City of Ottawa

[Lakeofthewood]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The LRT wasn't a huge increase in capital spending for Transit? Was rush hour service cut at the same time coming out of the bus strike? That is in the past and pre-pandemic so leave that argument aside.

I think you are right about the general sentiment and even off peak cuts (along with especially reliability issues) do make someone who was driving 2 days a week and now needs to be in the office think nah transit can't be trusted right now. The inertia of driving is hard to overcome.

But back to the real 2024 world a 37% transit tax increase is going to forego those cuts. Is anyone really claiming that is going to restore confidence? Or should we just throw more money at the problem until everyone realizes their car based lifestyle is an abonination and starts living an urban life buying their groceries on the bus?

But throwing money at the problem tends to be the only solution that actually works. Studies across Canada and North America show that investment in transit = increase in ridership. Leadership in this city likes to pretend that Ottawa is so unique that this doesn't apply to us, when everything else says otherwise, including data going back to the 2011 transit cuts here.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Lakeofthewood

But throwing money at the problem tends to be the only solution that actually works. Studies across Canada and North America show that investment in transit = increase in ridership. Leadership in this city likes to pretend that Ottawa is so unique that this doesn't apply to us, when everything else says otherwise, including data going back to the 2011 transit cuts here.

Sure if the goal is as many transit users as possible that is absolutely the right approach. Free fare would increase usage and be the most equitable too. Rate payers have a different view though.

[rocketphish]

Controversial developer donation debate returning to council
Pilot project would allow councillors to solicit contributions under stringent rules

Arthur White-Crummey · CBC News
Posted: Oct 01, 2024 4:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: 6 hours ago

Ottawa councillors are hoping they might finally have a workable solution to a fraught issue: whether they can negotiate with developers to get donations for the city.

It's a debate that dragged on for months after Coun. Shawn Menard worked out a deal with Groupe Katasa that would have provided $300,000 to fund traffic calming and affordable housing in his ward. Menard said his office never pressured Katasa, which provided the money as a "voluntary contribution."

But opponents said the deal raised a perceived conflict of interest, since councillors weigh in on developer applications. The mayor pushed to ban the practice outright, before council punted the whole question to a working group this summer.

Now, that working group is back with its proposal: a pilot project that would allow councillors to solicit or facilitate donations under a stringent set of rules.

<more>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/co...on-debate-returning-to-council-1.7338234

[DTcrawler]

From the article:

Cash donations would go into a city-wide account managed by staff

Ah yes, the whole reason this entire debacle began in the first place. Suburban councillors got jealous an urban ward got money and wanted a piece of the pie.

[rocketphish]

Why Mark Sutcliffe's 'fairness for Ottawa' campaign should target Doug Ford too
Ford, who wants to spend billions and billions on a traffic tunnel under Highway 401 in Toronto, has been badly shortchanging Ottawa on transit money, two analyses have found.

Mohammed Adam, Ottawa Citizen
Published Oct 03, 2024 • Last updated 56 minutes ago • 3 minute read

In the midst of Mayor Mark Sutcliffe’s “fairness for Ottawa” campaign, Ontario Premier Doug popped up to promise a multi-billion-dollar tunnel under Highway 401 in the Greater Toronto Area to make driving easier and more comfortable for suburban commuters.

The tunnel would go from Brampton to Scarborough, a distance of about 55 kilometres, and one expert put the cost at $1 billion a kilometre. Ford, however, assures all of us that it won’t cost “hundreds of billions of dollars,” for which, I guess, provincial taxpayers in Ottawa should be grateful.

But think about this, Ottawa: Here is a premier who can’t find money for transit in the city, but who can conjure up billions to dig a hole in the ground for cars in the GTA. As I thought about what this says regarding Ford’s attitude towards Ottawa, I read a revealing analysis of Ontario’s transit funding by Coun. Glen Gower, chair of the transit commission. I then reread the city’s financial report presented to council last month, and, putting it all together, began to wonder if Sutcliffe and his council are aiming their ire over the lack of funding at the right government.

