Frances Bula header image 2

Why we need better info: a summary of the city’s record on rental, low-cost, social housing

November 14th, 2014 · 9 Comments

Several weeks ago, I asked the city communications department if they could pull numbers for me to help quantify what kinds of housing Vision Vancouver has been instrumental in creating since its was first elected in 2008 and what stats were available on the rents. Here was my request:

Does the housing centre have any reports/stats available on the exact number of 1. social housing units built since 2008 2. market rental units built since 2008. 3. analysis of the rents charged for each. (I know that the big towers are all rented at welfare rates, but I think there are some other projects called “social housing” that are a mix of deep subsidy, shallow subsidy and near market)

I got this back this week, which is somewhat helpful, though a bit densely packed. A second chunk of info at the bottom of the post has very interesting numbers on how much councils have spent on housing since 2002, up from $33 million in 2003-2005 to $275 million in the most recent council term.

But I have to say, it’s rather stunning that a government that had affordable housing as an essential plank didn’t compile and convey this information consistently, effectively and repeatedly. As I said in a previous post, it should be essential work at all times for cities to “audit” their initiatives and find out if they are working.

I happen to think the Rental 100 program is a good one — the buildings have filled up instantly, showing that there was a real hunger for this. And even though the rents are at market rates (though not as high as the maximums set out in the bylaw), the units give higher-earning households a place to go. That way, they aren’t bidding up the rents for older suites or basements because that’s all that’s available. Then those older places can stay cheap.

Weirdly, Vision politicians didn’t make that case very often, didn’t ask for more of this kind of information and, I have to say, didn’t combat a lot of the misinformation that went out through social media.

Anyway, after all that, here is the info I got:

  • 50% of residents rent in Vancouver – more affordable than owning – approx. number of units is 67,500 purpose built market rental buildings (secure rental units for life of building), social housing 24,500, all other 54,185 units composed of  (as of end of year 2013): condo 24,000 (not secure rental units – can go to owner at any time), single family homes suites 26,500 (secure rental), 1,100 laneways (secure rental), rented  houses 2500 (not secure rental)
  • Very few purpose built  secure rental buildings built since the 1970’s
  • In Vancouver, Rental is more affordable than owning across the board (whether old, secondary, or new) – rents are controlled by the Province and this makes a big difference over time
  • In 2009 Mayor and Council directed staff to find a way to make it financially feasible for developers to build market rental – within the tools and capacity the city has (ie not dependent on any other level of government)
  • STIR brought forward in June 2009 – concept – provide waiver on DCLs, waivers on some of parking requirements (which make buildings more expensive), flexibility in zoning so that if secure market rental, allow density not normally permitted if it was strata;  ensure that specs were not high end  so as not to increase rents – this was to increase more affordable new purpose built market rentals – affordability was relative to ownership of equivalent size unit
  • 1343 units approved under this STIR plan
  • STIR results reviewed in   May 2012  and changes made by Council for new evolved program (Rental 100) – no mixed developments  – no mixing with strata and secure rental  – too expensive when combined with market ownership units; more clarification re placement of Rental 100 projects across city and what density increase available; more focus on family size units (25% have to be 2 bedroom); new guidelines for unit size to keep rents modest – a further 200 units were approved with these changes
  • In December 2013 – a new bylaw was passed for Rental 100  to provide greater certainty re rent maximums which could be charged at occupancy in order to quality for DCL waiver  – 2 projects have now been approved under new bylaw passed in December 2013 – 160 more units (for overall total of 1700+ units under the programs STIR and Rental 100)
  • Concept is that even though rents are higher than long standing and much older stock, due to the fact that these are brand new units, they will have their rents controlled over the life of the building and they will become even more affordable at a much faster rate than market ownership.
  • So basic premise:

o   Cheaper than a purchase – documented on every council report

o   Rental stock secured by bylaw for life of building

o   Supply is increasing

o   Subsidy is a waiving of DCL and other requirements and provision of density versus an equity contribution

o   Totally within the purview of the City to enable this – no need for senior government involvement

o   Deeper affordability does require senior government involvement

  • In addition, there have been a further 2000 units of purpose built market rental approved – no subsidy and therefore not in STIR or Rental 100 program – this will add to the capacity for market rental in the City of Vancouver
  • Finally since 2012, approximately 800 single family suites and laneway houses have been added per year to rental stock in city (these are also secured rental)
  • Average rents for Rental 100 since bylaw – see Council report links below:

o   7350 Fraser: 1-bed $1,154; 2-bed $1,543 (see page 9): http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20140722/documents/p3.pdf

o   3511- E Hastings Studio:$1,100; 1-bed: $1,300; 2-bed: $1,500 (see page 40): http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20140722/documents/p6.pdf

  • So overall rental capacity has increased by approximately 6000 approved units since 2009

 

Social housing and social housing with support = over 2050 units – 2/3 are supportive housing of which virtually all are rented at welfare rates due to focus on homeless population; 1/3 of units are social  housing without supports and tenants are  mixed income – rents vary from welfare  to low end of market using BCH Housing Income Limits.

