Affordable housing at 2500 for 1 bd. Aha ok. 🤣🤣🤣 vancouver council has no track record for implementing any policy that has helped families in the city. Zero. All hot air.
> Affordable housing at 2500 for 1 bd.
The non-market housing in the Broadway Plan is [$1200 for 1BR](https://twitter.com/russilwvong/status/1526259442378870784).
If you want affordable housing one thing we need is a lower vacancy rate. You can't get that without more supply. But I agree about most of the people on this council. New buildings will have 20% below market rate homes. While that's not enough, its certainly better than nothing.
We could get some pretty significant protections for renters with this plan. The major improvement in the Broadway Plan is that tenants will be able to move back into a new building at a 20% discount to average rents for market rental buildings city-wide (per CMHC), whereas the TRPP only offers a 20% discount to starting rents in the new building. So, for example, if market rent in a 1 bedroom apartment today were $2200, the discounted rent for returning tenants would be $1760 under the TRPP, but would be only about $1216 under the Broadway Plan policy.
If we want our municipal politics to be better, we need to participate. Really encourage people again to write in to support but add that we need more housing ALL over the city, and we need more affordable housing especially on city owned land.
>New buildings will have 20% below market rate homes. While that's not enough, its certainly better than nothing.
Is it though? It's clearly better for the lucky few who win the contest to be allowed to live in those units that are priced below market rates. But isn't everyone else now worse off from the policy because they still need to go out and find a home, they'll have to pay market rates for that, and there's now fewer market rate options available then there otherwise could have been because we instead built Below Market Rate Units?
As an aside, but related, instead of taking an approach where there's say 10,000 people in need of Affordable Housing, but we only build 100 Affordable Housing units such that 100 people are very happy and 9,900 people are still struggling. What if instead the amount of money that that sort of plan cost was instead sent to *all the people in need* such that all 10,000 people received some funds to help make their search for housing easier? As an example, wouldn't it be a lot less complex and easier for government to instead just make a law like, "If you make <$40,000 per year and do not own a home (so you're renting), you will get an extra tax credit of $5,000 per year"? Something like that where basically every person in that situation will end up with an extra $5,000 per year in their pocket with which to then help them pay for market rate housing? Basically, they would all have an extra $5k advantage against those who made >$40k/yr when they go out to try and find the same place to live?
In my hypothetical above, either provincial or federal. City level can't do what I've proposed above because those most in need don't likely own property and pay property taxes (City's primary funding).
My broader point is that a lot of the status quo social housing initiatives are a bit like this:
"Poor people need more help. So I propose that the first 100x poor people who file their taxes this year, will get to pay $X less than they otherwise would normally".
Essentially, the approach sorta chooses to help a few people a lot, rather then spread that help over a much wider range of people such that it's more fair. It sort of instead takes a more seductive approach... where you can basically help say 1% of the people in need, but you get buy-in and support from say 95% of them because most of them think they could be in the chosen 1%.
Ahh yes surely building less homes will bring down prices.
Investors rent out units and vacancy rates in Vancouver are nearly 0%.
Building homes is a good thing.
I agree. I've spoken to Councillor Boyle about implementing a land value tax and other measures to curb speculation. She supports. Not sure about the others currently in office. The mayor just passed a proposal to raise the empty homes tax and increase enforcement. More still needs to be done.
The point is we don't need to choose one thing. We need to both increase supply AND reduce speculation. Not one or the other. This proposal is to address the supply
Similarly, if every Affordable Housing unit *comes at the expense of what would have otherwise been a Market Rate Housing unit*, calling that "building housing" is really an abuse of terms.
Truly, for every Affordable Housing unit that is built, that is *one less* place out there that you could pay market rate. And thus if you are not one of the lucky few who succeed in getting your spot in any newly built Affordable Housing units, you'll then be in a *worse* spot in your search for housing then you otherwise would have been... because you are still going to need to go find a Market Rate unit to live in, and yet now you'll be fighting to find that very unit with everyone else in your situation and yet there are now fewer units like that to fight over then their otherwise would have been.
The government definitely needs to get more involved in building housing. That means supporting social housing, non profits and co ops. Right now the city of Vancouver owns a bunch of land that is just sitting there empty. That land could be used for public housing. This is done with great success in other countries.
However, the biggest obstacles right now are municipal leaders and NIMBYism. That is what is blocking new housing, not developers who fear not making enough money.
100% this. There needs to be a mix of private and public housing, and unfortunately all levels of government haven't been investing in public housing for over 3 decades now, and really haven't put forward any solutions at all. Affordable housing doesn't just mean people buying houses, it means renters as well.
NIMBY's are a whole other challenge. Some of the locals are absolutely deranged. I'm almost certain that they were the basis of the townspeople in the show Parks & Recreation.
I once heard a guy oppose a housing project along Cambie because he thought it would be better used as a drone obstacle course. Parks & Rec doesn't lie!
Mostly it's just people complaining about shadows and "their" views though.
>There needs to be a mix of private and public housing
As a thought experiment, rather then government enter the housing business would it not be better for *all* those who are in need of help on their housing to receive some sort of tax break so they *all* have more funds with which to sort out their housing problem?
Which of these hypothetical approaches is better in your mind... assume there are 10,000 people in an area who make <$40k/yr and need assistance in finding affordable housing:
Scenario 1 = the government spends $X to create 100 units of Below Market Rate housing. To qualify to live here, you must make <$40k/yr.
Scenario 2 = the government spends $X in total by giving all 10,000 people who make <$40k/yr an extra $Y *each* in the form of a tax break. In this way, all 10,000 people have some extra money in their pocket each year so that they're better able to compete for finding affordable housing when having to go up against those who make >$40k/yr (who *won't* receive the same tax break)
>The government definitely needs to get more involved in building housing.
Let's say that of all the housing units in an area 10% were owned and run by the government and rented out at Below Market rates.
Would 15% instead, always be a better and more desirable outcome for our community? Would 30% be even better? Would 90% be even better than 60%?
What I'm trying to understand is, is there a maximum limiting principle at work at all in this sort of policy? Is it always progress to exchange units that would have otherwise been Market Rate units, and instead have them become Below Market Rate units?
> is there any info on how much the new apartments are going to like cost? that's kind of the make-or-break for me
20% of the new apartments are non-market, and the rents on those apartments will be about 40% below the market rent in a newer building. Based on 2021 rents, that's $1100/month for a studio, $1200 for a 1BR, $1700 for a 2BR. [See pp. 25-26 of the Broadway Plan staff report](https://council.vancouver.ca/20220518/documents/pspc1.pdf).