There is no doubt the main reason for Ottawa’s financial crisis is the soaring cost of public transit, not payments-in-lieu-of-taxes. Transit is what has thrown the city into a financial tailspin. The city is now shouldering 56 per cent of LRT costs that were to be shared three ways, with municipal, provincial and federal governments each paying one-third. Then, there is the $120-million deficit accrued largely because of a pandemic ridership slump, which led to talk of apocalyptic 2025 property tax increases. And OC Transpo’s long-term deficit, which was projected to be $6.6 billion by 2048 — if you can think that far ahead — has now grown to $8.9 billion.

Can the federal government help with more transit funding? Sure, it can, and should. But remember that transit is the direct responsibility of the provincial government, which must be held accountable.

Aside from money for the irrational tunnel, the GTA gets billions of dollars year after year for transit, while Ottawa gets small change in comparison. In November 2023, Toronto got a one-time payment of $330 million, and another three-year $330-million operating support subsidy. And Ottawa? In March, it got $543 million over 10 years for road improvements and a new interchange on Highway 417 at Barnsdale Road. No money for transit.

But according to Gower’s analysis, the average household in Ottawa has contributed $5,250 through provincial taxes to transit projects in the GTA in the last few years. In contrast, the same household has contributed about $285 in provincial taxes to Ottawa transit projects. For every dollar of Ottawa’s provincial taxes that pays for transit in the city, the analysis shows more than $18 goes to a project in the GTA.

Clearly, a big reason for our financial crisis is that our provincial taxes are paying for transit in GTA, while we in Ottawa are saddled with huge costs.

Which leads to the question: Why are the mayor and council not making this provincial neglect the central argument of their fairness campaign? Where is the pressure on Ontario to treat Ottawa half as decently as it treats the GTA? Who is beating the drum for fairness from the Ontario government?

In case you thought Ottawa just likes to whine about transit funding, the Ontario Financial Accountability Office just made our case. In a recent study, it said Ottawa will see the steepest decline of anywhere in the province next year in terms of per-resident transit subsidies.

“The FAO projects that the Ottawa economic region will experience the largest reduction in per-resident subsidies from $59.61 in 2022-23 to $31.91 in 2024-25, primarily due to the conclusion of the Safe Restart Agreement,” the report said. But Toronto subsidies keep rising.

Perhaps, it is time for the mayor and council to rethink their strategy, and redirect their fire at the right target.

Mohammed Adam is an Ottawa journalist and commentator. Reach him at [email protected]

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/adam-w...awa-campaign-should-target-doug-ford-too

[rocketphish]

Ottawa's idling bylaw shows council is mired in trivial issues
Haggling over how many minutes a car can idle, or how many minutes between LRT trains, prevents Ottawa Council from focusing on what matters.

Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Published Oct 08, 2024 • Last updated 24 minutes ago • 3 minute read

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The question is an old metaphor for wasting time on things that have no real consequence. Perhaps it’s time to update it to ask how many Ottawa city councillors can dance on the head of a pin. Even more to the point, how many minutes should the dancing occupy?

City councillors have become obsessed with micro-managing policies literally down to the minute, apparently confident that they can determine the precise number of minutes to produce the optimum result.

Two recent examples are the city’s new anti-idling bylaw and council’s tortuous debate on the frequency of off-peak LRT service.

Let’s start with the anti-idling bylaw. We’re speaking here of idling cars, of course, not idling people. That’s perfectly acceptable. The city had an anti-idling bylaw dating back to 2007. It limited vehicle idling when it was particularly hot or cold, but not the rest of the time. The new bylaw is somewhat stricter when it comes to permitted idling minutes, but the details are unimportant.

The real question is what could possibly have been achieved by additional restrictions on idling vehicles? The staff report supporting the new bylaw said the purpose is “to reduce greenhouse gases and improve local air quality in Ottawa.”

