not as is, but there is no reason why a North American-sized hotel room (maybe 600 sq ft) could not be converted to a very functional bachelor apartment.
And, is it good to have affordable housing all in one building? No, it's not ideal. But if a hotel conversion can be funded by the feds, and can help take a few hundred people off the waiting list, I'm willing to accept that compromise.
Yes, I understand that is the mechanism, but why aren't we doing that. We just redid all the zoning and AFAIK didn't include anything for this. I feel like that was a missed opportunity...but there is no reason not to fix it now.
The only risk with this is that we limit the housing by increasing the restrictions (requiring affordable housing would be a restriction). That being said the simple solution is to eliminate other restrictions, parking, maximum density, etc. But that would be CRAZY I know.
As for converting, I suppose that's not unreasonable, but it would require a fair bit of modification.
Posts: 10,244
Threads: 64
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
293
(10-28-2020, 08:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Yes, I understand that is the mechanism, but why aren't we doing that. We just redid all the zoning and AFAIK didn't include anything for this. I feel like that was a missed opportunity...but there is no reason not to fix it now.
The only risk with this is that we limit the housing by increasing the restrictions (requiring affordable housing would be a restriction). That being said the simple solution is to eliminate other restrictions, parking, maximum density, etc. But that would be CRAZY I know.
As for converting, I suppose that's not unreasonable, but it would require a fair bit of modification.
The latest zoning is still under appeal. Getting them to change the zoning rules (other restrictions should also be eased, to allow easier granny flats and duplexing etc) would be good but will, I expect, require a concerted and long-term effort.
Once you strip out the hotel fixtures you are pretty much left with an empty apartment shell. Assuming you keep the bathroom as is, you need to add a kitchen(ette), rework electricals, do flooring, paint and ceiling. A double unit could be made, window configuration permitting, into a 2BR apartment but would be more complex. Oh, yes, electrical meters would need to be added. Still, it's all interior work.
Posts: 1,968
Threads: 18
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
36
(10-28-2020, 04:36 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Why would a reduced tax rate devalue property? In fact, it should make the property more attractive -- just like lower condo fees make a condo building more attractive, and high condo fees tend to make it less attractive (and thus reduce the selling prices).
Except inasmuch as high price is perceived as high value, which is an important part of human psychology. Not sure it applies to high taxes though. We seem to have decoupled the selling price from the assessment price everywhere.
(10-28-2020, 08:42 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Once you strip out the hotel fixtures you are pretty much left with an empty apartment shell. Assuming you keep the bathroom as is, you need to add a kitchen(ette), rework electricals, do flooring, paint and ceiling. A double unit could be made, window configuration permitting, into a 2BR apartment but would be more complex. Oh, yes, electrical meters would need to be added. Still, it's all interior work.
It's also interesting how a lot of NZ motel rooms have kitchens (efficiencies is what they were called when I was travelling in North America with my parents as a kid). Haven't seen them as often in the North American hotels I stay in more recently. Well, not this year, but generally. Bonus tidbit: NZ hotel rooms often come with fresh milk for your tea. Like a carton of it.
|