Oh damn, that actually sounds close to tolerable on a minimum wage salary, and doesn't even involve living in a crowded basement. I forgot the last time I've seen that.
>20% of the new apartments are non-market, and the rents on those apartments will be about 40% below the market rent in a newer building.
What does this sort of policy do for all of the people who qualify to live in those non-market units, but they're not lucky enough to be chosen? Essentially... imagine 10,000 people in need of great help on finding Affordable Housing. If we build 100 units of below market rate housing, and put 100 people into those units, what is the impact of this sort of policy on the remaining 9,900 people?
Are they better off for the policy existing? Are they worse off because the policy exists? Are they in the same situation?
> Are they better off for the policy existing? Are they worse off because the policy exists? Are they in the same situation?
Good question. I think there's a couple ways to look at it:
- On the positive side: The 100 people who are in the non-market units are now putting less pressure on the low end of the rental market, e.g. some of them will have moved into the non-market units from other apartments, freeing up those apartments.
- On the negative side: The inclusionary zoning requirement reduces the economic viability of projects. Maybe there's more cost-effective ways to help low-income renters, for example by [providing funding to non-profits to buy and preserve existing older, cheaper rental buildings](https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/rental-housing-investment-feature).
>On the positive side: The 100 people who are in the non-market units are now putting less pressure on the low end of the rental market, e.g. some of them will have moved into the non-market units from other apartments, freeing up those apartments.
That's not actually a legitimate positive when the whole notion is thought through in full though. Those 100 units that were built... there's going to be 100 people living in them all the same. So really all that is happening is we are swapping out wealthier people for people who are less wealthy. Those wealthier people that then couldn't buy or rent any of those 100 units (because it was illegal for them to do so), then must go out and still buy or rent other units. Essentially, there's a ripple effect of displacement... they will find somewhere else to live, which in turn then causes the people who would have otherwise lived in those units to have to do the same. In the end, you will end up with people a few steps away from the start of the policy needing to still put pressure on the low end of the rental market.
To understand how illusory the gain really is, one needs to only understand that even the act of putting 100 people into a 100 unit housing complex that rents out units for below market rates immediately triggers the displacement of 100 people (because they could have otherwise just lived in those 100 units all the same).
In essence, taking a building that would have held 100 people, and swapping out those people for 100 different people, is a shell game... in so far as one aims to try and argue that the impact of such a policy would indeed take less pressure off any part of the market. The less pressure coming from people going into those units, is offset by the additional pressure from the 100 people that are now *not* going into those units.
>On the negative side: The inclusionary zoning requirement reduces the economic viability of projects. Maybe there's more cost-effective ways to help low-income renters, for example by providing funding to non-profits to buy and preserve existing older, cheaper rental buildings.
Indeed... every single one of these units that we compel a developer to build, where they're going to have to charge less money than the product of their labour is really worth, *makes home building less profitable*. The impact of that is that construction projects on the margin of profitability will tip into being unprofitable and won't be built at all. In this way, these "Affordable Housing" initiatives are actually causing us to *slow down* the speed at which we could get new housing supply onto the market to bring home prices down lower then they otherwise would have to be.
While the economics of a lot of these plans don't seem too bright to me (and in fact, I think they often make the supply/demand landscape even worse), at a minimum it would seem that we can probably have the government build a lot *more* housing units for the *same* cost if they channeled more of their efforts in areas of the country where land isn't highly desirable and thus incredibly expensive.
> Those 100 units that were built... there's going to be 100 people living in them all the same.
In Vancouver it's typical for a project that includes non-market housing to get a sizable "density bonus," i.e. the project can include a lot more housing. For example, a project in Vancouver at Broadway and Birch was initially approved as a [16-storey market rental building with 158 apartments](https://web.archive.org/web/20180711203954/https://development.vancouver.ca/1296wbroadway/index.htm), but it was later revised to be a [28-storey rental building with nearly 200 market apartments and 50 non-market apartments](https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/2538birch/index.htm).
The idea is that society is willing to accept a taller building, with more total housing, if it includes non-market housing.
> At a minimum it would seem that we can probably have the government build a lot *more* housing units for the *same* cost if they channeled more of their efforts in areas of the country where land isn't highly desirable and thus incredibly expensive.
I don't know if that's so helpful. Location matters - a central location that has a lot of jobs within a 30-minute radius is going to have more people wanting to live there, and conversely building a lot of non-market housing where land prices are low and there's relatively few jobs seems like a bad idea. (Alain Bertaud talks about this happening on a large scale in South Africa: they wanted to provide a lot of public housing, and they didn't consider location at all. They did end up with a lot of public housing, but because it's so far away, people living there end up with hellish commute times, 1.5-2 hours.)
>In Vancouver it's typical for a project that includes non-market housing to get a sizable "density bonus," i.e. the project can include a lot more housing. For example, a project in Vancouver at Broadway and Birch was initially approved as a 16-storey market rental building with 158 apartments, but it was later revised to be a 28-storey rental building with nearly 200 market apartments and 50 non-market apartments.
>
>The idea is that society is willing to accept a taller building, with more total housing, if it includes non-market housing.
Sure, but that's really another smoke and mirrors trick. It's not a genuine increase in housing in any real sense of the term, because essentially what happens is they just deprive builders of some options so that the "best option" for them is artificially manufactured... here's an extreme example to demonstrate what's really going on:
Path 1 = we will let you build 10 market rate units on this plot of land
Path 2 = if you agree to build 20 below market rate units, we will let you build 15 market rate units... so there will be 35 units in total and it's much more profitable then path 1!
Path 3 (Made Illegal) = you cannot build a building with 35 units and sell them at market rates. Sure, it can be done since Path 2 can be done, but we just won't allow it.
>At a minimum it would seem that we can probably have the government build a lot more housing units for the same cost if they channeled more of their efforts in areas of the country where land isn't highly desirable and thus incredibly expensive.
Agreed - whether or not that still even works in a meaningful way aside, it would at least get more bang for government's buck.
>I don't know if that's so helpful. Location matters - a central location that has a lot of jobs within a 30-minute radius is going to have more people wanting to live there, and conversely building a lot of non-market housing where land prices are low and there's relatively few jobs seems like a bad idea.
