Vancouver housing authority proposed by COPE

by Yolande Cole on November 17th, 2011 at 4:28 PM

1 of 1 2 of 1

Coalition of Progressive Electors city council candidates outlined their proposal for the creation of a Vancouver housing authority today (November 17), which they say would be charged with tackling the need for affordable housing.

Candidate Tim Louis said the arms-length housing authority would work with community groups and non-profit developers to buy and sell housing units at cost.

“We need an independent housing authority and we need to be working with the other levels of government to create the affordability necessary, and this housing authority is a way we can do it, using the city land and partnering with other organizations, non-profits, equity co-ops and other mechanisms to create this affordable housing,” Ellen Woodsworth told reporters in front of city hall.

RJ Aquino added that the authority would enforce inclusionary zoning regulations, requiring every new development above six stories to include at least 20 percent affordable rental units.

While the plan for a housing authority doesn’t have the endorsement of Vision, which is running a common slate with COPE in the November 19 election, Woodsworth said she thinks that Vision would support the idea.

“Obviously the City of Toronto has a Toronto housing authority that’s arms-length to the city and it’s been very successful,” she said. “I think we need a made-in-Vancouver model.”

The councillor added that the city is seeing a “deepening” housing crisis.

“We are addressing the homelessness situation, but shelters are not homes,” she said. “Both COPE and Vision want to address the real solution, which is affordable housing.”

The commitment for a housing authority was first included in COPE’s release of their full election platform on November 8.

Vision Vancouver councillor Kerry Jang called the local housing authority proposal “a good idea”.

“I think it’s absolutely something worth pursuing,” he told the Straight by phone.

Jang’s party also raised the topic of homelessness today, taking aim at Non-Partisan Association mayoral candidate Suzanne Anton’s voting record on the issue.

According to Vision, Anton was the only member of council to vote against support for emergency shelters in December 2009, and against the city’s 10-year affordable housing and homelessness plan.

Anton said she voted against the housing plan out of objection to what she argued was a change in the city’s goal from ending homelessness to ending street homelessness.

“He watered down the city’s commitment,” she told the Straight by phone. “How could I vote for that?”

Anton said the NPA would prefer to pursue permanent housing over shelters, including beginning construction on the remaining supportive and social housing projects on city-owned sites.

Jang responded that Vision has “always said it was street homeless”.

“When we took office, we used the best practices in urban health…they told us very clearly, focus on the most vulnerable, and the most vulnerable are those who are actually sleeping on the streets right now,” he said. “That was where we put our focus as the first step.”

Comments

8 Comments

GZLFB

Nov 17, 2011 at 6:39pm

Great all we need, a HUD. Granted at least this isn't centralized, but seriously. It does show dire times for the provincial Government and their BC Liberals. Granted they inherited the NDP problems and did nothing to improve it. Emergency shelters were was a band aide on a gash, a life line to a failed administration, I wish I could bad mouth Anton. Not to mention the threat of using Car 87 against people choosing to prefer the out doors.

Save Vancouver

Nov 18, 2011 at 12:12am

Cute idea COPEsters, but your Vision Vancouver masters will never go for it.

Rootabega

Nov 18, 2011 at 12:49am

52% of the eligible voters in Vancouver are renters.
COPE is the only party, or independent, that has come out time after time, year after year, for truly affordable housing. Developers and landlords have both been presenting themselves as renters' "friends", offering either one or both of the twin absurdities of for-profit, non-affordable towers (STIR) or unimpeded rip-offs by private landlords.
The expansion of the Vancouver Public Housing Authority is something COPE and ONLY COPE publicly supports. Renters looking for relief, even if they have no plans to apply for public housing, and first-time buyers who have been shut out of the Vancouver market by speculators, should take note.

GOT

Nov 18, 2011 at 7:14am

good idea...but city hall could begin by looking at the numbers of uninhabited suites in developments less than five years old, in other words properties purchased strictly as 'Canadian addresses' and/or for speculation. As a taxpayer and voter, I'd really like to know how much of this affordability crisis is actually created by non-resident ownership of Canadian property, especially units in new buildings which sit empty. Changing the laws about non-resident ownership - or making it less attractive through 'flipping taxation' - would potentially put more units into market circulation and immediately have a positive impact on affordability. If it's only 2%, that's still a lot of units! If it's 10%, the problem is almost solved - AND we get back to building what Vancouverites can afford, not what the foreign speculation market is driving. If the developers don't like this and take a 'holiday' to push prices up again...well, there's your in for smaller local developers to get some market share, again at affordable prices for buyers. We don't need any more huge towers owned by off-shore money; we need homes for Canadians who live and work in Vancouver.

RealityCheck

Nov 18, 2011 at 10:15am

YES! Let's have another municipal board that can hire even more stranded COPEphiles!

Looking for clarity

Nov 18, 2011 at 1:07pm

I's trying to understand what exactly the new 'Vancouver Housing Society' is supposed to represent?
Me and my husband are blue collared working professionals. That have been pushed further and further away from the housing market. Is the Vancouver Housing Society there to help the hard working people that contribute taxes annually. Or is this just for the non working extremely poors benefit?
Cause as it stands at the moment, housing seems to have five levels to me.
1. The rich people level that buy whatever they need.
2. The poor non working people level that doesn't pay for or pays little for housing.
3. The "Middle Class" (Lawyers, Professors, City Workers) that are working their butts off to pay off a 3/4 million dollar delapitated home that they bought
4. The close to retired that bought their houses a longtime ago.
5. The Lower Middle Class Blue collared worker not rich enough to buy but not poor enough to get help. So they are stuck renting a crappy home and thinking of moving away cause housing is beyond their reach and they would never be able to start a family here.
If this society is to help the tax paying citizens protect their right to be able to purchase a house and for their children to purchase a house. Then I'm all for it.
But if it is to help the poor non working of our society then they might want to get a handle on what everyone else is seeing. Cause right now I work, my husband works and we rent a crappy middle section of a 3 story house. So I don't want to hear this woah is me story about how these people can't afford housing and that them living on top of each other is an issue and that is what they intend to fix first.

Maybe you should fix my housing issues. And the many others like me. So I can afford to buy, then I can move out of my compact living ontop of people house and someone on social assistance can rent the place that I live in.
Just think about how great Vancouver would be if all the blue collared workers decided to leave. All you would have is the Rich, the retired, the lazy, the professionals. No one to build or fix your mansions, no one to clean your streets and no one to feed the poor.

GZLFB

Nov 18, 2011 at 9:15pm

Rootabega: I rent, and not large rent, well larger than I like and you think I, an Independent (Buday) don't care? You have do your research when the press doesn't.
GOT - You against IATSE and, rarer, UBCP workers losing work over an empty apartment being made unusable? Think a second or first unit film guy isn't paying rent somewhere?
RealityCheck: Your right, more government for the buddy system.