Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by madog222

For how long was the rest of the country's homeless policy to buy them a bus ticket to Vancouver?

According to this survey BC's homeless population, only 24% are out of province (doesn't indicate if they came here while already homeless, or became homeless while living here): https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/bc-homeless-population-statistics. Either way, the meme about Vancouver housing the nation's homeless isn't really true.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Many of the people living in tents on the DTES have refused housing when it was offered to them.

This sort of anecdote gets passed around a lot, and I'm sure there have been instances of that happening, but how common is it really? Any sort of supportive housing (eg. the modular container homes being built all over the place) available seems to have no shortage of willing tenants.

I also wonder what sort of "housing" we're talking about here - I've certainly heard of many homeless people being urged to go to shelters and refusing, but that's because shelters are often worse & more dangerous than the streets. And/or, housing which may come with conditions - eg. they'd have to be clean; but unfortunately many will choose drugs over housing, because that's how addictions work.

[casper]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Interesting. I have close to zero familiarity with public housing in BC but my gut feeling is that this is a better model.

Contracting the welfare state out to local-scale non-profits usually works better than operating it directly by the state, from my experience volunteering in Kingston.

In BC this is a very common delivery model for social services. That includes social housing, family counciling, drug addiction treatment, seniors homes, etc.

What I found interesting about it is since these are arms length organisations that have the freedom to do thing their way and raise funds to do other activites beyond their government contract. I know of one housing society in Vancouver that owns a small hotel and aboriginal art gallery. They had some buildings with a lot of indigenous seniors who were in to art and this became a venue to allow the seniors to sell their art.

I know of another family services one that ended up opening a cafe. They discovered at-risk kids were having a hard time getting that first job to put on their resume and this was a way to cycle them through getting that first job. That would never happen in a government department but can when its arms length.

Several years ago I was involved in suppling software/IT infrastructure to a number of these non-profits. I have not been involved in around 6 years now. My impression were some were well run. There were one or two that where basket cases, but they did not last long. For the core program being delivered for the province they were well funded, had contractual requirements that forced a degree of professionalism in what they did. Some type of audit or accredited was usually required.

One angle that gets over looked about the DTES is a sizable percentage of indigenous people. Many community leaders would like to see those people come home, but they lack the housing and treatment infrastructure to do that effectively on reserve.

Having multiple housing societies each with a different slant on what they do allows them to focus on creating a unique safety net focused on the special needs of the community they serve.

As for the non-profits that run the shelters, I never had one of them as a customer, so have no experience with how they are run.

[theman23]

Strange to see yet another post from you effusing praise on the strange and magical social housing utopia that is British Columbia right after posting (but not addressing any of the concerns contained within) an article eviscerating the system as being dysfunctional and full of graft.

[casper]

Originally Posted by theman23

Strange to see yet another post from you effusing praise on the strange and magical social housing utopia that is British Columbia right after posting (but not addressing any of the concerns contained within) an article eviscerating the system as being dysfunctional and full of graft.

I don't know if the system in BC is all that strange or magical. Some provinces may end up doing similar things. I actually don't know.

We will have to see what the details of the audit report show. The article was somewhat non-specific on the actual "dysfunctional and graft" aspects. Hard to have a strong view one way or another on a news report that says, there is a report coming about a major scandal without specifics.

Would I be surprised to learn some of them have problems? Not at all. There is a surprising large number of these independent non-profit societies in the province. Do I think the entire sector is corrupt? No.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

This sort of anecdote gets passed around a lot, and I'm sure there have been instances of that happening, but how common is it really? Any sort of supportive housing (eg. the modular container homes being built all over the place) available seems to have no shortage of willing tenants.

I also wonder what sort of "housing" we're talking about here - I've certainly heard of many homeless people being urged to go to shelters and refusing, but that's because shelters are often worse & more dangerous than the streets. And/or, housing which may come with conditions - eg. they'd have to be clean; but unfortunately many will choose drugs over housing, because that's how addictions work.

Indeed. I think most people in tent cities are receptive to actual housing, and IMO many come from the population that years ago would be living in SROs and other forms of very inexpensive housing. It comes down to a few people who aren't willing to go to shelters for either safety reasons or there are rules around substances.

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I am actually fine with a subset of housing allowing use of drugs/alcohol. I know there are already harm-reduction facilities but I'm thinking somewhat more permissive and accept that not everyone is going to get better - of course treatment options should be made available for anyone who does actually want to go clean. At the end of the day some people are never going to be "productive" members of society, and some aren't going to give up their addiction easily if at all. Again, previously a lot of these people would just be doing the same thing in SROs, it's just that you could afford that on a combo of welfare (ODSP, etc.) and panhandling. Hence they weren't quite as visible.

