Letter to the Editor
On Community Housing (with notes and analyses provided by Pat Maloney from the Islands Trust)
Wednesday, January 6 2010
In recent years the concept of “community housing” has gone through a Renaissance of sorts. In an attempt to erase many of the negative stereotypes associated with housing projects that sprung up mostly in urban parts of Canada over the past several decades, a new approach was developed. Although this approach has several manifestations and different kinds of structures, governance mechanisms, and purposes, it is clear that “community housing” is fundamentally different than the image held by many people of such projects. That said, there is no one universally accepted definition of the concept, and it seems likely that Gabriola Island will have to define “community housing” in a manner consistent with the needs, ethics, and values of islanders.
For example, the City of Toronto (Ontario) created an organization in 2002 known as Toronto Community Housing. This organization is the largest of its kind in Canada, and the second largest in North America. Its portfolio includes 360 high-rise and low-rise apartment buildings that house more than 164,000 low- and moderate-income tenants. The mandate of Toronto Community Housing is to provide access to affordable accommodation for people with diverse backgrounds (e.g., age, income, education, mental and physical disability, refugees, etc). Moreover, Toronto Community Housing plays a catalytic role by fostering community-based living that minimizes risk and promotes resiliency. By bringing together groups to work on key issues and by promoting more democratic and inclusive decision-making, Toronto Community Housing follows a community-based management approach to engage tenants, and to ultimately enhance opportunities.
In the Town of Canmore (Alberta) a different approach to “community housing” exists. Instead of creating a core set of subsidized rental accommodations, the Town of Canmore through the Canmore Community Housing Corporation uses a concept called “perpetually affordable housing” to provide below-market pricing to eligible people interested in purchasing a home. These price restricted homes use a formula indexed to inflation to ensure that affordability will be maintained over the years for new owners. These resale price restricted homes allow lower income earners an opportunity to build equity in a property rather than paying rent. This approach is clearly quite different than that of Toronto Community Housing, and is less oriented towards the high-density community-based living found in Toronto’s rental apartments.
Other cities like Windsor (Ontario) through the Windsor Essex Community Housing Corporation, and Medicine Hat (Alberta) through the Medicine Hat Community Housing Society, offer variants on these two diametrically different approaches. The Windsor Community Housing Corporation provides rental accommodation to 12,000 seniors, single parents, and people with special needs. Unlike Toronto Community Housing the Windsor Community Housing Corporation appears to place less emphasis on the social side, and simply provides access to housing in a “respectful and fair manner.” The City of Medicine Hat moves somewhat closer to the Toronto Community Housing end of the spectrum by connecting administratively and functionally several departments, a registry, a society, and a support system. The Medicine Hat Community Housing Society brings together under one umbrella the Social Housing Department, an Outreach Department, a Homeless and Community Housing Department, an Affordable Housing Registry, the Medicine Hat Community Housing Society, and a mechanism to support both landlords and tenants. Additionally, the Medicine Hat Community Housing Society recognizes explicitly that housing is a prerequisite for full civic engagement, and that there must be support from individuals, the public and private sectors, and the community in general.
Two examples from British Columbia will round out this analysis of the spectrum and range of options under consideration. In Vancouver’s west end an organization known as the Mole Hill Community Housing Society offers 170 rental units to individuals and families looking for “secure, affordable housing.” The Society offers access to several heritage houses in the area and aims to foster community through building partnership opportunities with service groups and the wider community in general. Mole Hill is not a co-op since the properties remain under the ownership of the City of Vancouver, yet it strives to promote volunteerism and a sense of community. Unfortunately, the wait list for Mole Hill can be anywhere between one and four years, and the income thresholds and associated rents appear high. For instance, a one bedroom unit rents for $1064/month (including electricity), and requires tenants to earn a minimum gross annual income of $41,760 with a maximum of $53,028.
On Salt Spring Island a community housing project known as “Murakami Gardens” provides 27 rental units in the Village of Ganges. A range of unit types including studio, one bedroom, two bedroom, and three bedroom units are available to tenants who meet strict eligibility criteria. For example, tenants are strongly discouraged from owning a motorized vehicle and are provided bus passes and access to a car share program instead. To qualify for a one bedroom unit at Murakami Gardens a potential tenant must earn less than $27,500 per annum, and may not have personal assets in excess of $50,000 (excluding RRSPs and tools of the trade). Furthermore, no real estate assets may be owned by tenants, and they must clearly demonstrate need based on income and other weighted factors including disability, inadequacy of their current housing situation, and urgency.
In closing, the concept of “community housing” is still evolving. With the exception of the Town of Canmore all projects examined provide rental opportunities for people who can demonstrate need. Toronto Community Housing and the Medicine Hat Community Housing Society have the most comprehensive, socially embedded approaches. In my opinion, Gabriolans will need to think carefully about the approach we decide to adopt (if any), and we may be best served by a hybrid model that offers rental accommodations, purchase opportunities, and a strong social component to weld everything together.
Michael D. Mehta, Ph.D
|