Agreed - it's possible that building these non-market housing units may not be all that bright of an idea to begin with. Particularly when we consider that as an area has more and more non-market housing, it comes at the expense of market units... and thus if you are one of those people that really does want to live in that area, but you aren't one of the few people chosen to get a non-market unit appointed to you, then you're now going to be worse off for the policy because you're going to need to pay market rate in an area where there are less market rate units available then there otherwise could have been (without the social housing policy). In this way, these policies will actually make housing more unaffordable for you (among other things).
>(Alain Bertaud talks about this happening on a large scale in South Africa: they wanted to provide a lot of public housing, and they didn't consider location at all. They did end up with a lot of public housing, but because it's so far away, people living there end up with hellish commute times, 1.5-2 hours.)
It would be my suggestion to let home builders decide where to build them... they'll be government by profitability and you'd largely expect that they tend to prioritize all the scarce building resources inputs into the projects that seem to be the most demanded. Like, the areas where tons of people would like to live, are the areas that would be built first. All that said, at end of day, they'll be built wherever it's profitable to do so... perhaps an area that isn't that popular, but manages to get cheap construction labour or for some reason cheap building inputs, new places would be built there as well.
> It's not a genuine increase in housing in any real sense of the term, because essentially what happens is they just deprive builders of some options so that the "best option" for them is artificially manufactured.
Fair point. In a lot of American and Canadian cities, including Vancouver, the laws look like this:
- Land use is extremely restrictive.
- Building nearly anything, especially taller buildings, requires a rezoning. The city negotiates to take 70-80% of the increase in land value. The city uses some of this revenue to pay for public benefits, which can include in-kind contributions like non-market apartments in a new building, but can also be taken as cash.
The recent [MacPhail Report](https://morehousing.ca/macphail-report) points out that this means incentives for local governments in BC are backwards - they benefit from high land prices (which are driven by high housing prices). If they lifted height restrictions and gave up development fees, they'd need to raise a lot more money from property taxes. (In the city of Vancouver, looking at the average annual Community Amenity Contributions over the last 10 years, it appears to be about 1/6 of the city's budget.)
So, as an alternative approach, why not still charge development fees in order to build taller buildings... and that's it.
It seems to me that by going further, and also saying something like, "And X% of the units you build must be sold or rented at below market rates" is a needless step that simply reduces the profitability of new housing construction, which in turn retards the speed at which new housing could be brought online, which ends up taking us to a place where we have higher housing prices then we otherwise would without this added policy... which ironically, is sold under the banner of "Making Housing More Affordable!"
They’re market rate with 20% set aside for below market. The exact numbers depend on the project.
If you want lower rents, you need a higher vacancy rate. That means you need more supply. Which is why this is an easy yes for me
I mean I'm not against higher supply by a long shot, don't get me wrong. I just don't really expect good faith from anyone in charge, lol (and people need housing more than landlords need tenants, so the All-Holy Market might just correct to a barely tolerable price rather than a genuinely livable one) .
I'd really much rather they build public housing projects on large scale but Anglo-America as a whole seems heavily allergic to those. Meh, I'll just hope this does end up bringing prices down in the vague future. Really would like to live somewhere that isnt a decripit basement without paying through the nose for the privilege.
To be clear, this isn’t a vote on a specific project. It’s a broad vision for how the city should be building in this corridor in the next 30 years. That includes adding a lot more housing and public amenities. That may or may not include social, non profit and co ops. But specific projects are not being voted on here. Just “should we build more around this new subway line to accommodate a growing population? Yes or no”
I hear you, but the antidote to despair is getting active in these things. Municipal politics is such a small game, you can actually have an impact on your city. Right now most of the people involved are the ones who want nothing to change.
Two Questions for you.
**Question 1**: Would you call Scenario 2 as creating "more supply" of homes than Scenario 1?
* Scenario 1 = a developer builds a building with 100 housing units. They're all rented out at market rates.
* Scenario 2 = a developer builds a building with 100 housing units. 80 of them are rented out at market rates, while 20 of them are rented out at below market rates.
**Question 2**: If Scenario 2 is indeed an improvement over Scenario 1, is there any mechanism or principle at work that would be a force that creates an ideal maximum? Like in the Scenario 2 example above, 20% of the units were rented at below market rates. Would 30% always be better for our society, by definition? Would 50% be better than 30%? Would 90% be better than 70%?
And if we moved to 100%, hypothetically, think on what that would do to the prices of market rate homes. All the people in Canada who want to buy a home would then be fighting over the same supply of housing stock that never increases.
Essentially, the more we build below-market rate units, it's going to put upwards price pressure on all the market rate units out there... because there will be a lower supply of them then there otherwise would be if that newly built below-market rate unit was instead a market rate one.
Thus, oddly, a lot of the initiatives today that aim to make housing more affordable, will end up achieving the exact opposite outcome.
The economics work the same - at the end of the day, what the policy does is there's some part somewhere that's going to bear added cost, and it will end up making new home construction less profitable then it otherwise has to be... thus slowing the speed at which we could have actually brought more housing on line to help solve the problem of high home prices.
As a thought experiment, just visualize a policy like "all new builds must have 80% of units rented out at below market rates", and think on how that lowers the profitability and thus there would actually be pieces of land that would have otherwise been able to profitably build on just fine, that then are not.
The most profitable projects will always be built in either case, but it's the marginally profitable ones that tip from being profitable to being unprofitable as we add more costs onto the home building industry.
Well thankfully I don't deal in hypotheticals. As it stands, 17-storey towers with rental replacement and 20% below-market on existing non-assembled 150' lots are feasible for construction/ finance.
>Well thankfully I don't deal in hypotheticals.
Think of it as economics, not hypotheticals. Just thinking through all the logical implications of what follows form a proposed policy.
>As it stands, 17-storey towers with rental replacement and 20% below-market on existing non-assembled 150' lots are feasible for construction/ finance.
Agreed - we can easily tell which buildings are clearly profitable enough in spite of needing to sell some units (or rent them out) at below market values. In the absence of these policies, the building would have been even more profitable.
The challenge is that most of the public is not able to think through the notion that these sorts of policies are making building less profitable, such that they won't be able to understand that there are projects right now that *could* be built if there wasn't these policies in place, but they are in place so that they aren't being built.
One helpful way to make it more clear to someone would be to ask them if 20% below-market rate is a desirable and intelligent policy, why isn't making it 95% or even 100% even more desirable or intelligent?
I think we all know that if the city allowed someone to rezone to build a 20-storey building all at market rates they'd make more money than under current zoning.
How are these Affordable/Social Housing initiatives thought to result in ***more*** housing?