[Nite]

How NIMBYs and Bad Priorities Undermine Affordable Housing

• Video Link

[SpongeG]

• Video Link

7,709 views 27 Mar 2023 #CBCVancouver #CBCNews #BritishColumbia
Single-room occupancy buildings house some of Vancouver’s most vulnerable people, but the cost of rent for some of these units is rising past the point of affordability.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by casper

What I found interesting about it is since these are arms length organisations that have the freedom to do thing their way and raise funds to do other activites beyond their government contract. I know of one housing society in Vancouver that owns a small hotel and aboriginal art gallery. They had some buildings with a lot of indigenous seniors who were in to art and this became a venue to allow the seniors to sell their art.

I know of another family services one that ended up opening a cafe. They discovered at-risk kids were having a hard time getting that first job to put on their resume and this was a way to cycle them through getting that first job. That would never happen in a government department but can when its arms length.

My observations have been the same - non-profit run social services tend to have a flexibility/creativity that government-run social services often don't have. Of course, no organization has infinite power and what they can do is often limited by available funding.

Originally Posted by casper

Several years ago I was involved in suppling software/IT infrastructure to a number of these non-profits. I have not been involved in around 6 years now. My impression were some were well run. There were one or two that where basket cases, but they did not last long. For the core program being delivered for the province they were well funded, had contractual requirements that forced a degree of professionalism in what they did. Some type of audit or accredited was usually required.

I actually have done the same! I've been working in private sector IT since 2017 (I was in the federal public service before then) and my first job in the private sector was at a firm that did what they called "pro bono IT" - 5% of allocated billable hours were reserved for clients in the non-profit sector who weren't charged for the company's services. I worked on a few of these contracts and it was a heart-warming experience.

Originally Posted by casper

Having multiple housing societies each with a different slant on what they do allows them to focus on creating a unique safety net focused on the special needs of the community they serve.

As for the non-profits that run the shelters, I never had one of them as a customer, so have no experience with how they are run.

Definitely - that's the advantage of the non-profit model - it allows flexibility. It works better for the diverse society we live in.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by theman23

Strange to see yet another post from you effusing praise on the strange and magical social housing utopia that is British Columbia right after posting (but not addressing any of the concerns contained within) an article eviscerating the system as being dysfunctional and full of graft.

I mean, I'm sure it has problems. Government run social housing has lots of issues with corruption too, and administrative bloat. The core issue is that regardless of who runs it (whether it's the government directly or the non-profit sector), capabilities are ultimately limited by available funding, and demand is sky high due to much broader policy failures on housing and mental health.

[Truenorth00]

It's bizarre to focus on a specific sub-component (public sector housing) whole ignoring their total failure at the macro level on affordable housing.

If BC is what success looks like in housing, I don't even want to know what failure would be.

[ssiguy]

Vancouver is the poster child of bad housing and zoning. This along with the City and province totally ignoring the dirty money and wild speculation in the real estate sector for the past 35 years is what has led to this "liveble" city becoming completely unliveable for all but the uber wealthy. Ever since Expo'86 when the province practically gave away the huge Expo land to developers and openly welcomed a real estate flipping economy, the city has gone downhill for the vast majority of people.

Vancouver decided that is didn't want to any longer be a city but rather a resort.........a bigger Whistler. Like Whistler it has become a playground for extremely wealthy and everyone else works for them but seems somehow bewildered that there is a critical lack of labour both skilled and non-skilled. Unless you picked the right parents, all of Metro Vancouver is a no-go zone.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's bizarre to focus on a specific sub-component (public sector housing) whole ignoring their total failure at the macro level on affordable housing.

If BC is what success looks like in housing, I don't even want to know what failure would be.

For the high-end of the market the buyers can fend for themselves.

The lower end of the market is dependent on social housing.

The middle of the market is a problem that few people have good answers to solve. More social and co-op housing help. I don't think "gatekeepers" or "foreign investment limits" are going to help solve this problem.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Unless you picked the right parents, all of Metro Vancouver is a no-go zone.

A no-go zone for what

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

A no-go zone for what

The average citizen looking to buy a home.

[swimmer_spe]

One thing we should do is look for "hidden" places to build on. A good example in the GTA would be the lands set aside for the Pickering Airport. There is a pretty good chance the airport will never see the light of day, ad the lands and restrictions for it should be removed and allowed to be built upon.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The average citizen looking to buy a home.

I'm sorry, ALL of Metro Vancouver is a "no go zone"?! Are we talking only detached houses?

[casper]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I'm sorry, ALL of Metro Vancouver is a "no go zone"?! Are we talking only detached houses?

Yes, single family is expesnive.

You can find condos in older building for "reasonable" prices.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I'm sorry, ALL of Metro Vancouver is a "no go zone"?! Are we talking only detached houses?

Prior to the Pandemic, I would have just meant SFH. Now, I am not understanding how any family can survive there.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by casper

For the high-end of the market the buyers can fend for themselves.

The lower end of the market is dependent on social housing.

The middle of the market is a problem that few people have good answers to solve. More social and co-op housing help. I don't think "gatekeepers" or "foreign investment limits" are going to help solve this problem.

This is a lot of excuses for very poor policy.