General Vancouver Updates - Page 388

GenWhy? · #**7741** Posted **Mar 27, 2019, 4:14 PM**

Swanson would focus on the new program intended for the demographic she's concerned about. The MIRHPP program which is seeing huge pushback from local citizens and in regards to economic feasibility. She should focus on making that program better. The problem being that the current density for reduced rents need to be tripled even with a DCL waiver and without other well-known subsidies. Good luck.

GenWhy? · #**7742** Posted **Mar 27, 2019, 4:16 PM**

"The City of Vancouver’s “10 Year Affordable Housing Delivery and Financial Strategy,” states that “the City has been successful in increasing housing options for renter households (both individuals and families) earning $50,000 to $150,000/year. While this increased supply in rental housing has been welcome and has addressed the needs of many middle income households, the level of affordability that can be delivered in market rental homes continues to be a challenge for households in the lower-income bands. This includes families and individuals earning less than $50,000/year, individuals who are currently homeless and those who are at risk of homelessness living in inadequate and unsafe conditions”.

Swanson and the Green candidates are actiually ending a successful middle-class program to replace it with a program for households under $50k. Why not do both?

WarrenC12 · #**7743** Posted **Mar 27, 2019, 4:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

As the Mayor said, tweaking it is a good idea, but killing a program that is only a few years old and only now showing its success, has brought thousands of units online and is the only current real rental incentive program in the City is crazy. Objectively crazy.

Allow me to introduce you to councillor Swanson...

GenWhy? · #**7744** Posted **Mar 27, 2019, 4:22 PM**

If it's cancelled my team alone would cancel 100s of rental units. Fact.

GenWhy? · #**7745** Posted **Mar 27, 2019, 4:58 PM**

Swanson had a good quote in her Motion from the Affordable Housing Delivery and Financial Strategy 2017-2027 but forgot this line that came before hers...

"This includes provision of development incentives for the creation of 100% rental housing which has resulted in the City tripling its delivery of secured market rental units in the last five years; from an average of 350 rental units per year from 2008 to 2012 to 1,100 rental units per year from 2013 to 2017". I wonder what program helped this happen?

Vancouver average rental starts went from 15% of overall housing starts in 2010 to 29% and 27% in 2016 and 2017, respectively. Rental 100 started in 2012. It's only 7 years old. Projects take roughly 4 years from start to finish.

Page 4: https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/affordable-housing-delivery-and-financial-strategy.pdf

Migrant_Coconut · #**7746** Posted **Mar 27, 2019, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Allow me to introduce you to councillor Swanson...

I think that we can almost unanimously agree that she was the mistake of last year's election. Activists need to realize that once in office, they need to stop blowing up the trains and start making them run on time.

whatnext · #**7747** Posted **Mar 27, 2019, 7:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

"The City of Vancouver’s “10 Year Affordable Housing Delivery and Financial Strategy,” states that “the City has been successful in increasing housing options for renter households (both individuals and families) earning $50,000 to $150,000/year. While this increased supply in rental housing has been welcome and has addressed the needs of many middle income households, the level of affordability that can be delivered in market rental homes continues to be a challenge for households in the lower-income bands. This includes families and individuals earning less than $50,000/year, individuals who are currently homeless and those who are at risk of homelessness living in inadequate and unsafe conditions”.

Swanson and the Green candidates are actiually ending a successful middle-class program to replace it with a program for households under $50k. Why not do both?

Out of curiosity, how has the leasing been going on all these new units? I noticed the Central Presbyterian Tower was still renting and the project at Sixth and Fir seemed to have a lot of dark suites at night.

GenWhy? · #**7748** Posted **Mar 27, 2019, 8:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

Out of curiosity, how has the leasing been going on all these new units? I noticed the Central Presbyterian Tower was still renting and the project at Sixth and Fir seemed to have a lot of dark suites at night.

As in who are the leased by? Success? Rental 100 Program? Not sure by your question. 'The project you mentioned has social housing in it and is market rental and it's downtown (West End Plan?).

misher · #**7749** Posted **Mar 27, 2019, 8:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Swanson had a good quote in her Motion from the Affordable Housing Delivery and Financial Strategy 2017-2027 but forgot this line that came before hers...

"This includes provision of development incentives for the creation of 100% rental housing which has resulted in the City tripling its delivery of secured market rental units in the last five years; from an average of 350 rental units per year from 2008 to 2012 to 1,100 rental units per year from 2013 to 2017". I wonder what program helped this happen?

Vancouver average rental starts went from 15% of overall housing starts in 2010 to 29% and 27% in 2016 and 2017, respectively. Rental 100 started in 2012. It's only 7 years old. Projects take roughly 4 years from start to finish.

Page 4: https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/affordable-housing-delivery-and-financial-strategy.pdf

Rather than get rid of Rental 100, I think most people in the know agree it needs to be improved with greater incentives. We just aren't seeing enough rental development even with the program.

