Login / RegisterExpert rips interim report of the Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability
A former UN special rapporteur on adequate housing says he’s unimpressed by the interim report of the Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability. In an interview at the Georgia Straight office, Miloon Kothari said that he’s read the document and believes it doesn’t adopt a “rights-based” approach to housing. Instead, he characterized most of the policy proposals as more market-based, including a call to lower development costs.
“Unless you have a situation where there is more rent control and you have a situation where more middle-income people are able to afford to live in Vancouver—and you have…more serious attempts to have mixed neighbourhoods and regulate speculation—until you see all of that, there isn’t going to be much of a change,” the New Delhi–based Kothari said.
In 2009, Kothari wrote a report on the housing situation in Canada for the UN Human Rights Council. At the time, he reported that Vancouver had lost more than 1,400 low-income housing units since July 2003, according to nongovernmental organizations.
Earlier this year, an Illinois-based company, Demographia, reported that Vancouver has the second-most expensive housing market in the world, after taking into account residents’ incomes. Hong Kong topped the list, which meant in effect that Vancouver has the most expensive housing in the western hemisphere. Kothari said that the public should be asking officials what they are doing to protect the nature of the city and prevent middle-income people from leaving.
“I don’t know how the situation was allowed to get to where it has,” he said. “There is some accountability that has to be there. The bureaucrats’ response that we’re only meeting demand is not acceptable.”
Kothari swore an affidavit in an Ontario Superior Court of Justice court case seeking to have the right to housing protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He stated in the document that it could “provide effective remedies for those who are denied access to adequate housing”.
He said that if Vancouver adopted a rights-based approach, the first step would be to conduct a detailed assessment of where low-income and middle-income people live, as well as their housing conditions. Kothari praised Canada for pioneering the concept of a “housing continuum”, in which there are numerous options ranging from shelters for the poorest of the poor to supportive housing, hostels, rental accommodation, and ownership. But on this, his fourth visit to the city, he still hasn’t observed all of these options.
“What I see in Vancouver is you only have two or three options,” he stated. “You’re either in a shelter or you’re renting, and that’s precarious, because now you can be thrown out.”
He said there isn’t any genuine rent control, because under provincial legislation a landlord can announce that he or she is renovating a suite, forcing the tenant to move. “I’m sure that landlords that never even thought of renovating are saying, ‘Let’s renovate and we can have high rent.’ It’s a form of eviction, really.”
Kothari pointed out that there is a more rights-based approach to housing in Montreal and Toronto, as well as in European cities such as Berlin and Vienna. In addition, he pointed to São Paulo, Brazil, as a city in the southern hemisphere that has rights-based legislation and that transfers money from wealthier areas to improve poorer neighbourhoods.
“There are lots of models,” Kothari said. “I don’t think any attempts are being made to look at other models. There is sort of an arrogance in housing policy here.”
Follow Charlie Smith on Twitter at twitter.com/csmithstraight.
Realistically, we have two items that must be dealt with. First, stop bending over backwards to make life easy for developers and real estate people. Second, pass legislation that makes immigration and citizenship a mandatory requirement prior to owning land and no dual citizenships and if you want to be a citizen of Canada, then you must live here at least 6 months of the year!
Gov'ts think they are growing the economy just because land and housing is constantly changing hands, when in fact our housing in Vancouver has just become a giant Ponzi scheme.
"Kothari pointed out that there is a more rights-based approach to housing in Montreal and Toronto, as well as in European cities such as Berlin and Vienna. In addition, he pointed to São Paulo, Brazil, as a city in the southern hemisphere that has rights-based legislation and that transfers money from wealthier areas to improve poorer neighbourhoods.
“There are lots of models,” Kothari said. “I don’t think any attempts are being made to look at other models. There is sort of an arrogance in housing policy here.”"
The idea that this is just some 'complicated' issue we just can't figure out is nonsense. It's just a hard issue to figure out if your two main political parties are in the pockets of developers.
How about Foreign Developers' Task Force?
"Evictions Task Force"
"Developer's Task Force"
"Affordability Destruction Task Force"
"Condo Construction Task Force"
"Enemy of the Poor Task Force"
"Pizza Hut Task Force"
"Whatever Task Force"
"Bob Rennie's Friends Task Force"
etc
Yes, probably it is the best way. Raise the income, gethe house. Sure I am a protectionist myself and want to keep jobs in Canada. But what we want is gonna come, if it comes, after a long battle to overcome free trade models and other economic dis-incentives.
What about in the meantime?
I'm sorta for this idea of limiting sales to residents of Canada. Speculation is gambling, I'm not against it per se but there is a reason that gambling is considered vice. It tends to harm people, in this case, renters.
Condo sales to offshore buyers should be like the luxury tax in baseball; you want to break the rules, then be prepared to pay through the nose and that money will be dispersed to others.
*foreign purchase of real estate inflates Vancouver's market
*however, foreign demand does attract new investment
*a comparison of other cities, a "best of approach", would help Vancouver create affordable, secure housing options, but housing is just one part of a better life (job skills, mental, physical health are others)
I'm fairly new to Vancouver (only a few years) and came from a smaller city. I would definitely say (and seems self-evident) that the more community supports (i.e. tax sharing), the healthier and more stable the overall community. The living wage campaign is a great example, and an important signal that market forces provide some answers, but need to be balanced by supports for the whole community. Our city lifestyle is hard on the environment (think economic footprint), so even how we develop our cities, let alone how we share them, needs to be addressed.
That's a solution. Now go implement it.
I voted for Gregor Robertson in the last two elections, because he was running on a ticket of affordable housing. In that time, housing affordability has worsened egregiously, and it's getting impossible to enjoy the nature thanks to the traffic congestion, densification and ugly glass towers - "Eco-density" is the biggest scam ever invented. I wondered why things weren't improving under Gregor until I read that he takes campaign contributions from Peter Wall; that kind of explained it all. Robertson will never get my vote again; I only wish I could take back my last two votes.
Yet, somehow everyone else gets by, even as we all complain about high prices for housing.
Most of the "right to housing" programs involve the middle class to pay to house those who are worse off (often only marginally worse off) than them.
The truth of the matter is Vancouver can be densified and has been (look at Yaletown or the West End) but there is no god given right to live in Vancouver. If you cannot afford it, there is Surrey or Poco or similar locales. That is what happens elsewhere. We however seem to think that in a city lacking in land, we have to support some people in the centre when it is simply that they cannot afford to live there.
No one lobbies for equal access to prime rib roast for those who can only afford Kraft Dinner, or for "affordable" Bentleys for those who's only affordable means of transportation is public transit.
Just because living in Vancouver is highly desirable is not reason enough to call access to housing in the most expensive city in all of Canada a right.
Some people live in Vancouver, drive Bentleys, eat at HY's and wear Armani - because they can afford to. If you cannot afford to live here there are more affordable places in the Lower Mainland where your means will afford you accommodations within your means.
It seems to me that there is also a different attitude; we see housing as a way to generate wealth, while Germans see housing as a home/shelter. Furthermore, I believe the German system is not as tax friendly to short-term real estate speculators. This system can’t be ignored as ‘outdated socialist’ ideas, as from what I can see, the country is very successful economically.
This is the worst municipal sell-off I've ever seen, and I've lived in 4 countries. Scammer Robertson is what the real estate girls voted for and the rest of us got stuck with the fallout.
Pages