Sounds good, but by how much? The staff report says that if every light and medium-duty internal combustion engine vehicle in Ottawa reduced daily idling by two minutes, it would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 31.2 million kilograms. Holy smoke! That sounds like a lot.

Well, it sounds that way until you compare it to Ottawa’s overall transportation emissions. According to an earlier city report, the transportation sector here emitted 2,700,000 tonnes of emissions in 2019. Convert the speculative idling reduction savings to tonnes and you get 31,200 tonnes. In other words, the maximum reduction created by the anti-idling bylaw would be just over one per cent of all transportation emissions.

Even that tiny saving is unlikely to be realized. Mayor Mark Sutcliffe was quick to assure Ottawans, “We know there’s not going to be a huge amount of enforcement of this bylaw as there wasn’t much in the past either.”

There sure wasn’t. The staff report says annual average enforcement amounts to 10 verbal warnings, seven bylaw infraction notices, and 57 instances where there was no evidence of an offence.

Instead of getting caught up in how many minutes of idling would be acceptable, as councillors did, they should have asked themselves why they were passing a bylaw that will achieve next to nothing and won’t be much enforced. As a follow-up, how much time and money was spent on the staff report?

Can you think of a similar waste of time and money? If so, please forward your idea to your city councillor. Clearly, they are keen on this sort of thing.

Councillors didn’t acquit themselves much more rationally last month when some tried to change a staff plan to cut the frequency of LRT service from every five minutes to every 10 during off-peak times. The whole thing was small potatoes. Staff say the change would save $1.6 million a year, which is something, but not much compared to next year’s forecasted $120-million transit deficit. On the other hand, is waiting up to five minutes more for a train really a big deal?

Nevertheless, Coun. Jeff Leiper introduced a motion to restore the five-minute service. There was discussion of seven minutes as a compromise before councillors voted to keep the new 10-minute interval, a motion that won by a single vote.

The point, surely, is that whether the service interval is five minutes, seven minutes or 10 minutes, it will make little material difference. The lesson for councillors ought to be, if you’re debating something that involves single minutes and it’s not a life-saving service, you’re missing the big picture.

Randall Denley is an Ottawa journalist and author. Contact him at [email protected]

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/denley...shows-council-is-mired-in-trivial-issues

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Ottawa's idling bylaw shows council is mired in trivial issues
Haggling over how many minutes a car can idle, or how many minutes between LRT trains, prevents Ottawa Council from focusing on what matters.

Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Published Oct 08, 2024 • Last updated 24 minutes ago • 3 minute read

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The question is an old metaphor for wasting time on things that have no real consequence. Perhaps it’s time to update it to ask how many Ottawa city councillors can dance on the head of a pin. Even more to the point, how many minutes should the dancing occupy?

City councillors have become obsessed with micro-managing policies literally down to the minute, apparently confident that they can determine the precise number of minutes to produce the optimum result.

Two recent examples are the city’s new anti-idling bylaw and council’s tortuous debate on the frequency of off-peak LRT service.

Let’s start with the anti-idling bylaw. We’re speaking here of idling cars, of course, not idling people. That’s perfectly acceptable. The city had an anti-idling bylaw dating back to 2007. It limited vehicle idling when it was particularly hot or cold, but not the rest of the time. The new bylaw is somewhat stricter when it comes to permitted idling minutes, but the details are unimportant.

The real question is what could possibly have been achieved by additional restrictions on idling vehicles? The staff report supporting the new bylaw said the purpose is “to reduce greenhouse gases and improve local air quality in Ottawa.”

Sounds good, but by how much? The staff report says that if every light and medium-duty internal combustion engine vehicle in Ottawa reduced daily idling by two minutes, it would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 31.2 million kilograms. Holy smoke! That sounds like a lot.

Well, it sounds that way until you compare it to Ottawa’s overall transportation emissions. According to an earlier city report, the transportation sector here emitted 2,700,000 tonnes of emissions in 2019. Convert the speculative idling reduction savings to tonnes and you get 31,200 tonnes. In other words, the maximum reduction created by the anti-idling bylaw would be just over one per cent of all transportation emissions.