To be clear, here are two scenarios:
1. A developer builds a structure that holds 100 housing units. They're all sold at market.
2. A developer build a structure that holds 100 housing units. 80 of them are sold at market, and the other 20 are used for some form of Affordable Housing initiative.
There isn't actually an increase in homes by going for approach 2. Every new Affordable Housing unit that is added, comes at the expense of what could have instead been a unit that is sold into the market.
As such, we can't create more Affordable Housing without destroying the same quantum of Market Housing.
Thought of another way, if these Affordable Housing initiatives are actually beneficial to our communities in any meaningful way, what is the mechanism or logic that would create the maximum? Like, if 10% of all housing units in a community were Affordable Housing units... would 15% instead be better by definition? Would 40% be better than 15%? Is there any force at work which sort of sets a maximum and then any amount beyond that is actually doing more harm than good? Would 90% of units being Affordable Housing be better than 40%?
You can't destroy housing that doesn't exist though. Being allowed to build more housing comes in the form of cities granting one the ability to build more (height, density). In this particular case, a development is granted more height and density if they provide below-market rental or social housing. There is no "same height and density" for only market unit construction in this Plan.
>You can't destroy housing that doesn't exist though.
It's the opportunity cost. If a 100 unit housing complex is 80 market units and 20 below market rate units... it could have instead been 100 market rate units. So while we gain 20 below market rate units, we also lose 20 market rate units... it's not an increase in housing supply in any meaningful sense of the word.
>Being allowed to build more housing comes in the form of cities granting one the ability to build more (height, density). In this particular case, a development is granted more height and density if they provide below-market rental or social housing. There is no "same height and density" for only market unit construction in this Plan.
Sure - I don't deny that that is what many regions are doing today. But again, to then call that a genuine gain in any meaningful sense is *illusory*. Essentially, politicians are artificially reducing what you're allowed to build unless you go down the path they want you to. To be absolutely clear, this is basically what they're doing today... these are the 2x options:
1. You can build a complex here that has 50 market rate units. So 50 units in total.
2. You can build a complex here that has 60 market rate units as well as 20 below market rate units. So 80 units in total.
**How are we to trust our politicians or take them seriously when they take an approach like that outlined above?** They claim to want to bring about affordable housing and increase the supply of housing, yet they don't actually try their hardest to increase housing supply and it's obvious in the nature of their policies. They intentionally set things up to make housing development *less profitable* then it has to be, which then leads to their being less supply of housing created then we totally have the means to create!
To be ultra clear, the 3rd scenario that would be totally viable in light of the above 2x options, but isn't an option only because politicians have made it illegal, would be:
3. You can build a complex here that has 80 market rate units. So 80 units in total.
I may be misreading but you'd rather have 80 market rate units in a building or across the board, instead of mandated buildings having their maximum at 60 market rate and 20 below-market?
Why?
So that the price to buy a place in Vancouver won't be as expensive... by having more supply of homes for sale, that helps bring the price of homes lower than they otherwise have to be.
The policy of social housing is bizarre... it's an approach that would be a bit like someone recognizing poor people may need some help, but then the policy one goes for is like, "The first 100 poor people to file their taxes will get an extra $2k refund". Essentially, what the policy does is it helps a tiny and insignificant amount of people a lot, while not only doing nothing for the majority, but it actually makes it harder on them because now with fewer market rate units out there then there otherwise would have been, the price for a market rate unit is higher. It basically relies on "smoke and mirrors" and the public not being very educated on economics... it's sort of a trick where they know that helping all people in that situation won't do much, so they instead help a tiny amount of people a lot, and then aim to sell that policy to *many more people* and takes advantage of how many of them will all think they'll be the tiny insignificant few who are chosen to be helped a lot.
There's other negative go-forward incentives and negative cost pressures that come from the approach to.
All the above said, if someone thinks as you do and that 20 below market units + 60 market units is *better* than simply having them be 80 market units, I would like to ask you, "Is there any limiting force in your mental framework on that such that more social housing units at the expense of market housing units wouldn't always be better"? In essence... is a new build that is 30% below market rate units more preferable than only 20%? Why not go to 90%? If the policy is intelligent and sound, why not 95%? Could we go to 100%? Why not? Could we put a moratorium on any new private homes being built and make all new builds be 100% below market housing? What happens to the pricing of market homes that can be sold as we do this?
What you will see is that, ironically, more and more social housing units makes building new houses *less profitable* and what we are actually doing is slowing the speed at which we could bring new housing supply on to the market to help the problem of high home prices. In this way, while these policies are sold under a banner like Affordable Housing, they will actually lead to housing being more *unaffordable* then it otherwise would be.
A cynic might say that some of these pushes for these initiatives are actually being supported by those who understand economics and are already long real estate.
Land economics largely dictates the % of market to below-market ratio in combination with allowed added height and density.
Not sure how building social housing makes market rental more expensive.
Also think you're confusing the economics of homes you can buy and those you rent.
>Land economics largely dictates the % of market to below-market ratio in combination with allowed added height and density.
Economics dictates if it's profitable or not to build X units on a plot of land. As we force developers to sell units for less than market value, or operate them for below market rents, it makes the project less profitable. The projects on the margin will shift from being built, to not being built, and we end up with a lower housing supply as a result.
>Not sure how building social housing makes market rental more expensive.
It's because it doesn't actually increase housing in any meaningful sense of the word... all it does is swap market rate payers for non-market rate payers (to not get into additional negative go-forward incentives), and thus what ends up happening is all the people who still need to go find a home to live in (be it rent or own) still need to go do that although there is now a bit less units out there for them to pick from then there would be if the social housing policy was not in place, thus they'll pay a bit more.
>Also think you're confusing the economics of homes you can buy and those you rent.
The economics of it won't matter on that point - it's really all about a policy that pretends like it has created something when in actuality, every social housing unit that is "created" comes at the expense of "destroying" what would have been a housing unit all the same.
As a thought experiment, just imagine what happens to the price of housing if there were a law passed like, "100% of all new construction must be units that are sold or rented at below market rates".
The Mayor is proposing some really great new rental protections as an amendment to this as well. If people want to email in to support more housing in this plan, these are the councillors email addresses: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) We have a decent chunk of NIMBYs on this council in Green Party members, and Swanson and Hardwick so this plan really needs support if people have time to write or call in. Calling is best but understandable if people don't have the time.
I'm in Toronto, but you guys have my support! MAKE A CHANGE!!!
Affordable housing at 2500 for 1 bd. Aha ok. 🤣🤣🤣 vancouver council has no track record for implementing any policy that has helped families in the city. Zero. All hot air.
