Disrupting Housing Conversations For Good

Housing affordability dominated the conversation during Canada’s recent federal election, with each major party putting forward policy ideas and funding promises in their platforms. In the Vote Housing campaign, we urged voters to prioritize housing when they filled in their ballots. But with multiple, varied promises from each party, we were admittedly asking voters to do a lot of analysis. 

It's very easy to think you need to be a policy expert to engage in this housing affordability conversation, but I would like to suggest that even if you don't have all the answers, a few strategic questions can disrupt the status quo and send the message that we are paying attention.

I'm currently preparing written submissions for municipal bylaw amendments, an Official Plan, and a Land Needs Assessment Methodology meeting. I've been reading a LOT about housing affordability and the economy, and right now I'm so far into the weeds I can't even put together any kind of coherent alternate narrative yet. And when I review some of the planning reports, I honestly can't even read them. 

But, that doesn't mean I need to sit out the conversation.

We don't need to be experts to ask disruptive questions.
​
Here are some of the kinds of questions I'm asking, most of which are widely applicable in housing and land use conversations, and you can use them, too. There is deeper work that can and should be done, but these put it on the radar that we want to see policies that will move us toward the realization of housing as a right for low-income renters and people who are experiencing homelessness, not just first-time home buyers.

For Housing Affordability Policy:

• What definition of affordable housing are you using?
• Are you talking about renters or buyers?
• When you talk about building xxx affordable apartments, do you mean market rent, or non-market rent? (Non-market rent is social housing, housing built by non-profits, etc.)
• What protections are in place to ensure these new units stay affordable?
• How does this policy help with the realization of housing as a right?
• How does this policy address the rising number of people in shelters and encampments in our community?
• How are you protecting current affordable housing stock from being scooped up by predatory investors, foreign and domestic?

And if you're feeling very saucy and they've just said something ridiculous, like anything including the term "trickle down," I like to leave a few awkward seconds of silence, blink slowly, and ask, "Do you really believe that?"

For Official Plans and Land Use Planning:

• What definition of affordable housing are you using?
• How did you settle on a target of [10%] of all new units being built as affordable? How will this be enforced? How do you feel when I reword that statement and say that our city is targeting [90%] of all new builds to be unaffordable?
• Does this plan get us closer to the realization of housing as a right?
• When you do a Land Needs Assessment, how do you account for affordability needs?
• Considering housing affordability as a measurement of how much is left over for basic needs after housing costs are paid, the availability of low- or no-cost transit is an important consideration in affordability. The type of growth you are proposing outside of the current built up area, at this density you are proposing, does it set us up to support efficient low-cost transit options? 
• I read with interest this article about a report prepared for Ottawa City Council that shows that accommodating growth through infill development was way cheaper than adding new suburbs on undeveloped land. The report showed that it costs Ottawa $465 per person per year to serve these new low-density homes, compared to infill development which pays for itself and leaves the city with an additional $606 per person per year for other services. My understanding is that the numbers change a bit from city to city, but expanding boundary lines is proven to be far more expensive than infill development. It looks like building new suburbs is far more lucrative for developers, though. Has the City/County requested this type of study? Are these cost differences being communicated to Council members who will be voting on the plan? Are you planning to show multiple growth scenarios with the associated costs to taxpayers, so that we can provide informed input on how we want our communities to grow?

And again, if you're feeling saucy, "I couldn't help but notice that the recommendations from the Ontario Home Builders Association are mirrored almost completely in the final copy of the updated Provincial Lands Needs Assessment Methodology. What do you think the impact will be of allowing developers to write the methodology that municipalities are required to use as they plan their growth from now until 2051?"

George Lakoff is quoted as saying, “In politics, whoever frames the argument tends to win the battle.” This is true in affordable housing, and right now the developers, and developer-lobbied policymakers, are framing the issue as one of supply, hampered by red tape and restrictive planning. Meanwhile, campaigning politicians promise first-time homebuyer supports to help individuals buy a house, without addressing the fact that the prices are too high to begin with. We can disrupt these conversations. Let's go make some trouble.