Even that tiny saving is unlikely to be realized. Mayor Mark Sutcliffe was quick to assure Ottawans, “We know there’s not going to be a huge amount of enforcement of this bylaw as there wasn’t much in the past either.”

There sure wasn’t. The staff report says annual average enforcement amounts to 10 verbal warnings, seven bylaw infraction notices, and 57 instances where there was no evidence of an offence.

Instead of getting caught up in how many minutes of idling would be acceptable, as councillors did, they should have asked themselves why they were passing a bylaw that will achieve next to nothing and won’t be much enforced. As a follow-up, how much time and money was spent on the staff report?

Can you think of a similar waste of time and money? If so, please forward your idea to your city councillor. Clearly, they are keen on this sort of thing.

Councillors didn’t acquit themselves much more rationally last month when some tried to change a staff plan to cut the frequency of LRT service from every five minutes to every 10 during off-peak times. The whole thing was small potatoes. Staff say the change would save $1.6 million a year, which is something, but not much compared to next year’s forecasted $120-million transit deficit. On the other hand, is waiting up to five minutes more for a train really a big deal?

Nevertheless, Coun. Jeff Leiper introduced a motion to restore the five-minute service. There was discussion of seven minutes as a compromise before councillors voted to keep the new 10-minute interval, a motion that won by a single vote.

The point, surely, is that whether the service interval is five minutes, seven minutes or 10 minutes, it will make little material difference. The lesson for councillors ought to be, if you’re debating something that involves single minutes and it’s not a life-saving service, you’re missing the big picture.

Randall Denley is an Ottawa journalist and author. Contact him at [email protected]

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/denley...shows-council-is-mired-in-trivial-issues

His first point is very good but if you don't think there is much difference between 5 and 10 minute frequencies then you aren't a transit user (which is the case for all of those voting no and most of those voting yes to reducing times)

[DTcrawler]

Denley's column is trash in general but this line stood out to me.

The lesson for councillors ought to be, if you’re debating something that involves single minutes and it’s not a life-saving service, you’re missing the big picture.

I wonder what his stance would be on a road widening project where we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to shave a few minutes at best (often times just a few dozen seconds) off driving times. And that only in the short term, before induced demand kicks in and makes travel times worse than before.

[rocketphish]

City budget comes with 3.9% tax increase for most homes
Draft 2025 spending plan assumes $36M from higher levels of government

Arthur White-Crummey · CBC News
Posted: Nov 13, 2024 10:37 AM EST | Last Updated: 1 hour ago

Ottawa city staff have drawn up a budget that would hike taxes and transit fares to patch over a gaping transit deficit.

Even then, it only balances by assuming the federal or provincial governments will come to the rescue with millions more.

If council passes the draft budget, property taxes would go up by 2.9 per cent to fund most city services, though an eight per cent hike to the transit levy means most taxpayers will effectively pay 3.9 per cent.

That's just a fraction of the $120 million the city needs to come up with for its beleaguered transit system. Fares will go up roughtly five per cent, increasing the cost of a typical adult ride from $3.80 to $4.00 and the price of an monthly adult pass from $128.75 to $135.

The city will also reduce fare discounts that currently benefit seniors, youths and others.

Mayor Mark Sutcliffe said there will be no service reductions, though there will be capital deferrals and millions in "efficiencies." He repeatedly said that the budget strikes a balance amid challenges that make it impossible to satisfy everyone.

<more>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-city-draft-budget-2025-1.7382126

[rocketphish]

$50M tax break for affordable apartments is 'deal of the century' for developers, councillor says
The incentive would be provided to builders that agree to set aside a percentage of the units in six projects to rent at below-market rates for a period of 20 years.

Blair Crawford, Ottawa Citizen
Published Dec 03, 2024 • Last updated 26 minutes ago • 2 minute read

Member of the City of Ottawa’s finance and corporate services committee approved $50 million in property tax breaks to real estate developers who include affordable units in their buildings, money one councillor likened to “the deal of the century” for private developers.

