Using Vancouver city land for private condos worries some critics

As a former government manager of social housing, Michael Geller applauds the City of Vancouver for recognizing that home affordability is an issue that affects many. It isn’t just about the homeless and poor. Because homes nowadays are so expensive, a lot of people with high-paying jobs also cannot buy their own place.

But as a seasoned planner and developer, Geller gets a little nervous when the city makes promises such as the one in its 10-year plan on housing. Adopted by the Vision Vancouver–controlled council in July this year, it vowed there will be a “home for everyone”.

Vision essentially reiterated this pledge in its platform for the November 19 election. As it did in 2008, the party won the mayoral seat and a solid majority in council.

What’s involved here is the target of building a range of housing options totalling an ambitious 38,900 units from 2012 to 2021.

Although many may think these are to be mostly supportive and social housing, as well as affordable rentals, this is not the case. More than half of the goal, or 20,000 units, is intended to be privately owned homes, particularly condos.

What makes Geller apprehensive is the idea of using city properties, especially for homes that will be owned by private buyers.

“We’re using valuable city resources to benefit some people but not others,” Geller told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview. “I would also question: should limited city lands be used for condominiums or should they instead be used primarily to serve those in greater need?”

Vision’s election platform states that the ruling party intends to “leverage city-owned properties with private and non-profit partners to use city assets to increase the stock of affordable housing, including co-ops, affordable rental, long-term leases, and affordable home ownership”.

As the former president and CEO of SFU Community Trust, Geller is familiar with developing affordable condos. He was responsible for the creation of UniverCity, a community development next to the university’s Burnaby Mountain campus.

UniverCity’s features include below-market housing for university faculty and staff, which, according to Geller, made sense from the university’s perspective, even if this meant forgoing profits on the land.

“In this instance, I think the city has to be very careful in writing down the value of its assets for the benefit of some but not others,” Geller said. “But I put that out as a caution rather than a criticism.”

According to Geller, the use of city properties raises the prickly issue of “equity” for all residents.

Based on the 10-year target, 11,000 of the 38,900 housing units will be purpose-built and secondary market rentals, and 7,900 will be supportive- and social-housing units.

For the immediate period of 2012 to 2014, staff set a goal of 14,000 housing units. Almost one half of these, or 6,675, are condos and affordable private homes.

In a report to council, staff stated that the city cannot, on its own, deliver on the targets. It will need partnerships within and outside the public sector.

Geller suggested that Vancouver consider other measures that can increase the supply of affordable housing like condos. These include simplifying development-approval procedures, prezoning land, and reducing community-amenity contributions by developers.

Coun. Geoff Meggs, Vision’s go-to guy when it comes to the housing file, couldn’t say what will be the first major initiative that the new council will undertake on this front.

But Meggs confirmed that city lands will be a factor in how a Vision council will fulfill its promise to bring homes within reach of Vancouverites.

“The city really didn’t take stock of what it owns and how that could contribute to solutions for housing, both land that has housing on it now and land that may be vacant,” Meggs told the Straight in a phone interview. “So part of what we want the staff to do is to review all of the options for us and what could be done.”

Although Meggs dismissed the prospect of housing on city properties underneath the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts, he indicated that those located along Main Street near Chinatown are potential sites.

Comments

5 Comments

GOT

Nov 30, 2011 at 6:49pm

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record - OK a stuck ipod for you young folks, if such a thing is possible - city hall MUST look at the negative effects of foreign speculation in Vancouver real estate. Of course it's a positive effect for developers and speculators, but to what extent is it a factor in driving prices up beyond affordability for many who actually live in this city.
Show us some numbers! Real ones please. Take away the attractiveness of using Vancouver condos as off-shore holding accounts for non-Canadians, and I'm betting we'll see a stabilizing of real estate prices within a year, as condos are dumped onto the market and speculators look elsewhere. Although this will not sit well with developers, I ask whose city is this anyway? And on that note, you can guarantee there will not be one unit of social housing built as long as developers have any say in the process. Developers will not engage in any process that threatens to deliver less profit than what they figure they should be entitled to. And building social housing is one of those processes.

Tranny

Nov 30, 2011 at 10:00pm

If Transvestites can get a subsidized Condo I want one as well :)

I luv Tranny butts and boobs :)

hg

Dec 1, 2011 at 7:32am

Every time I hear the word leveraging, I just shudder. Just think of the financial mess because of leveraging. If you look at rents in Vancouver, you will notice that the only real affordable ones are by Co-ops. For the life of me I cannot understand how anybody can think of $1500 for a 2 BR apartment is affordable. Therefore City property should be used for Co-op construction.
hg

monty/that'sme

Dec 2, 2011 at 10:58am

Geller owns Laneway Housing Inc. ( or something similar). Is he shilling for more business for himself?

CityHallWatch

Dec 2, 2011 at 11:40am

People talk about public private partnerships, or P3s. They can be good. They can be bad. In the worst case, they end up being P6s (Public Partner Pays while the Private Partner Profits). The chances of P6s occurring increase dramatically when expensive elections are overwhelmingly funded by private interests. They are not donating out of compassion or a warm feeling of charity. They expect something in return after their friends get elected. The Vision/NPA developer axis just showed us the most expensive election in Canadian history (campaign cost may have been over $20 per registered voter, but we won't know until the final day they are required by law to report, in six months). How can Mayor Robertson possibly balance the needs of the most vulnerable in our society against his obligations to show gratitude to his funders? Watch carefully what happens over the next three years.