Let’s see … take the average age of members of the Dunbar Residents’ Association, divide by the number of square feet in the average Dunbar single-family home, take away the number of residents who can’t drive anymore, add the number of children from that neighbourhood who can’t afford a single-family home, hmmm, what does that come to?
I’m sure there’s a formula somewhere that will predict when the political tides will shift enough to gently wash over a council that dares to embrace housing affordability through increased – here comes the word – density. Like its predecessor NPA council’s EcoDensity initiative, Vancouver’s Vision mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability recently approved proposals dare to do what has to be done to keep Vancouver from becoming a resort town for offshore investors and 1% retirees.
With its foot solidly pressed on the action pedal, council recently approved a limited number of pilot project opportunities to fit new, denser, less costly housing forms onto arterials and near transportation centres.
Unaffordable housing is Vancouver’s secret brand, dressed up for lattes in cuddly green amenities. It’s killing our economy (outside the ruling real estate industry), driving away young people, breaking up families and making the city less attractive for working people without an inheritance, a previous investment in real estate or a mysterious source of cash income.
Even though unaffordability is largely driven by geographical constraints, low interest rates, foreign investment, population growth and economic cycles, that doesn’t stop a lot of citizens from demanding action from politicians closest at hand, even though they have no control over any of those four factors.
There are really only three policy choices available to deal with housing prices:
•Protect the status quo and let growing demand meet frozen supply at the intersection of ridiculous and preposterous housing prices. This ruins the prospects of young families who want to own homes here but richly rewards existing homeowners. It angers the real estate industry.
•Dampen demand with difficult restrictions on who can buy real estate here. This crimps the financial returns of existing owners but rewards new buyers. It also angers the real estate industry.
•Increase supply/density in a desperate attempt to keep prices down. This helps newcomers but threatens existing homeowners with changes in the neighbourhood, slower price growth and fears of being fleeced by developers. It pleases the real estate industry.
Option three is the only one realistically available to city hall, but it inevitably arouses status-quo-crazed single-family homeowners and neighbourhood protectors who distrust developers.
Because of all the emotion wrapped up in home equity and fear of change, the city’s latest push to create affordability-in-a-hurry provoked opposition from a raft of neighbourhood associations across the city. When a new spot rezoning application arises on a single site, it may inflame passions in that neighbourhood, but it momentarily comforts other neighbourhoods because it’s not happening in their back yard. When areas all over the city are even considered for pilot project changes, even though all the rezonings would be subject to due process before proceeding, widespread pushback is inevitable – and potentially politically fatal.
Which gets me back to my formula. At some point, demands from empty nesters for newer, smaller housing options in their neighbourhoods, combined with votes from desperate-to-own younger people, will swing this debate and save the political hides of elected officials trying to do what’s best for the city.
We’re about to find out if that time is now. I hope it is. •