If approved by city council as a whole, the city’s Tax Increment Equivalent Grants will be doled out for six housing projects: 265 Rideau St.; 317 Lett St.; 1707 Carling Ave.; 661-665 Albert St.; 1040 Somerset St. W.; and 141 George St.

Five of the six projects are being built by Claridge Homes, which would receive about $35 million. The other, 661-665 Albert St., is a Dream LeBreton property.

The incentive is provided to builders that agree to set aside a percentage of the units to rent at below-market rates for a period of 20 years. It reimburses the developers for a portion of the increase in property taxes that come with the new buildings.

Kanata North Coun. Cathy Curry, however, questioned whether the city was receiving enough value out of its investment, especially since builders are also getting breaks on GST and HST costs from higher levels of government.

“The question we have to ask is, ‘Wouldn’t they build anyway?'” Curry said.

“It’s clear that (the developers) see this as a great offer. I think this is the deal of the century”

Together, the six projects will add 2,044 rental units to the city’s supply, of which 20 per cent, or 415, will be considered affordable.

But Capital Ward Coun. Shawn Menard — the only committee member to dissent at approving the spending — said the units would still be too expensive for most renters. The Dream LeBreton units will rent at between 81 per cent and 90 per cent of the market value set by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, while the five Claridge properties will rent their affordable units at between 91 per cent and 100 per cent of market value.

“It’s worth noting that 91 to 100 per cent of average market rent still isn’t affordable these days,” Menard said. “For me, it’s not a worthwhile investment to make it profitable for for-profit corporations to provide a slightly lower rent for a limited term.

“We shouldn’t be worrying about how to make affordable housing a profitable investment. We should be worrying about finding real, long-term solutions that take profit out of the equation.”

The committee’s decision will go to city council for a final vote on Dec. 11.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...le-apartments-deal-developers-councillor

[Williamoforange]

But Capital Ward Coun. Shawn Menard — the only committee member to dissent at approving the spending — said the units would still be too expensive for most renters. The Dream LeBreton units will rent at between 81 per cent and 90 per cent of the market value set by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, while the five Claridge properties will rent their affordable units at between 91 per cent and 100 per cent of market value.

“It’s worth noting that 91 to 100 per cent of average market rent still isn’t affordable these days,” Menard said. “For me, it’s not a worthwhile investment to make it profitable for for-profit corporations to provide a slightly lower rent for a limited term.

“We shouldn’t be worrying about how to make affordable housing a profitable investment. We should be worrying about finding real, long-term solutions that take profit out of the equation.”


In apparently a shocking discovery to Menard, Subsidized housing requires a subsidy.... and in not shocking news to anyone else, further evidence the guys economically illiterate, as if he wants to lower the rents then push for an increase in the subsidy.

Anyways, we need more housing built, the city is incredibly short of supply, this subsidy will get more of it built as mixed income, and any increase in supply regardless of the cost to rent/own is a good thing.

[Ottawacurious]

Thoughts on 5 of 6 being claridge?
I seem to remember others on the forum hinting claridge is a little tight with the city?

[SL123]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

[B][SIZE="4"].......If approved by city council as a whole, the city’s Tax Increment Equivalent Grants will be doled out for six housing projects: 265 Rideau St.; 317 Lett St.; 1707 Carling Ave.; 661-665 Albert St.; 1040 Somerset St. W.; and 141 George St.

Interesting!!!! Isn't 141 George St the project we've never seen an official proposal/rendering for but seems to be part of the dig for Claridge's Andaz Phase 2 that is happening now.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

But Capital Ward Coun. Shawn Menard — the only committee member to dissent at approving the spending — said the units would still be too expensive for most renters. The Dream LeBreton units will rent at between 81 per cent and 90 per cent of the market value set by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, while the five Claridge properties will rent their affordable units at between 91 per cent and 100 per cent of market value.

