Population and Housing

[plam]

Who's talking about relying on generosity? I suggested increasing development charges to fund affordable housing.

There are other issues (rough sleepers, general housing affordability etc) but those will require separate solutions.

Yeah. Taxes are the opposite of relying on generosity and are what we should be doing more in this case. I think your proposal is sensible. I wonder if it goes far enough.

[nms]

I think the free market relies on the selfishness of developers... Which we then purposefully interrupt with excessive zoning and requirements. I iknow this is a simple argument that's been made plenty of times, but this tweet is the same as my opinion on this:

https://twitter.com/patio11/status/939581079328919552

There should be only so much demand for luxury condos, but since there is no supply of low and medium housing, only luxury condos find customers. Any fees we extract from developers will just be extracted from all of us in the end.

From the Japanese model quoted in this tweet, what is the ratio of housing built by public agencies (eg Toronto Public Housing) vs non-profit corporations (eg SHOW, Habitat for Humanity) vs private corporations (eg everyone else)? As long as the current trend to build "luxury housing aimed at high end clients and/or investors" persists, I'm not convinced that the "just build more housing everywhere and let the market decide" model could easily be implemented here.

[dtkmelissa]

I don't see why only condo developers should contribute, it should be the same for the developers creating new subdivisions?

This is a real issue for me. I honestly feel like some people want to punish developers for building high rise condos and so they only demand affordable homes from them and not in low-rise subdivisions. I watch a lot of council meetings, and I can't think of a time that 'affordable units' have come in related to subdivisions, but it comes up at most/all of the condo proposals.

[dtkmelissa]

They can only negotiate affordable housing contributions (whether cash or actual affordable units) when the developer asks for bonusing. And what we are getting is pretty limited.

I think a better option would be to include an affordable housing charge as part of the development charges. Setting it at even $500 for apartments, $750 for townhouses and $1000 for single-family homes (about 5% of current regional development charges, which are roughly half of the total) would generate roughly $50M/year regionally for affordable housing. And it's really not a significant cost increase for a new home.

I don't see why only condo developers should contribute, it should be the same for the developers creating new subdivisions?

I think there's a lot to like in this idea. Would this be in addition to advocating for the province to get back to building and maintaining social and supportive housing? If we believe housing should be affordable in our cities, it only makes sense to me that we use our collective resources (taxes) to pay for it.

[dtkmelissa]

New condos need affordable options
Local councils should do more to ensure that some kind of affordable component becomes part of every big new housing project.

Hear, hear!

While I agree that we need to be more pro-active in creating purpose-built affordable housing, I had a lot of issues with the article. I don't understand why the editorial board seems so focused on developers being the only solution to this problem. How do you write an article about affordable housing and not once suggest any others should play a role (specifically the government)? I'm all for developers building more supply, but I don't believe they alone will ever be the ones to solve our housing crisis.

[tomh009]

They can only negotiate affordable housing contributions (whether cash or actual affordable units) when the developer asks for bonusing. And what we are getting is pretty limited.

I think a better option would be to include an affordable housing charge as part of the development charges. Setting it at even $500 for apartments, $750 for townhouses and $1000 for single-family homes (about 5% of current regional development charges, which are roughly half of the total) would generate roughly $50M/year regionally for affordable housing. And it's really not a significant cost increase for a new home.

I don't see why only condo developers should contribute, it should be the same for the developers creating new subdivisions?

I think there's a lot to like in this idea. Would this be in addition to advocating for the province to get back to building and maintaining social and supportive housing? If we believe housing should be affordable in our cities, it only makes sense to me that we use our collective resources (taxes) to pay for it.

It absolutely should be. I do think Kitchener got some money ($2M?) from the provincial government for affordable housing, asunlikely as that does seem. But, maybe there is hope that continuing to pressure them will result in some improvements as well. They can collect HST and income tax, the region and the cities cannot, so they have a better capability for funding this.

[ijmorlan]

I don't see why only condo developers should contribute, it should be the same for the developers creating new subdivisions?

This is a real issue for me. I honestly feel like some people want to punish developers for building high rise condos and so they only demand affordable homes from them and not in low-rise subdivisions. I watch a lot of council meetings, and I can't think of a time that 'affordable units' have come in related to subdivisions, but it comes up at most/all of the condo proposals.

That is weird. Why are only highrises required to contribute to affordable housing?

But on the other hand, why are only developers — in other words, those who are already trying to make more housing — taxed to contribute to affordable housing? The general rule is to tax what you don’t want and subsidize what you do (but be smart about it, because otherwise the outcome will not be good). We want housing, so why do we tax it with a requirement to contribute to affordable housing?

Maybe the government should just build affordable housing according to public requirements.