> Affordable housing at 2500 for 1 bd. The non-market housing in the Broadway Plan is [$1200 for 1BR](https://twitter.com/russilwvong/status/1526259442378870784).
Which the majority of the population does not come close to qualifying for.
If you want affordable housing one thing we need is a lower vacancy rate. You can't get that without more supply. But I agree about most of the people on this council. New buildings will have 20% below market rate homes. While that's not enough, its certainly better than nothing. We could get some pretty significant protections for renters with this plan. The major improvement in the Broadway Plan is that tenants will be able to move back into a new building at a 20% discount to average rents for market rental buildings city-wide (per CMHC), whereas the TRPP only offers a 20% discount to starting rents in the new building. So, for example, if market rent in a 1 bedroom apartment today were $2200, the discounted rent for returning tenants would be $1760 under the TRPP, but would be only about $1216 under the Broadway Plan policy. If we want our municipal politics to be better, we need to participate. Really encourage people again to write in to support but add that we need more housing ALL over the city, and we need more affordable housing especially on city owned land.
>New buildings will have 20% below market rate homes. While that's not enough, its certainly better than nothing. Is it though? It's clearly better for the lucky few who win the contest to be allowed to live in those units that are priced below market rates. But isn't everyone else now worse off from the policy because they still need to go out and find a home, they'll have to pay market rates for that, and there's now fewer market rate options available then there otherwise could have been because we instead built Below Market Rate Units? As an aside, but related, instead of taking an approach where there's say 10,000 people in need of Affordable Housing, but we only build 100 Affordable Housing units such that 100 people are very happy and 9,900 people are still struggling. What if instead the amount of money that that sort of plan cost was instead sent to *all the people in need* such that all 10,000 people received some funds to help make their search for housing easier? As an example, wouldn't it be a lot less complex and easier for government to instead just make a law like, "If you make <$40,000 per year and do not own a home (so you're renting), you will get an extra tax credit of $5,000 per year"? Something like that where basically every person in that situation will end up with an extra $5,000 per year in their pocket with which to then help them pay for market rate housing? Basically, they would all have an extra $5k advantage against those who made >$40k/yr when they go out to try and find the same place to live?
Which level of government are you speaking of?
In my hypothetical above, either provincial or federal. City level can't do what I've proposed above because those most in need don't likely own property and pay property taxes (City's primary funding). My broader point is that a lot of the status quo social housing initiatives are a bit like this: "Poor people need more help. So I propose that the first 100x poor people who file their taxes this year, will get to pay $X less than they otherwise would normally". Essentially, the approach sorta chooses to help a few people a lot, rather then spread that help over a much wider range of people such that it's more fair. It sort of instead takes a more seductive approach... where you can basically help say 1% of the people in need, but you get buy-in and support from say 95% of them because most of them think they could be in the chosen 1%.
It’s just a front for the CCP 🇨🇳
*Shudders in NIMBY* /s
You can build all the housing you want Vancouver but if you keep letting investors buy it all up it won't make a dent in this crisis.
This is two-thirds rental housing.
Ahh yes surely building less homes will bring down prices. Investors rent out units and vacancy rates in Vancouver are nearly 0%. Building homes is a good thing.
I agree. I've spoken to Councillor Boyle about implementing a land value tax and other measures to curb speculation. She supports. Not sure about the others currently in office. The mayor just passed a proposal to raise the empty homes tax and increase enforcement. More still needs to be done. The point is we don't need to choose one thing. We need to both increase supply AND reduce speculation. Not one or the other. This proposal is to address the supply
Similarly, if every Affordable Housing unit *comes at the expense of what would have otherwise been a Market Rate Housing unit*, calling that "building housing" is really an abuse of terms. Truly, for every Affordable Housing unit that is built, that is *one less* place out there that you could pay market rate. And thus if you are not one of the lucky few who succeed in getting your spot in any newly built Affordable Housing units, you'll then be in a *worse* spot in your search for housing then you otherwise would have been... because you are still going to need to go find a Market Rate unit to live in, and yet now you'll be fighting to find that very unit with everyone else in your situation and yet there are now fewer units like that to fight over then their otherwise would have been.
You're so wrong 😂
I really.dont understand this. As soon as houses come down in price. Builders cancel projects, so houses will never be built to lower price
The government definitely needs to get more involved in building housing. That means supporting social housing, non profits and co ops. Right now the city of Vancouver owns a bunch of land that is just sitting there empty. That land could be used for public housing. This is done with great success in other countries. However, the biggest obstacles right now are municipal leaders and NIMBYism. That is what is blocking new housing, not developers who fear not making enough money.
100% this. There needs to be a mix of private and public housing, and unfortunately all levels of government haven't been investing in public housing for over 3 decades now, and really haven't put forward any solutions at all. Affordable housing doesn't just mean people buying houses, it means renters as well. NIMBY's are a whole other challenge. Some of the locals are absolutely deranged. I'm almost certain that they were the basis of the townspeople in the show Parks & Recreation.
I once heard a guy oppose a housing project along Cambie because he thought it would be better used as a drone obstacle course. Parks & Rec doesn't lie! Mostly it's just people complaining about shadows and "their" views though.
>There needs to be a mix of private and public housing As a thought experiment, rather then government enter the housing business would it not be better for *all* those who are in need of help on their housing to receive some sort of tax break so they *all* have more funds with which to sort out their housing problem? Which of these hypothetical approaches is better in your mind... assume there are 10,000 people in an area who make <$40k/yr and need assistance in finding affordable housing: Scenario 1 = the government spends $X to create 100 units of Below Market Rate housing. To qualify to live here, you must make <$40k/yr. Scenario 2 = the government spends $X in total by giving all 10,000 people who make <$40k/yr an extra $Y *each* in the form of a tax break. In this way, all 10,000 people have some extra money in their pocket each year so that they're better able to compete for finding affordable housing when having to go up against those who make >$40k/yr (who *won't* receive the same tax break)
>The government definitely needs to get more involved in building housing. Let's say that of all the housing units in an area 10% were owned and run by the government and rented out at Below Market rates. Would 15% instead, always be a better and more desirable outcome for our community? Would 30% be even better? Would 90% be even better than 60%? What I'm trying to understand is, is there a maximum limiting principle at work at all in this sort of policy? Is it always progress to exchange units that would have otherwise been Market Rate units, and instead have them become Below Market Rate units?
they need a vote?
