Well, we were hard at it again this afternoon, talking yet again about affordable housing in response
to this report. I had originally planned to deliver a formal speech in response to the report, but the discussion ended up being directed towards six specific questions, so I put my speech aside and dealt with the questions one by one. Much of the content of my address paralleled the speech I had prepared, however, so I've decided to reproduce it here. I should add that I was quite satisfied with the direction our discussion took this afternoon, as it is clear that council supports a move away from the vision statement I critique below, and also embraces the idea that we should focus our attention on "housing affordability" instead of the creation of subsidized "affordable housing." Progress is most definitely being made.
|
Graphic created with wordle.net
|
“The Reformer is always right about what's wrong. However,
he's often wrong about what is right.” ― G.K.
Chesterton
So here we go again. This is at least the third time we have
been asked to have a wide-ranging discussion on affordable housing – albeit,
one of those occasions being centred on the more defined issued of rental
housing. We have heard many broad policy
philosophies and just as many narrow policy points from staff and from around
the council table. Now is the time to refine our discussion even further.
Let’s start by looking at the framework in which we operate.
It is important to note that, constitutionally, we are creatures of the
Provincial Government, and our particular provincial government has enacted the
Local Government Act. In turn, this act says that every community such as ours
must have an Official Community Plan, and moreover, that every Official
Community Plan must include local government policies for affordable housing,
rental housing and special needs housing. [Interestingly, Table 1, on Page
nine, the “municipal scan” shows that several municipalities, including our
immediate neighbor to the east, do not have Affordable Housing Strategies.] The
LGA does not, however, say what those policies must be.
A previous council here in Coquitlam adopted an Affordable
Housing Strategy in 2007, and it is that document we are now revisiting. There
is much good in that strategy and I congratulate those who came before me –
some of whom are still here on council today – for their fine work.
However. …..I believe that the 2007 policy has a fundamental
flaw at its very heart – and that is its vision statement, which envisions a
community in which, QUOTE, “All residents of Coquitlam will be able to live in
safe, appropriate housing that is affordable for their income level.” The discussion paper before us today asks
whether this is still an appropriate vision to have. My answer, in a word: NO.
It is completely unrealistic, wholly untenable, absolutely
unreachable – as long, that is, as we living in a free society in which our
residents are taxed at a reasonable rate, and in which our desire to serve the
less fortunate in our community is balanced with our ability to pay,…. and with
our desire NOT to bring havoc to natural market forces that give birth to our
economic prosperity and quality of life.
This vision statement is actually dangerous. Dangerous, not
only because it would make micro-managing activists of city planners and cash
cows out of taxpayers, but also because, in its breathtakingly broad
imprecision, it blinds us to more practical, more targeted and, ultimately more
attainable goals.
It is clear to me that, as it now stands, the vision
statement would have the City enact a strategy that would see the city waste
time and energy trying to reach a Utopian goal. Let’s back up for a minute and
put this into context: Land prices are very high in Metro Vancouver. Our land
supply is limited because of two natural and two man-made barriers, the natural
being the ocean to the west and the mountains to the north, the man-made being
the US border to the south and the agricultural land reserve, primarily to the
east.
The problems associated with our limited land supply are
exacerbated by our temperate climate and pleasing geography. Simply put, people
want to live here, it’s getting crowded, and land values are skyrocketing
because of it. In a healthy economy, as ours
is, this is entirely natural and unavoidable.
Where such circumstances lead to decreasing affordability, I
suggest that there are limited actions that a municipal level government can
and should embark upon, and one of them certainly isn’t to strive to ensure
that, essentially, anyone at any income level who finds themselves in Coquitlam
should be able to live in “appropriate housing” – whatever that means.
Moving forward with such a Utopian policy would have many
adverse effects: it would surely put upward pressure on property taxes; it
would surely divert resources from areas which are a city’s proper field of
endeavor; and it would distort the social fabric of our community.
Why the latter? Because, it seems to me that it is
inevitable that the burden of paying for an aggressive housing-affordability
scheme would be shouldered by average-income property owners. But we know that
the property-tax burden is already straining our typical homeowner’s resources.
Adding to that burden will only make living in Coquitlam that much more
unaffordable for them. Ultimately, it
will drive evermore middle-income families out of Coquitlam.
A further distortion occurs regarding land use. Every parcel
of land that we give away or subsidize to allow “all residents to live in
appropriate housing” will be taken out of the free market. Those parcels of
land that are left in the market will, of course, be that much rarer, and, as a
result, their price will rise.
Another way of looking at this is to recognize that if the
market is deprived of downward pressure (which would normally be provided by
lower-income people, but would have now left the market because their needs
would have been met by subsidized housing), then prices on open-market lands
will be higher, thus making them even more unaffordable for middle-income earners.
I am also concerned about the diversion of resources away
from projects and programs that are more properly in the civic purview. I’m
speaking here of such fundamental things as police services, fire protection,
parks, recreational and cultural facilities, and maintenance of transportation
networks.
Look at our annual Ipsos Reid poll. These are the areas the
people of Coquitlam want us to focus our energies on. We should do what we were
elected to do, not carry out the schemes of social alchemists.
So what do I see a commonsense Affordable Housing Strategy
entailing? The primary answer is already alive and well in Coquitlam, and that
is the city’s densification and housing-choices policies. Our recent decision
to reduce parking-stall requirements for two-bedroom apartments in
rapid-transit zones will also help. We
can do more. We must redouble our efforts to reduce red tape in all areas of
civic endeavor. Time is money, and, for
example, the more efficiently homebuilders can do the job in Coquitlam, the
more affordable housing will be. Finding ways to fast-track a non-profit
agency’s plan for an affordable rental project is a great example of the work
we should be doing.
Let’s also take a fresh look at how we can encourage the
construction of secondary suites in our community. We’re already doing a pretty good job of it,
but tapping more deeply into this resource could prove to be a bonanza. I support
the report’s suggestion to explore “lock off suites”.
At the same time, we can and should continue to help the
most vulnerable and needy in our society. Our donation of the property at 3030
Gordon, for a homeless shelter and transition home, is the best example of a
well-targetted, well-intentioned, well-delivered action. So too the Como Lake
single-mothers’ building being run by the Y.
And this leads to a related point. The city is growing an
affordable-housing fund which has now reached $1 million. Yet, this fund
remained untouched while the city participated in the two projects I just
mentioned. I don’t understand why. Could not the fund have been used to reimburse
the city – that is, the taxpayer – for the land it donated to the two
aforementioned projects?
It’s also important to note that the discussion paper before
us today suggests that even if the fund were to reach $25 million or so, it
would be able to make only a very small dent in the affordability issue. Perhaps,
then, the best course is to collapse the fund, move the monies into general
revenue for the benefit of all citizens, and concentrate our direct efforts
elsewhere. I think the time has come to see how this money can be put to better
use – in the service of all Coquitlam residents and for the common good.