The tap dancing and contortion act by Brian Jackson, Vancouver’s director of planning, over the literal meaning of the term “social housing” is revealing [“City seeks range of rents”, July 25–August 1]. Most any layperson, never mind seasoned professional planner, if asked to define the term would immediately invoke the shelter amount dedicated to income-assistance recipients and a similar amount levied against seniors collecting the Canada Pension Plan.

Some mixed-market proposals have been approved by council with a “social-­housing” component with rental rates of $600 per month and up. This makes occupancy in any of these projects a pipe dream to this sector.

Stiffing Downtown Eastsiders again won’t quite cut it this time, however, as there is also an area plan under way in Grandview-Woodlands. With dissension erupting over building massing and heights there, the city has begun to dangle around social-housing promises as a selling point. A great many residents living there are keenly awaiting the great social-housing definition.

The real problem is that the city will not allow itself to be responsible for social-housing projects with appropriate subsidy allotments. It regards this as the responsibility of senior governments, which no longer deliver such housing consistently through ongoing established programs.

Similarly, private-sector developers will only offer a tiny proportion of properties to “social housing”, and are not prepared to expose their balance sheets to the cost of low-end subsidies to the poor—and are under no pressure from the city to do more.

Which leads right back to the conundrum of Jackson. By proposing 100- to 120-foot towers at Main and Hastings streets, he and council—­who are steering this process—have nothing to offer the low-income community outside of preposterous and cruel insults such as calling this the new heart of the community.

> Ian MacRae / Vancouver