Of course, we should also see what happens if we allow 4 story small apartments in all residential zones as of right. I have a sneaking suspicion that in times of high rents you would see more small building projects happening.

Also, reform the Residential Tenancies Act so that non-paying tenants can be removed faster. If there are people who genuinely can’t pay the government should deal with their situation, not whatever hapless landlord happens to be unlucky enough to end up with them in their property. This is how it words with groceries — Zehr’s isn’t expected to just allow certain people to shoplift groceries from their store every week.

[taylortbb]

As long as the current trend to build "luxury housing aimed at high end clients and/or investors" persists, I'm not convinced that the "just build more housing everywhere and let the market decide" model could easily be implemented here.

But why do developers focus on high end condos? Because they have the highest profit of course.

So why don't we see this issue with other products? Why does Toyota bother to produce Corollas when they could make Lexus LSs? Because the market for $100k Lexus LSs is finite, so they also produce lower cost higher volume products as there's money to be made there too. If Toyota was restricted to 100k cars/year they'd cut the Corolla, not the Lexus LS.

The argument for "build more" is that if we did, developers would build less expensive housing too. They only focus on "luxury" housing because in a constrained market it's logical to focus on the most profitable products.

Already we're seeing some developers like Vive that target mid-market rentals, because the luxury rental/condo market is close to saturation.

I also think it's important to separate what's marketed as luxury from what's actually luxury. Charlie West was marketed as all luxury, but there's nothing luxurious about the basic 1bd units. The McGillivray units were actually luxury, but there's a reason they're only 3 of 31 floors.

This isn't to say there's no role for the government for subsidized housing, but that's only a small fraction of the market at the very low end. The mid market could be served with market-rate housing.

[danbrotherston]

This is a real issue for me. I honestly feel like some people want to punish developers for building high rise condos and so they only demand affordable homes from them and not in low-rise subdivisions. I watch a lot of council meetings, and I can't think of a time that 'affordable units' have come in related to subdivisions, but it comes up at most/all of the condo proposals.

That is weird. Why are only highrises required to contribute to affordable housing?

But on the other hand, why are only developers — in other words, those who are already trying to make more housing — taxed to contribute to affordable housing? The general rule is to tax what you don’t want and subsidize what you do (but be smart about it, because otherwise the outcome will not be good). We want housing, so why do we tax it with a requirement to contribute to affordable housing?

Maybe the government should just build affordable housing according to public requirements.

Of course, we should also see what happens if we allow 4 story small apartments in all residential zones as of right. I have a sneaking suspicion that in times of high rents you would see more small building projects happening.

Also, reform the Residential Tenancies Act so that non-paying tenants can be removed faster. If there are people who genuinely can’t pay the government should deal with their situation, not whatever hapless landlord happens to be unlucky enough to end up with them in their property. This is how it words with groceries — Zehr’s isn’t expected to just allow certain people to shoplift groceries from their store every week.

Define "genuinely can't pay". Nobody would choose to be homeless if they have money sitting in the bank that would enable them not to be homeless. I doubt very much there is anyone who chooses not to pay their rent who has the immediate financial ability to do so.

There are certainly lots of people who could pay rent instead of say...their phone bill, or grocery bill, or their prescription. But now you are making a judgment call, is a person "genuinely unable to pay" only if they are choosing between medicine and rent, but not if they are paying a phone bill? What if they are looking for a job, and need a phone number? Maybe now it's only if they have a budget phone...

As soon as we try to make judgment about what others should be spending their money on, things get very messy very quickly. I have made my peace with the fact that I believe we must, more or less, just have trust in people to do the right thing with their money, and largely they will.

Obsession with ensuring only those "deserving" get benefits is so self defeating. Aside from perpetuating poverty, humiliating vulnerable people, it also ENCOURAGES cheating the system. Human morality is a wonderful thing. If you treat people well, and with respect, and give them money to help them survive, the majority of humans will not try to cheat the system. If you treat people badly, humiliate them, and take away their agency, they will take any opportunity they have to cheat the system. Why wouldn't they, they will have exactly as much respect for the system, as the system shows them.

And if you're worried about sociopaths who have no morality, fear not, those people are much more likely to succeed as CEOs and politicians--which might be part of why those people are so much in favour of trying to prevent the system from being cheated. (Note: Not saying all pols, or all CEOs, but the point is people who have no scruples are often effective at gaming the system and going far, they don't need welfare).

So, at the end of the day, I don't think we should try and test if people are "genuinely unable to pay".

Of course, that's not to say that we shouldn't also provide other forms of support (addiction counselling, money management skills, other social services) to those who do have trouble making these choices well--but remember, some of the most financially over-extended people have significant incomes, and aren't actually "poor" in the traditional sense.