They identify one of the biggest issues is that they waive development fees which pays for amenities. I'm wondering if the recent decrease in starts is decreasing their development fee revenues with developers choosing rental 100 to avoid paying them which is why they are pushing to eliminate this exemption.

Instead of development fee waivers I'm wondering if its possible to add on even more density bonuses as an alternative. Though I know the public would go insane if we start adding on 6 more floors to the max.

whatnext · #**7750** Posted **Mar 27, 2019, 8:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

As in who are the leased by? Success? Rental 100 Program? Not sure by your question. 'The project you mentioned has social housing in it and is market rental and it's downtown (West End Plan?).

I was just trying to get a sense of how quickly most new-build market rental units are leasing out, as Council seems to think the rates are a barrier.

GenWhy? · #**7751** Posted **Mar 27, 2019, 9:05 PM**

Art on 6th has some particulars on it that are affecting renting some out, from what I've heard. I am however not familiar with the program or plan that it went in under. For what it rents for, I don't think it was Rental 100.

GenWhy? · #**7752** Posted **Mar 27, 2019, 9:15 PM**

The rent rates with the DCL waiver are for those above $50k. Council and the Georgia Straight use the 30% of income measurement, which is unrealistic for market or Rental 100 units. East side rents for 2 beds start at $2,457. So split that and you're doing okay for a spanking new unit. A studio at $1,607 for a well-off person is way better than a brand new $2,000 unit closer to downtown for the same 420 sf.

Councillors and people that are against the program want housing geared towards household incomes below $50k... which Rental 100 is not geared towards. These units are a barrier to those earing under $50k, which is true but they're not being built for those incomes. They're good for a difffent income bracket.

Changing City · #**7753** Posted **Mar 27, 2019, 9:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Art on 6th has some particulars on it that are affecting renting some out, from what I've heard. I am however not familiar with the program or plan that it went in under. For what it rents for, I don't think it was Rental 100.

It was Rental 100 - submitted in 2014.

GenWhy? · #**7754** Posted **Mar 27, 2019, 9:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by misher

Rather than get rid of Rental 100, I think most people in the know agree it needs to be improved with greater incentives. We just aren't seeing enough rental development even with the program.

They identify one of the biggest issues is that they waive development fees which pays for amenities. I'm wondering if the recent decrease in starts is decreasing their development fee revenues with developers choosing rental 100 to avoid paying them which is why they are pushing to eliminate this exemption.

Instead of development fee waivers I'm wondering if its possible to add on even more density bonuses as an alternative. Though I know the public would go insane if we start adding on 6 more floors to the max.

That's for politics and not policy to decide and which careers to watch disappear next election.

GenWhy? · #**7755** Posted **Mar 27, 2019, 9:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Changing City

It was Rental 100 - submitted in 2014.

Right! I thought it was another first in a program. People can charge what they want. Why not. Up to them.

Changing City · #**7756** Posted **Mar 27, 2019, 9:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by misher

I'm wondering if the recent decrease in starts is decreasing their development fee revenues with developers choosing rental 100 to avoid paying them which is why they are pushing to eliminate this exemption.

There's no slowdown in starts in the City of Vancouver. There were 6,522 last year, compared to 5,617 the year before. Year to date is 994, compared to 1,045 in 2018, so no slowdown this year either.

misher · #**7757** Posted **Mar 27, 2019, 9:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Changing City

There's no slowdown in starts in the City of Vancouver. There were 6,522 last year, compared to 5,617 the year before. Year to date is 994, compared to 1,045 in 2018, so no slowdown this year either.

I can’t find any exact numbers but aren’t we building much more rental than before so the number of starts paying CACs is reduced?

Changing City · #**7758** Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 1:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by misher

I can’t find any exact numbers but aren’t we building much more rental than before so the number of starts paying CACs is reduced?

The amount collected in CACs in 2018 hasn't been reported yet, but it has nothing to do with Councillor Swanson's motion to drop Rental 100. GenWhy explained already above - she wants Rental 100 rents to be lower than they're currently allowed. She doesn't think they're 'affordable' - and neither does Councillor Carr. Councillor Kirby-Young has already indicated that she doesn't see the need to kill the program while it's already being reviewed. It'll be interesting to see how the vote goes next week, but the Greens and COPE don't have a majority, so it's not clear how the vote will go.

It seems pretty clear that without Rental 100 the City's rental targets don't have a chance of being met. It's equally clear that not all Council members have a grasp of the costs of construction, and the rents necessary to cover the cost of new rental buildings, although I'm sure they've been briefed, and they'll probably get the chance to have it explained again when the motion to drop Rental 100 is debated.

Migrant_Coconut · #**7759** Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 4:46 AM**

No need to worry just yet - the Greens have proven receptive to numbers before (e.g. UBC SkyTrain).

Changing City · #**7760** Posted **Mar 28, 2019, 5:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

No need to worry just yet - the Greens have proven receptive to numbers before (e.g. UBC SkyTrain).

Or maybe not? [Greens oppose Rental 100 in Vancouver Sun article and film]