“It’s worth noting that 91 to 100 per cent of average market rent still isn’t affordable these days,” Menard said. “For me, it’s not a worthwhile investment to make it profitable for for-profit corporations to provide a slightly lower rent for a limited term.

“We shouldn’t be worrying about how to make affordable housing a profitable investment. We should be worrying about finding real, long-term solutions that take profit out of the equation.”


In apparently a shocking discovery to Menard, Subsidized housing requires a subsidy.... and in not shocking news to anyone else, further evidence the guys economically illiterate, as if he wants to lower the rents then push for an increase in the subsidy.

Anyways, we need more housing built, the city is incredibly short of supply, this subsidy will get more of it built as mixed income, and any increase in supply regardless of the cost to rent/own is a good thing.

Is this Menard guy the same one who when first elected wanted to prohibit Planning Department staff from getting a job in the local consulting field or for a developer for a year or so after leaving the City. Just checking.

In Menardland the residents of the City would all live in deeply subsidized housing likely built by the efficient local government. Norilsk anybody?

Menard always believes that private sector/profit making housing is bad and public sector/non profit housing is good...yet as posted here in this thread costs are such that deep subsidies are required and where will that come from. The money tree is only so tall.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

$50M tax break for affordable apartments is 'deal of the century' for developers, councillor says
The incentive would be provided to builders that agree to set aside a percentage of the units in six projects to rent at below-market rates for a period of 20 years.

Blair Crawford, Ottawa Citizen
Published Dec 03, 2024 • Last updated 26 minutes ago • 2 minute read

Member of the City of Ottawa’s finance and corporate services committee approved $50 million in property tax breaks to real estate developers who include affordable units in their buildings, money one councillor likened to “the deal of the century” for private developers.

If approved by city council as a whole, the city’s Tax Increment Equivalent Grants will be doled out for six housing projects: 265 Rideau St.; 317 Lett St.; 1707 Carling Ave.; 661-665 Albert St.; 1040 Somerset St. W.; and 141 George St.

Five of the six projects are being built by Claridge Homes, which would receive about $35 million. The other, 661-665 Albert St., is a Dream LeBreton property.

The incentive is provided to builders that agree to set aside a percentage of the units to rent at below-market rates for a period of 20 years. It reimburses the developers for a portion of the increase in property taxes that come with the new buildings.

Kanata North Coun. Cathy Curry, however, questioned whether the city was receiving enough value out of its investment, especially since builders are also getting breaks on GST and HST costs from higher levels of government.

“The question we have to ask is, ‘Wouldn’t they build anyway?'” Curry said.

“It’s clear that (the developers) see this as a great offer. I think this is the deal of the century”

Together, the six projects will add 2,044 rental units to the city’s supply, of which 20 per cent, or 415, will be considered affordable.

But Capital Ward Coun. Shawn Menard — the only committee member to dissent at approving the spending — said the units would still be too expensive for most renters. The Dream LeBreton units will rent at between 81 per cent and 90 per cent of the market value set by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, while the five Claridge properties will rent their affordable units at between 91 per cent and 100 per cent of market value.

“It’s worth noting that 91 to 100 per cent of average market rent still isn’t affordable these days,” Menard said. “For me, it’s not a worthwhile investment to make it profitable for for-profit corporations to provide a slightly lower rent for a limited term.

“We shouldn’t be worrying about how to make affordable housing a profitable investment. We should be worrying about finding real, long-term solutions that take profit out of the equation.”

The committee’s decision will go to city council for a final vote on Dec. 11.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...le-apartments-deal-developers-councillor

So we are going to forego $120k in property taxes per unit that will rent for 91-100% of market rate? That is $500 a month subsidy for the "affordable" units. So unless the market rent is $5000 a month is on it's face a horrible deal. I mean the non affordable units are also adding to the rental stock but these are being built anyway. 141 George is already being excavated.