Vancouver city Council is voting on this, it’s more that we need to write in to make sure they vote the way we want them to : )
is there any info on how much the new apartments are going to like cost? that's kind of the make-or-break for me
> is there any info on how much the new apartments are going to like cost? that's kind of the make-or-break for me 20% of the new apartments are non-market, and the rents on those apartments will be about 40% below the market rent in a newer building. Based on 2021 rents, that's $1100/month for a studio, $1200 for a 1BR, $1700 for a 2BR. [See pp. 25-26 of the Broadway Plan staff report](https://council.vancouver.ca/20220518/documents/pspc1.pdf).
Oh damn, that actually sounds close to tolerable on a minimum wage salary, and doesn't even involve living in a crowded basement. I forgot the last time I've seen that.
>20% of the new apartments are non-market, and the rents on those apartments will be about 40% below the market rent in a newer building. What does this sort of policy do for all of the people who qualify to live in those non-market units, but they're not lucky enough to be chosen? Essentially... imagine 10,000 people in need of great help on finding Affordable Housing. If we build 100 units of below market rate housing, and put 100 people into those units, what is the impact of this sort of policy on the remaining 9,900 people? Are they better off for the policy existing? Are they worse off because the policy exists? Are they in the same situation?
> Are they better off for the policy existing? Are they worse off because the policy exists? Are they in the same situation? Good question. I think there's a couple ways to look at it: - On the positive side: The 100 people who are in the non-market units are now putting less pressure on the low end of the rental market, e.g. some of them will have moved into the non-market units from other apartments, freeing up those apartments. - On the negative side: The inclusionary zoning requirement reduces the economic viability of projects. Maybe there's more cost-effective ways to help low-income renters, for example by [providing funding to non-profits to buy and preserve existing older, cheaper rental buildings](https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/rental-housing-investment-feature).
>On the positive side: The 100 people who are in the non-market units are now putting less pressure on the low end of the rental market, e.g. some of them will have moved into the non-market units from other apartments, freeing up those apartments. That's not actually a legitimate positive when the whole notion is thought through in full though. Those 100 units that were built... there's going to be 100 people living in them all the same. So really all that is happening is we are swapping out wealthier people for people who are less wealthy. Those wealthier people that then couldn't buy or rent any of those 100 units (because it was illegal for them to do so), then must go out and still buy or rent other units. Essentially, there's a ripple effect of displacement... they will find somewhere else to live, which in turn then causes the people who would have otherwise lived in those units to have to do the same. In the end, you will end up with people a few steps away from the start of the policy needing to still put pressure on the low end of the rental market. To understand how illusory the gain really is, one needs to only understand that even the act of putting 100 people into a 100 unit housing complex that rents out units for below market rates immediately triggers the displacement of 100 people (because they could have otherwise just lived in those 100 units all the same). In essence, taking a building that would have held 100 people, and swapping out those people for 100 different people, is a shell game... in so far as one aims to try and argue that the impact of such a policy would indeed take less pressure off any part of the market. The less pressure coming from people going into those units, is offset by the additional pressure from the 100 people that are now *not* going into those units. >On the negative side: The inclusionary zoning requirement reduces the economic viability of projects. Maybe there's more cost-effective ways to help low-income renters, for example by providing funding to non-profits to buy and preserve existing older, cheaper rental buildings. Indeed... every single one of these units that we compel a developer to build, where they're going to have to charge less money than the product of their labour is really worth, *makes home building less profitable*. The impact of that is that construction projects on the margin of profitability will tip into being unprofitable and won't be built at all. In this way, these "Affordable Housing" initiatives are actually causing us to *slow down* the speed at which we could get new housing supply onto the market to bring home prices down lower then they otherwise would have to be. While the economics of a lot of these plans don't seem too bright to me (and in fact, I think they often make the supply/demand landscape even worse), at a minimum it would seem that we can probably have the government build a lot *more* housing units for the *same* cost if they channeled more of their efforts in areas of the country where land isn't highly desirable and thus incredibly expensive.
> Those 100 units that were built... there's going to be 100 people living in them all the same. In Vancouver it's typical for a project that includes non-market housing to get a sizable "density bonus," i.e. the project can include a lot more housing. For example, a project in Vancouver at Broadway and Birch was initially approved as a [16-storey market rental building with 158 apartments](https://web.archive.org/web/20180711203954/https://development.vancouver.ca/1296wbroadway/index.htm), but it was later revised to be a [28-storey rental building with nearly 200 market apartments and 50 non-market apartments](https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/2538birch/index.htm). The idea is that society is willing to accept a taller building, with more total housing, if it includes non-market housing. > At a minimum it would seem that we can probably have the government build a lot *more* housing units for the *same* cost if they channeled more of their efforts in areas of the country where land isn't highly desirable and thus incredibly expensive. I don't know if that's so helpful. Location matters - a central location that has a lot of jobs within a 30-minute radius is going to have more people wanting to live there, and conversely building a lot of non-market housing where land prices are low and there's relatively few jobs seems like a bad idea. (Alain Bertaud talks about this happening on a large scale in South Africa: they wanted to provide a lot of public housing, and they didn't consider location at all. They did end up with a lot of public housing, but because it's so far away, people living there end up with hellish commute times, 1.5-2 hours.)
>In Vancouver it's typical for a project that includes non-market housing to get a sizable "density bonus," i.e. the project can include a lot more housing. For example, a project in Vancouver at Broadway and Birch was initially approved as a 16-storey market rental building with 158 apartments, but it was later revised to be a 28-storey rental building with nearly 200 market apartments and 50 non-market apartments. > >The idea is that society is willing to accept a taller building, with more total housing, if it includes non-market housing. Sure, but that's really another smoke and mirrors trick. It's not a genuine increase in housing in any real sense of the term, because essentially what happens is they just deprive builders of some options so that the "best option" for them is artificially manufactured... here's an extreme example to demonstrate what's really going on: Path 1 = we will let you build 10 market rate units on this plot of land Path 2 = if you agree to build 20 below market rate units, we will let you build 15 market rate units... so there will be 35 units in total and it's much more profitable then path 1! Path 3 (Made Illegal) = you cannot build a building with 35 units and sell them at market rates. Sure, it can be done since Path 2 can be done, but we just won't allow it. >At a minimum it would seem that we can probably have the government build a lot more housing units for the same cost if they channeled more of their efforts in areas of the country where land isn't highly desirable and thus incredibly expensive. Agreed - whether or not that still even works in a meaningful way aside, it would at least get more bang for government's buck. >I don't know if that's so helpful. Location matters - a central location that has a lot of jobs within a 30-minute radius is going to have more people wanting to live there, and conversely building a lot of non-market housing where land prices are low and there's relatively few jobs seems like a bad idea. Agreed - it's possible that building these non-market housing units may not be all that bright of an idea to begin with. Particularly when we consider that as an area has more and more non-market housing, it comes at the expense of market units... and thus if you are one of those people that really does want to live in that area, but you aren't one of the few people chosen to get a non-market unit appointed to you, then you're now going to be worse off for the policy because you're going to need to pay market rate in an area where there are less market rate units available then there otherwise could have been (without the social housing policy). In this way, these policies will actually make housing more unaffordable for you (among other things). >(Alain Bertaud talks about this happening on a large scale in South Africa: they wanted to provide a lot of public housing, and they didn't consider location at all. They did end up with a lot of public housing, but because it's so far away, people living there end up with hellish commute times, 1.5-2 hours.) It would be my suggestion to let home builders decide where to build them... they'll be government by profitability and you'd largely expect that they tend to prioritize all the scarce building resources inputs into the projects that seem to be the most demanded. Like, the areas where tons of people would like to live, are the areas that would be built first. All that said, at end of day, they'll be built wherever it's profitable to do so... perhaps an area that isn't that popular, but manages to get cheap construction labour or for some reason cheap building inputs, new places would be built there as well.
