Frances Bula header image 2
← →

In the continent’s hottest housing market, Vancouver will try to create an “affordable home ownership” program

April 19th, 2016 · 10 Comments

The good folks at city hall are probably wishing someone had started the idea of an affordable home-ownership program 10 years ago, when prices were way more reasonable.

At any rate, they’re going to try now by getting units in new development projects through developer community-amenity contributions and then selling them to people at below-market prices, while retaining a share of the equity.

I’ll be counting the seconds until this all unrolls. Very difficult to work out. First, the province has to change legislation. Then, the city has to hold a consultation on how this will work. Who gets first dibs on these units, once people have met the income/residency/job-in-Vancouver requirements? A lottery? Or will some types of employees get bumped up the list?

And then there’s working out the financials and legals with the developer and the buyers.

All this and more is what other cities have gone through so it’s not impossible. The city’s comprehensive report outlines the efforts in places like Calgary, San Francisco, Boston and more.

Local housing experts say the program is worth a try, but will likely only be able to serve a small slice of the city’s anxious residents. They’ll need to make enough money to pay the mortgage on what will be, even with the discount, an expensive condo, but not make enough money to just plunge into the market on their own.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Look Deeper

    Hidden in this proposal is a wide-ranging rezoning of all property along and adjacent to arterials across the City.

    Specifically (and this is taken directly from the report):

    Affordable Housing Choices Interim Rezoning Policy

    A.
    Sites fronting an arterial street that is on Translink’s Frequent Transit Network and within close proximity (i.e. a 5- minute walk or 500 metres) of a local shopping area (red areas on Map 1).
    – Mid-rise forms up to a maximum of 6 storeys

    B.
    Sites within approximately 100 metres (i.e. 11⁄2 blocks) of an arterial street.
    – Ground-oriented forms up to a maximum of 31⁄2 storeys, which is generally sufficient height to include small house/duplexes, traditional row houses, stacked townhouses and courtyard row houses

    (the report provides a map showing all proposed areas to be included),

  • Victor

    here here Look Deeper. Astounding that there has been No Consultation with the community and those that have worked so hard and for many long hours to create community visions and plans in the past. Very disrespectful

  • Tiktaalik

    They said they were going to do this about a year ago. I was starting to wonder when they were actually going to follow through.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vancouver-releases-plan-to-boost-availability-of-family-housing/article24888983/

  • Everyman

    What a waste of time, but we shouldn’t expect anything more from this mayor and council.

  • Kenji

    It’ll only serve a small number of buyers which is more than the numbers not being served. Seems like a win? And the city banks equity when the owners cash out?

    It’s not a bad idea unless you believe that it should also address the root causes of homelessness, the problem of overcrowding in our cities, the psychopathic addiction to capital, and the coyotes that are threatening to eat the cats of Mt Pleasant.

    Then it is a terrible idea by a council that we just wash our hands of because suck.

  • A Taxpayer

    And did you enjoy the 420 event today as much as prior years?

  • Kenji

    First, did you time travel forward by a half hour to post your review of the event? Second, no. I have never been. I can’t handle stinky hippies.

  • A Taxpayer

    Uh, you do realize that 420 refers to the month/day and not the time of day, don’t you?

  • Kenji

    You’re a yappy lil fella

  • A Taxpayer

    This is a really bad idea that I can only hope the Province declines to change the City Charter.

    First, this is a very different proposition from that of providing social housing. While I believe this is a provincial responsibility, providing housing is a part of the social welfare program which we all fund out of our taxes. Not all recipients benefit equally but neither do they make a significant contribution to tax revenue that funds these programs.

    The program being proposed will benefit household incomes up to $99,000 per year estimated to number 30,000 in total. Clearly, not everyone in that category will benefit from this program yet they will subsidize the program paying the same amount in taxes as those that are fortunate enough to win the housing lottery. Employers who are lucky enough to employ one of these workers (who may take less in income because of the housing subsidy) are being subsidized at the expense of other employers who are not so lucky yet they all pay the same amount in taxes.

    On the practical side of implementing such a program are many obstacles that will surely require a significant bureaucracy to police. The program requires one resident to be employed in the City of Vancouver. What happens if that person loses their job? What if they have a better opportunity outside of Vancouver? What about employers with multiple locations in the Lower Mainland and may indicate the resident is employed in Vancouver when they are not?

    The buyer is only required to come up with a 5% down payment. What happens if there is a correction in real estate prices – who takes the hit?

    These are only a few of the problems both philosophical and practical.