The following are a couple of things I have been trying to push to see implemented.
Rent Subsidies
For year’s Social advocates such as I have mentioned rent subsidies as an easy cost effective means to get the homeless into safe housing. While creating new housing is a component of a ‘Housing First’ Strategy these projects take time and large funding commitments before they even get off the ground.
Nanaimo has an excellent, if costly, homeless strategy that the province has committed to support. The problem with this support is that it hinges on creating new build supportive housing, 160 units, which will not see a tenant for at least 2 – 3 years. Good for the province for actually putting the funding in place but as I say this will take time. Also part of the City’s homeless and harm reduction strategy is rent subsidies but to date the focus has been new build projects.
It is well established that housing the homeless would save the province between $8,000.00 up to $18,000.00 per person per year. Subsidizing rents and getting people off the street and into market based rentals would be relatively quick and the savings to the government would be almost immediate. Once housed the people would then be assessed as to what services they need and costs from frequent use of health services, involvement at all levels of the justice system and use of other services would drop.
A $200.00 monthly subsidy, on top of the income assistance housing allotment would cost $2400.00 per year. Allowing it at all levels of income assistance would go a long way to ensure individuals & families were able to secure safer and more stable housing. The savings to the government would be seen during the first year and would grow in following years so it is almost immediate. If one hundred homeless were housed using subsidies, assuming the total $200.00 per month were needed, would be between $560,000.00 and $1,560,000.00. To me this is a no brainer.
Community Contributions
Lately, in my role as Advocate for Social Change, I have been getting on City Councils case with regards to the paltriness of the community contributions by developers when requesting up-zoning/density bonuses for potential development projects.
My sphere of interest in this is with regards to Social Housing and so when a potential development, of more than 50 units, comes before council I have been encouraging the City to get a real contribution and not just the pittance they seem to be happy with. This year I have brought up the issue of Community Contributions at the February 18th public hearing to have the OCP amended to include the
Oceanview (Cable Bay) Master Plan; the June 3rd rezoning to allow 231 unit development in the
Stephenson Point Area; and most recently on Aug. 5th at the rezoning to allow a 26 story High-Rise on the Port Place Mall Property (no link to the hearing info or minutes at this point).
The common thread is increased density. Increased Density is the catch phrase for many potential developments, Cable Bay and Sandstone being the largest examples, getting their rezoning pushed through council. Never mind for these two that one could just as easily use the words urban sprawl as the outcome.
Density Bonusing is a system that allows for variations to zoning in exchange for community amenities or beneficial housing. An example, using the Port Place High-rise, would be allowing the developer to increase the floor space, 6 to 26 stories, in his development in exchange for some amenity, housing bonus or the designation of a specific number of units for social housing.
My suggestion at the public hearing was that the first two floors be designated for social housing or the retail equivalent be put to the City’s Housing Legacy Reserve Fund. Currently the Cities Housing Legacy Reserve fund sits at $2,765,046.00 and is only expected to grow by $165,000.00 per year, not a significant increase by any means.
Currently Nanaimo bases the amenity contribution at $1000.00 per door, far too low in my opinion. Amenity contributions should be made more realistic with the goal of adding to Nanaimo’s Housing Legacy Reserve, monies could also go towards purchase of lands for future parks.
An example from another City would be Vancouver’s
20% policy which since 1988 “has required 20 percent of the units in new neighbourhoods be available for the development of affordable housing.” Langford, with one quarter the population of Nanaimo, has a
one in ten policy, not quite as flexible but interesting none the less.
Using $300,000 as an average for a housing unit Vancouver’s model on a cash contribution basis of 20% would be $60,000 per unit. In Nanaimo the $1000.00 contribution would equate to .3333%. Nanaimo doesn’t need to use the same percent base as Vancouver but it should be, at the very least, a more realistic $10,000.00 per unit or 3.3333%. Unfortunately the City is not looking at this though I continue to ‘encourage’, on a regular basis, they do so.
With realistic contributions we should have seen, based on a 3.3% or $10,000.00 contribution, $25 million from the Cable Bay project, another $25 million from the future Sandstone project and $2.3 million from Stephenson point. While this may sound like a lot the potential profits to the developers of these projects are in the 100’s of millions.
In my opinion the City is literally lining the pockets of developers with untold millions of dollars at the expense of the community. I am not against development but it needs to take place to benefit the many not just the few.
With rising unemployment, poverty and an increasing population, the need for social housing, parks and other community amenities dictate the need for Nanaimo to do better. $10,000 per unit or 3.333% seems a little more equitable commitment and while nowhere near that of Vancouver and Langford it could see some of those potential profits trickle down towards real contributions to the community and possibly the above needs being accomplished.
Letter to the Editor (edited version published in the Bulletin August 21)
Recent rezoning of part of the Port Place Mall property to allow a 26 story High-rise is touted to benefit the downtown community simply by increasing density, nothing else.
Increased Density is the catch phrase for many potential developments, Cable Bay and Sandstone being the largest examples, getting their rezoning pushed through council. Never mind for these two that one could just as easily use the words urban sprawl as the outcome.
Another purported benefit the community sees is that of a community contribution on the part of the developer for the privilege of density bonuses and potential millions lining their pockets. Sadly Nanaimo’s amenity contribution is archaic ne pathetic to say the least. Based on $1000 per door/unit these contributions usually amount to little more than a tot lot.
Vancouver requires 20% of units or the equivalent in cash or land go towards future social housing. Langford, with one quarter the population of Nanaimo, has a one in ten policy. Based on a $300,000 average home value Nanaimo’s contribution would be only one third of one percent.
With rising unemployment, poverty and an increasing population, the need for social housing, parks and other community amenities dictate the need for Nanaimo to do better. $10,000 per unit or 3.333% seems a little more equitable commitment and while nowhere near that of Vancouver and Langford it could see some of those potential profits trickle down towards real contributions to the community and possibly the above needs being accomplished.
Posts