5 out of 6 being Claridge is borderline criminal.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by SL123

Interesting!!!! Isn't 141 George St the project we've never seen an official proposal/rendering for but seems to be part of the dig for Claridge's Andaz Phase 2 that is happening now.

Originally Posted by Ottawacurious

Thoughts on 5 of 6 being claridge?
I seem to remember others on the forum hinting claridge is a little tight with the city?

Yeah. Seems they threw in Dream just to throw off the scent. I've never heard of these subsidies before. Maybe bodes well for the Sens Arena since Claridge is part of the ownership.

Originally Posted by SL123

Interesting!!!! Isn't 141 George St the project we've never seen an official proposal/rendering for but seems to be part of the dig for Claridge's Andaz Phase 2 that is happening now.

The thing was proposed and approved a decade ago with the original Andaz. Image on the right. It's the rejected Hampton Inn that is somehow now part of the Claridge dig that I wonder about.

https://www.lowertown-basseville.ca/

Originally Posted by YOWetal

So we are going to forego $120k in property taxes per unit that will rent for 91-100% of market rate? That is $500 a month subsidy for the "affordable" units. So unless the market rent is $5000 a month is on it's face a horrible deal. I mean the non affordable units are also adding to the rental stock but these are being built anyway. 141 George is already being excavated.

5 out of 6 being Claridge is borderline criminal.

Yeah, the City's math seems off. It's a little sketchy. I'm not necessarily against tax breaks for affordable homes, but I would prefer fewer deeply affordable over a higher number of barely cheaper than Market rents.

[zzptichka]

Why are we giving subsidies to Clardige though? Isn't OCHC should be building affordable housing?

I'm not very well-versed in the development business, but can somebody tell me what's wrong with this non-profit concept (simplified):

- OCHC takes a loan in the bank (or elsewhere), hires a contractor, builds a building.
- Based on the monthly expenses (debt payments, maintenance, taxes) sets the rent to break even.
- In N years once the debt is paid, OCHC is getting the profit.
- They can take another loan to do a major refit if needed, and continue paying it off from the rent payments.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Why are we giving subsidies to Clardige though? Isn't OCHC should be building affordable housing?

I'm not very well-versed in the development business, but can somebody tell me what's wrong with this non-profit concept (simplified):

- OCHC takes a loan in the bank (or elsewhere), hires a contractor, builds a building.
- Based on the monthly expenses (debt payments, maintenance, taxes) sets the rent to break even.
- In N years once the debt is paid, OCHC is getting the profit.
- They can take another loan to do a major refit if needed, and continue paying it off from the rent payments.

"Based on the monthly expenses (debt payments, maintenance, taxes) sets the rent to break even."

I think that this is the issue. Setting rates this way means that rents are not going to be affordable.

There have been a variety of affordable housing programs over the years, but many of the major ones included a low-interest or no-interest loan from government, plus an ongoing rent subsidy for income-tested tenants. Those programs are complex to run, but they have been a successful model that could easily be done again if governments were willing to devote the resources to it.

If they are looking for a lower touch model for the city, I have always thought that giving a non-profit entity surplus land for free and an ongoing break on property taxes would work, in exchange for a covenant to keep rents at an affordable level for a period of time. It still requires oversight, and there is limited capacity in the non-profit sector, but it reduces the time needed to negotiate agreements etc.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by phil235

"Based on the monthly expenses (debt payments, maintenance, taxes) sets the rent to break even."

I think that this is the issue. Setting rates this way means that rents are not going to be affordable.

Is that so? Rents nowadays are are largely driven by supply/demand, not by the construction costs.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Is that so? Rents nowadays are are largely driven by supply/demand, not by the construction costs.

That's true - I'm just going by what has been required in the past to make non-profit projects viable. Construction costs are particularly high now, so I've got to think that the break-even rent numbers are worse, if anything. Maybe as interest rates come down, that will change.

However, if you are just looking at what are often quite variable construction costs to set rents, you don't get a lot of certainty that you will actually end up with affordable rents. You'd probably need government to assume some of the risk of overruns to make it all work.