 

And a second chunk of information:

This data outlines expenditure using different fiscal tools for the delivery of housing including social housing, permanent supportive housing, interim supportive housing and land purchases for the latter. Of note, at year end 2008 and 2009,  the PEF had a substantial negative fund balance which related to the situation in the Olympic Village. Pending resolution of the financial risk of the City related to the Village, spending to enable affordable housing  was therefore decreased significantly from the PEF and other opportunities were pursued through the capital budget, rezonings, capital grants and DCL exemptions. The spend is totaled for each council term.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING LEVERAGED BY COUNCIL TERM OVER 10 YEARS

Council Terms PEF Capital Fund Secured Hsg thru’ Rezoning Grants DCL Exemptions Total
Capital  
2003-2005 $27.6 $4.8 Not Available Not available $1.3 $33.7
2006-2008 $31.5 $15.2 $1.0 $4.8 $6.4 $59.0
2009-2011 $4.7 $54.7 $29.0 $2.8 $7.1 $98.3
2012-2014 $31.2 $87.9 $148.0 $3.9 $4.5 $275.5

 

 

Tobin Postma  |  Communications Manager
Corporate Communications | City of Vancouver

453 West 12th Avenue

Vancouver BC V5Y 1V4
t.


 

Never miss a chance to have your say. Join TalkVancouver.com and stay in the loop on civic engagement opportunities!

 

 


________________________________________________________
Frances Bula | Urban Issues Writer
Vancouver Magazine City Columnist | francesbula.com |
Phone |

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Richard Wittstock

    Thanks for this Frances. This is excellent info. I agree the Rental 100 program is a good one, and has made a difference for affordability. I don’t know why Vision has done such a poor job communicating the success that they have achieved here, and the pressure that new rental construction takes off the older stock.

    My only point of disagreement is your/their contention that it is cheaper to rent than to own. I believe it is much cheaper to own a condo than to rent an apartment, for two reasons:

    (1) Part of the monthly payment (almost half) goes to mortgage principal paydown, i.e. is forced savings, and this proportion increases over time; and

    (2) Mortgage payments over time stay generally constant whereas rents increase with inflation (2%-4% per year, or even more). Over 10 years that makes a big difference. Rents will likely rise 35%-50% over 10 years, whereas mortgage payments will remain constant (since I believe that low mortgage rates will be with us for a much longer time than most think).

  • jolson

    Thanks for this info Frances.
    Please note however, that it is never cheaper to rent than to own.
    If at the age of 20 you take out a 20 year mortgage then after 240 months you will own property. If at the age of 20 you rent for life, say to age 80 you will pay rent for 720 months after which you will own nothing.
    If at the age of 20 you are offered a no-down-payment mortgage by your local credit union then you can escape a life of housing servitude after 240 months leaving you with 480 months of freedom for new adventures.

  • disqus_XkJgWTGebg

    What does “secured housing through rezoning” (i.e. the largest expenditure in 2012-2014) actually mean?

  • jolson

    “Secured Housing Through Re-zonings” means the developers’ contribution towards non-market housing as a result of increased density achieved through a re-zoning of land. It is “expenditure” in the sense that it is revenue directed towards non-market housing

  • disqus_XkJgWTGebg

    thanks – so the revenue of the developers, not the city, is directed towards non-market housing, i assume? and how does it qualify as non-market housing?

  • jolson

    The money comes from the developer; it is earmarked for non-market housing. The contribution is a condition of re-zoning, a condition which has been established as public policy for at least 25 years in the City of Vancouver. The principle behind the requirement is that the City should house a cross section of people in each neighbourhood. Non-market housing is subsidized rental housing.

  • disqus_XkJgWTGebg

    thanks jolson. do you know then how the $148.0 million in that category has been spent in the last two years then? Vision certainly has not been spending that much on subsidizing rental housing. Does that possibly now include any market rentals that have been built under Rental 100? Or where has that relatively significant amount of money gone?

  • disqus_XkJgWTGebg

    Hi Frances – thank you for your good work covering these really important issues. I’m curious – what’s your evidence that the Rental 100 program has worked in the sense of making a difference for affordability, not just resulting in new units built? The argument that more supply will drive down prices is based on very simple market logic, which is hard to apply in the context of the housing market in Vancouver where there is near infinite demand. As you pointed out, new rental fills up instantly – demonstrating how difficult it is to saturate demand and thereby actually have an impact on prices. This is why proper affordability controls that are matched to the median renters income are so important if this is the strategy the city wants to pursue.

    In addition, landlords are allowed to set the rent for their units based on similar units in the area (http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=761F73A5BD5B4B8D8C5F9C2DD45EB2C5). So by incentivizing construction of units with rents that are much higher than the going rents in the area, you’re creating a potential case for raising rents across the board. You’re not just comparing dingy basement suites with shiny new rentals – yes, some of the relatively affordable rental stock is in disrepair, but much of it is also spacious with things like original hardwoods and big windows. I’ve seen in the last few years in Hastings-Sunrise that with construction of luxury rentals like laneway homes which rent for +$1000 for 500 sq. ft, rents have gone up spectacularly right across the board.

    What I’m concerned about is that without hard data that this is working, you’re misleading people about a program that is contentious for many good reasons. It’s important to be critical of first-year undergrad economics logic, which we’ve seen takes us down some disastrous policy roads at all levels of government. Is there data that is solid that really makes the case for Rental 100 from an affordability perspective, not just numbers of new units built?

  • jolson

    I suggest you ask these questions of the Communications Manager, City of Vancouver.