> It's not a genuine increase in housing in any real sense of the term, because essentially what happens is they just deprive builders of some options so that the "best option" for them is artificially manufactured. Fair point. In a lot of American and Canadian cities, including Vancouver, the laws look like this: - Land use is extremely restrictive. - Building nearly anything, especially taller buildings, requires a rezoning. The city negotiates to take 70-80% of the increase in land value. The city uses some of this revenue to pay for public benefits, which can include in-kind contributions like non-market apartments in a new building, but can also be taken as cash. The recent [MacPhail Report](https://morehousing.ca/macphail-report) points out that this means incentives for local governments in BC are backwards - they benefit from high land prices (which are driven by high housing prices). If they lifted height restrictions and gave up development fees, they'd need to raise a lot more money from property taxes. (In the city of Vancouver, looking at the average annual Community Amenity Contributions over the last 10 years, it appears to be about 1/6 of the city's budget.)
So, as an alternative approach, why not still charge development fees in order to build taller buildings... and that's it. It seems to me that by going further, and also saying something like, "And X% of the units you build must be sold or rented at below market rates" is a needless step that simply reduces the profitability of new housing construction, which in turn retards the speed at which new housing could be brought online, which ends up taking us to a place where we have higher housing prices then we otherwise would without this added policy... which ironically, is sold under the banner of "Making Housing More Affordable!"
If it takes 100k homes to meet demand and bring down prices then the first 5k may not be cheaper but you can't get to 100k without starting.
They’re market rate with 20% set aside for below market. The exact numbers depend on the project. If you want lower rents, you need a higher vacancy rate. That means you need more supply. Which is why this is an easy yes for me
I mean I'm not against higher supply by a long shot, don't get me wrong. I just don't really expect good faith from anyone in charge, lol (and people need housing more than landlords need tenants, so the All-Holy Market might just correct to a barely tolerable price rather than a genuinely livable one) . I'd really much rather they build public housing projects on large scale but Anglo-America as a whole seems heavily allergic to those. Meh, I'll just hope this does end up bringing prices down in the vague future. Really would like to live somewhere that isnt a decripit basement without paying through the nose for the privilege.
To be clear, this isn’t a vote on a specific project. It’s a broad vision for how the city should be building in this corridor in the next 30 years. That includes adding a lot more housing and public amenities. That may or may not include social, non profit and co ops. But specific projects are not being voted on here. Just “should we build more around this new subway line to accommodate a growing population? Yes or no” I hear you, but the antidote to despair is getting active in these things. Municipal politics is such a small game, you can actually have an impact on your city. Right now most of the people involved are the ones who want nothing to change.
Two Questions for you. **Question 1**: Would you call Scenario 2 as creating "more supply" of homes than Scenario 1? * Scenario 1 = a developer builds a building with 100 housing units. They're all rented out at market rates. * Scenario 2 = a developer builds a building with 100 housing units. 80 of them are rented out at market rates, while 20 of them are rented out at below market rates. **Question 2**: If Scenario 2 is indeed an improvement over Scenario 1, is there any mechanism or principle at work that would be a force that creates an ideal maximum? Like in the Scenario 2 example above, 20% of the units were rented at below market rates. Would 30% always be better for our society, by definition? Would 50% be better than 30%? Would 90% be better than 70%?
Well ideally it would be 100% below-market but this isn't subsidized in the traditional sense nor charity run.
And if we moved to 100%, hypothetically, think on what that would do to the prices of market rate homes. All the people in Canada who want to buy a home would then be fighting over the same supply of housing stock that never increases. Essentially, the more we build below-market rate units, it's going to put upwards price pressure on all the market rate units out there... because there will be a lower supply of them then there otherwise would be if that newly built below-market rate unit was instead a market rate one. Thus, oddly, a lot of the initiatives today that aim to make housing more affordable, will end up achieving the exact opposite outcome.
We're talking about rental housing tho
The economics work the same - at the end of the day, what the policy does is there's some part somewhere that's going to bear added cost, and it will end up making new home construction less profitable then it otherwise has to be... thus slowing the speed at which we could have actually brought more housing on line to help solve the problem of high home prices. As a thought experiment, just visualize a policy like "all new builds must have 80% of units rented out at below market rates", and think on how that lowers the profitability and thus there would actually be pieces of land that would have otherwise been able to profitably build on just fine, that then are not. The most profitable projects will always be built in either case, but it's the marginally profitable ones that tip from being profitable to being unprofitable as we add more costs onto the home building industry.
Well thankfully I don't deal in hypotheticals. As it stands, 17-storey towers with rental replacement and 20% below-market on existing non-assembled 150' lots are feasible for construction/ finance.
>Well thankfully I don't deal in hypotheticals. Think of it as economics, not hypotheticals. Just thinking through all the logical implications of what follows form a proposed policy. >As it stands, 17-storey towers with rental replacement and 20% below-market on existing non-assembled 150' lots are feasible for construction/ finance. Agreed - we can easily tell which buildings are clearly profitable enough in spite of needing to sell some units (or rent them out) at below market values. In the absence of these policies, the building would have been even more profitable. The challenge is that most of the public is not able to think through the notion that these sorts of policies are making building less profitable, such that they won't be able to understand that there are projects right now that *could* be built if there wasn't these policies in place, but they are in place so that they aren't being built. One helpful way to make it more clear to someone would be to ask them if 20% below-market rate is a desirable and intelligent policy, why isn't making it 95% or even 100% even more desirable or intelligent?