The problem with the grocery comparison is that groceries are broadly fungible, I don't care if I eat a banana from NoFrills or from the food bank (and to take it to the extreme, when I'm starving, I don't care if I eat a steak from Zehrs or dried beans from the food bank). When it comes to housing, it's non-fungible (or at least farther along the non-fungible spectrum). It costs me a ton of money, time, and effort to move, one home is not equivalent to another from the perspective of the resident of one of the homes.

[ijmorlan]

Define "genuinely can't pay". Nobody would choose to be homeless if they have money sitting in the bank that would enable them not to be homeless. I doubt very much there is anyone who chooses not to pay their rent who has the immediate financial ability to do so.

There are certainly lots of people who could pay rent instead of say...their phone bill, or grocery bill, or their prescription. But now you are making a judgment call, is a person "genuinely unable to pay" only if they are choosing between medicine and rent, but not if they are paying a phone bill? What if they are looking for a job, and need a phone number? Maybe now it's only if they have a budget phone...

[…]

This is why I favour a guaranteed annual income, so that there is no such thing as “genuinely can’t pay”. I agree that we should not have complicated criteria for who can get help with their expenses, and the large bureaucracy associated with such criteria.

My point is that at least part of the lack of housing is down to worry by small potential landlords that their hypothetical basement suite will cause more trouble than it’s worth. The most basic issue is non-paying tenants who cannot easily be removed.

There is already a provision in the Residential Tenancies Act for a landlord and tenant to make an agreement for catching up on rent arrears, with an expedited eviction process in the event the tenant violates their side of the agreement. I believe there should be an express process allowing the landlord to force the tenant into an agreement of this sort which only requires the tenant to pay ongoing rent into the Tribunal (in trust). There is no argument for the tenant not to pay the ongoing rent specified by their lease agreement, and by paying it into the Tribunal, the funds are preserved in case the landlord is ultimately ordered to reimburse the tenant for something.

This would eliminate the phenomenon of people who simply stop paying and rely on the slow speed with which the Tribunal operates to give them several months of free accommodation.

Additionally, the landlord should be able to unilaterally stop paying for utilities and other similar expenses if rent arrears exceed some small number of months. If they do this, the bills should be deducted from the rent owing, so it’s not an actual change in what the tenant is required to pay; but the point is that landlords should not be forced to pay expenses that are supposed to be paid for by the rent coming from the tenant.

There are also so-called “professional tenants” who rent multiple units, stop paying rent, and sublet them out. This should be dealt with through the criminal justice system, making it fraud to collect rent from a sub-tenant and not remit it forthwith to the landlord.

People who are in need can be helped by the government, not by whichever unlucky landlord happens to get saddled with them.

Another fact to consider: evictions are a symptom, not the problem itself. Having an eviction moratorium is like trying to cure a runny nose by blocking ones nostrils.

I wonder if we need a new word to replace “landlord”? The word sounds like some middle ages person who owns an entire town, but think of how many underused basements there are which might be converted into small apartments if their owners weren’t worried about having tenant problems.

People may have the right to housing, but they don’t have the right to occupy my property specifically unless they’re paying their rent.

[danbrotherston]

Define "genuinely can't pay". Nobody would choose to be homeless if they have money sitting in the bank that would enable them not to be homeless. I doubt very much there is anyone who chooses not to pay their rent who has the immediate financial ability to do so.

There are certainly lots of people who could pay rent instead of say...their phone bill, or grocery bill, or their prescription. But now you are making a judgment call, is a person "genuinely unable to pay" only if they are choosing between medicine and rent, but not if they are paying a phone bill? What if they are looking for a job, and need a phone number? Maybe now it's only if they have a budget phone...

[…]

This is why I favour a guaranteed annual income, so that there is no such thing as “genuinely can’t pay”. I agree that we should not have complicated criteria for who can get help with their expenses, and the large bureaucracy associated with such criteria.

My point is that at least part of the lack of housing is down to worry by small potential landlords that their hypothetical basement suite will cause more trouble than it’s worth. The most basic issue is non-paying tenants who cannot easily be removed.

There is already a provision in the Residential Tenancies Act for a landlord and tenant to make an agreement for catching up on rent arrears, with an expedited eviction process in the event the tenant violates their side of the agreement. I believe there should be an express process allowing the landlord to force the tenant into an agreement of this sort which only requires the tenant to pay ongoing rent into the Tribunal (in trust). There is no argument for the tenant not to pay the ongoing rent specified by their lease agreement, and by paying it into the Tribunal, the funds are preserved in case the landlord is ultimately ordered to reimburse the tenant for something.

