Frances Bula header image 2

Social-action groups, residents push governments to take action on housing

May 18th, 2016 · 3 Comments

People who have worked on housing issues for decades haven’t seen this much fear and anxiety about housing in Vancouver ever. When it was just working-class people and the homeless who were having trouble, there was a kind of low-grade concern.

But now that middle-class people working two decent jobs feel like they’ve been priced out of everything except condos in Vancouver and even Burnaby and North Van,the desire to change the system is palpable.

That has various individuals and groups jumping in to make recommend actions. We heard from the UBC and SFU professors a few months ago. Now the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has come in with its recommendations (much broader than just a vacancy tax), a group has formed to pressure all political parties on housing in the lead-up to next year’s provincial election, and two individuals have started petitions asking the federal government to take action (links here and here).

I’m waiting to see, myself, how this all coalesces. The Code Red/Generation Squeeze group isn’t making any specific policy recommendations yet, so as not to get people dissipating their energy on whether this technical detail or that one is the best strategy. Groups like CCPA are making big, broad recommendations that are actually more focused on getting governments to put money into lower-cost housing than on stopping foreign investment. And the resident petitions are focused exclusively on the foreign-investment issue. (One even suggests getting rid of the provision that allows Canadians to register as non-residents and not pay taxes — something that won’t please Canadians who have decamped to Mexico and Thailand to avoid taxes until they need to come back for healthcare.)

My Globe story here.

But to be effective, all these groups will need to sort out a specific change they want, otherwise governments will just allow them to dither amongst themselves. I await.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • sthrendyle

    In many parts of Canada with strong unionized work forces, working class people are middle class people. The former is a social classification, the latter is an economic one. I would argue for abolition of the term ‘working class’ completely. Besides, I don’t see a hell of a lot of auto manufacturers or textile factories in Vancouver, unionized or not. I do agree, though, that the new ‘angst’ is being fuelled by a professional class of engineers, doctors, etc who now see their dreams – whatever they might have been – vanishing. Welcome to the club.

  • A Taxpayer

    And I would argue for the abolition of “unionized” work forces as the distinction now is not union versus non-union but public versus private sector. At some point, those in the private sector are going to wake up and decide they are no longer going to support paying the public sector higher compensation than the private sector.

  • Kenji

    There is no harm advocating for increased taxes and other restrictions designed to squeeze foreign buyers, which may slightly cool the market and provide a nice fund for construction/subsidization of more affordable housing in Vancouver.

    But if social groups want to be effective, to keep up with the price curve or even get ahead somewhat, they should be loudly demanding more and more construction, as only inventory and supply can keep the market from boiling over.

    It’s potentially unpleasant for them to advocate for something that those nasty capitalists would want to do anyway, but by joining forces they may at least be able to influence the kinds of construction that would get approved – for example, more 3 and 4 bedroom units for families, amenities, integrated daycare/special needs/related services space, and the like.

    Where is the land coming from? Probably from rezoning SFH, and while there wiill be pushback from people who have that, like me, and from conservationist/preserve character/we are the creme types, it’s clearly irresponsible to have an undersupply.