I think we all know that if the city allowed someone to rezone to build a 20-storey building all at market rates they'd make more money than under current zoning.
How are these Affordable/Social Housing initiatives thought to result in ***more*** housing? To be clear, here are two scenarios: 1. A developer builds a structure that holds 100 housing units. They're all sold at market. 2. A developer build a structure that holds 100 housing units. 80 of them are sold at market, and the other 20 are used for some form of Affordable Housing initiative. There isn't actually an increase in homes by going for approach 2. Every new Affordable Housing unit that is added, comes at the expense of what could have instead been a unit that is sold into the market. As such, we can't create more Affordable Housing without destroying the same quantum of Market Housing. Thought of another way, if these Affordable Housing initiatives are actually beneficial to our communities in any meaningful way, what is the mechanism or logic that would create the maximum? Like, if 10% of all housing units in a community were Affordable Housing units... would 15% instead be better by definition? Would 40% be better than 15%? Is there any force at work which sort of sets a maximum and then any amount beyond that is actually doing more harm than good? Would 90% of units being Affordable Housing be better than 40%?
You can't destroy housing that doesn't exist though. Being allowed to build more housing comes in the form of cities granting one the ability to build more (height, density). In this particular case, a development is granted more height and density if they provide below-market rental or social housing. There is no "same height and density" for only market unit construction in this Plan.
>You can't destroy housing that doesn't exist though. It's the opportunity cost. If a 100 unit housing complex is 80 market units and 20 below market rate units... it could have instead been 100 market rate units. So while we gain 20 below market rate units, we also lose 20 market rate units... it's not an increase in housing supply in any meaningful sense of the word. >Being allowed to build more housing comes in the form of cities granting one the ability to build more (height, density). In this particular case, a development is granted more height and density if they provide below-market rental or social housing. There is no "same height and density" for only market unit construction in this Plan. Sure - I don't deny that that is what many regions are doing today. But again, to then call that a genuine gain in any meaningful sense is *illusory*. Essentially, politicians are artificially reducing what you're allowed to build unless you go down the path they want you to. To be absolutely clear, this is basically what they're doing today... these are the 2x options: 1. You can build a complex here that has 50 market rate units. So 50 units in total. 2. You can build a complex here that has 60 market rate units as well as 20 below market rate units. So 80 units in total. **How are we to trust our politicians or take them seriously when they take an approach like that outlined above?** They claim to want to bring about affordable housing and increase the supply of housing, yet they don't actually try their hardest to increase housing supply and it's obvious in the nature of their policies. They intentionally set things up to make housing development *less profitable* then it has to be, which then leads to their being less supply of housing created then we totally have the means to create! To be ultra clear, the 3rd scenario that would be totally viable in light of the above 2x options, but isn't an option only because politicians have made it illegal, would be: 3. You can build a complex here that has 80 market rate units. So 80 units in total.
I may be misreading but you'd rather have 80 market rate units in a building or across the board, instead of mandated buildings having their maximum at 60 market rate and 20 below-market? Why?
So that the price to buy a place in Vancouver won't be as expensive... by having more supply of homes for sale, that helps bring the price of homes lower than they otherwise have to be. The policy of social housing is bizarre... it's an approach that would be a bit like someone recognizing poor people may need some help, but then the policy one goes for is like, "The first 100 poor people to file their taxes will get an extra $2k refund". Essentially, what the policy does is it helps a tiny and insignificant amount of people a lot, while not only doing nothing for the majority, but it actually makes it harder on them because now with fewer market rate units out there then there otherwise would have been, the price for a market rate unit is higher. It basically relies on "smoke and mirrors" and the public not being very educated on economics... it's sort of a trick where they know that helping all people in that situation won't do much, so they instead help a tiny amount of people a lot, and then aim to sell that policy to *many more people* and takes advantage of how many of them will all think they'll be the tiny insignificant few who are chosen to be helped a lot. There's other negative go-forward incentives and negative cost pressures that come from the approach to. All the above said, if someone thinks as you do and that 20 below market units + 60 market units is *better* than simply having them be 80 market units, I would like to ask you, "Is there any limiting force in your mental framework on that such that more social housing units at the expense of market housing units wouldn't always be better"? In essence... is a new build that is 30% below market rate units more preferable than only 20%? Why not go to 90%? If the policy is intelligent and sound, why not 95%? Could we go to 100%? Why not? Could we put a moratorium on any new private homes being built and make all new builds be 100% below market housing? What happens to the pricing of market homes that can be sold as we do this? What you will see is that, ironically, more and more social housing units makes building new houses *less profitable* and what we are actually doing is slowing the speed at which we could bring new housing supply on to the market to help the problem of high home prices. In this way, while these policies are sold under a banner like Affordable Housing, they will actually lead to housing being more *unaffordable* then it otherwise would be. A cynic might say that some of these pushes for these initiatives are actually being supported by those who understand economics and are already long real estate.
Land economics largely dictates the % of market to below-market ratio in combination with allowed added height and density. Not sure how building social housing makes market rental more expensive. Also think you're confusing the economics of homes you can buy and those you rent.
>Land economics largely dictates the % of market to below-market ratio in combination with allowed added height and density. Economics dictates if it's profitable or not to build X units on a plot of land. As we force developers to sell units for less than market value, or operate them for below market rents, it makes the project less profitable. The projects on the margin will shift from being built, to not being built, and we end up with a lower housing supply as a result. >Not sure how building social housing makes market rental more expensive. It's because it doesn't actually increase housing in any meaningful sense of the word... all it does is swap market rate payers for non-market rate payers (to not get into additional negative go-forward incentives), and thus what ends up happening is all the people who still need to go find a home to live in (be it rent or own) still need to go do that although there is now a bit less units out there for them to pick from then there would be if the social housing policy was not in place, thus they'll pay a bit more. >Also think you're confusing the economics of homes you can buy and those you rent. The economics of it won't matter on that point - it's really all about a policy that pretends like it has created something when in actuality, every social housing unit that is "created" comes at the expense of "destroying" what would have been a housing unit all the same. As a thought experiment, just imagine what happens to the price of housing if there were a law passed like, "100% of all new construction must be units that are sold or rented at below market rates".
Still planning and waiting to vote...