This would eliminate the phenomenon of people who simply stop paying and rely on the slow speed with which the Tribunal operates to give them several months of free accommodation.

Additionally, the landlord should be able to unilaterally stop paying for utilities and other similar expenses if rent arrears exceed some small number of months. If they do this, the bills should be deducted from the rent owing, so it’s not an actual change in what the tenant is required to pay; but the point is that landlords should not be forced to pay expenses that are supposed to be paid for by the rent coming from the tenant.

There are also so-called “professional tenants” who rent multiple units, stop paying rent, and sublet them out. This should be dealt with through the criminal justice system, making it fraud to collect rent from a sub-tenant and not remit it forthwith to the landlord.

People who are in need can be helped by the government, not by whichever unlucky landlord happens to get saddled with them.

Another fact to consider: evictions are a symptom, not the problem itself. Having an eviction moratorium is like trying to cure a runny nose by blocking ones nostrils.

I wonder if we need a new word to replace “landlord”? The word sounds like some middle ages person who owns an entire town, but think of how many underused basements there are which might be converted into small apartments if their owners weren’t worried about having tenant problems.

People may have the right to housing, but they don’t have the right to occupy my property specifically unless they’re paying their rent.

I mean, many of the things you bring up, are real problems. I'm pretty sure what you describe as "professional tenants" is actually fraud.

That being said, you're going to be hard pressed to see me generate much sympathy for "landlords", who have benefited from the housing crisis to the tune of millions of dollars of capital gains, for even small scale landlords.

I think that rental housing is a highly problematic situation in general...which is a great shame because it *shouldn't* be, people should have the option of renting without dealing with these harms.

That being said, I don't have really good answers to that, and frankly, that problem is much less critical than the broader housing shortage right now.

[tomh009]

I wonder if we need a new word to replace “landlord”?

In commercial real estate you typically use "lessor" and "lessee".

[danbrotherston]

I wonder if we need a new word to replace “landlord”?

In commercial real estate you typically use "lessor" and "lessee".

I actually prefer landlord...

There is an inherent power imbalance (through financial resources, legal resources, and through the renter being beholden to the landlord for their home) between typical residential renters and landlords. The terms make that imbalance clear. I don't think changing the words would eliminate the power imbalance so I don't think we should change the words until we remove that power imbalance.

That imbalance exists only to a lesser extent for commercial real estate. Most companies with the exception of the smallest mom and pop shops have some lawyer, and it is much longer, expensive process for commercial real estate companies to fill vacancies.

FWIW...I've heard various terms in the Netherlands. One interesting distinction used by the city was "owner" and "resident"...which of course, can be the same thing, but doesn't have to be. Certain taxes are levied against the owner, others against the resident, and of course, owner occupied units the same person pays both.

[tomh009]

That imbalance exists only to a lesser extent for commercial real estate. Most companies with the exception of the smallest mom and pop shops have some lawyer, and it is much longer, expensive process for commercial real estate companies to fill vacancies.

Generally agreed, but one difference in the other direction is that evictions and rate increases are arguably easier with commercial real estate leases as there are no regulations preventing those.

[ijmorlan]

In commercial real estate you typically use "lessor" and "lessee".

I actually prefer landlord...

There is an inherent power imbalance (through financial resources, legal resources, and through the renter being beholden to the landlord for their home) between typical residential renters and landlords. The terms make that imbalance clear. I don't think changing the words would eliminate the power imbalance so I don't think we should change the words until we remove that power imbalance.

Well one thing I would point is that in Ontario right now part of the power imbalance comes from the fact that tenants cannot, in practice, use the Tribunal to deal with landlord problems. Why? Because they’re massively backlogged, and in order to prevent the entire system from collapsing they are prioritizing rental arrears hearings. This is necessary because if it becomes known that paying rent is optional, everything falls apart completely, in a way that it doesn’t if some tenants/landlords take advantage of and mistreat their landlords/tenants.

If there was an express process to force ongoing payment of rent, then those who are taking advantage of the system to avoid paying rent would be removed from the market (or shape up), and then tenants (in particular) could actually get action when they file an application against a bad landlord. Overall, this would lead to an improvement in conditions for everybody (except for the freeloaders).

The rules in Ontario are actually pretty fair for the most part. They could be improved, but rules on things like rent control and notice periods are reasonably well designed. The problem is that nothing can be enforced promptly; in this specific area, this is a massive boon, not to tenants in general, but to thieves (theft of services is still theft), because the theft continues every day that the parties are waiting for the hearing; and to bad landlords. All a bad tenant has to do to stay in a property for free is cause delays; and a bad landlord knows it will take a long time for a tenant to get a ruling against them.