Housing Supply Act Discussion - Implementation & Outcomes

[trofirhen]

Vancouver's housing saturation crisis that is bad, and only getting worse, seems being addressed by various levels of government. The question is, how effectively?
As a point of comparison, may I give examples of how the issue of housing is addressed in France. Being familiar with that country, I think that there might be something to learn from them.
That said, the process of housing in France began long before our governments did - (which is only recently, TBH) - and they have had problems along the way, but in total, it works.
FYI:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_France

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HLM

https://www.france24.com/en/20171030...-town-planning


https://www.brookings.edu/articles/f...using-markets/

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I've never read that before and that reads very interestingly from a Conservative Party. Almost seems like a 180. I don't want to get into the politics of it, but just musing that the angle in that release is.. interesting.

Like I hate folks that live in big cities trying to keep them stuck in amber but this seems very "Big Government knows best" un a tinge of undemocratic:

"Impose a NIMBY penalty on big city gatekeepers for egregious cases of NIMBYism. We will empower residents to file complaints about NIMBYism with the federal infrastructure department. When complaints are well-founded, we will withhold infrastructure dollars until municipalities remove the blockage and allow homebuilding to take place. "

They're essentially saying voters in local elections and their representatives can get stuffed.

And how is that really different from the spirit of the BC NDP act this thread is about? "Municipalities and their NIMBY voters are the problem, pay no attention to the bad policies of senior levels of government that helped created this mess".

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And how is that really different from the spirit of the BC NDP act this thread is about? "Municipalities and their NIMBY voters are the problem, pay no attention to the bad policies of senior levels of government that helped created this mess".

What were the BC Government policies that helped create 'this mess'?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

What were the BC Government policies that helped create 'this mess'?

Let's start with the Little Mountain fiasco. We know the greatest barrier to building housing is now land cost, yet the Province (admittedly not the NDP) sold the land in a very poor deal. Land should not be sold (take note VSB with Kingsgate Mall).

The province never stepped up in a hugely meaningful way to build housing when the feds retreated from it.

The province has never cracked down on some dubious degree granting institutions who lobby to bring in more and more international students which has been shown to be just about cheap labour rather than education.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And since suburban YIMBYs will likely be repulsed by everything else the Cons stand for, they're really just shooting themselves in the foot.

I wouldn't be so sure of yourself there. You don't want to have your own "basket of deplorables" Hillary Clinton moment.

There's a very non-trivial amount of YIMBY voters out there who have a "Trudeau must go" attitude. Singh and the NDP are non-starters so there's only one place for them to go.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Let's start with the Little Mountain fiasco. We know the greatest barrier to building housing is now land cost, yet the Province (admittedly not the NDP) sold the land in a very poor deal. Land should not be sold (take note VSB with Kingsgate Mall).

The province never stepped up in a hugely meaningful way to build housing when the feds retreated from it.

The province has never cracked down on some dubious degree granting institutions who lobby to bring in more and more international students which has been shown to be just about cheap labour rather than education.

Little Mountain was one example of a really bad deal made back in 2008 by the then BC Liberals, but it's the only obvious example I can think of. So that's 1,400 homes that should have been built, but haven't been. That's not affected overall supply by any measurable amount, and it isn't an example with a wider application across the province - there aren't dozens of other bad deals made by BC Governments in the past 15 years.

The BC Liberals weren't funding much housing, but the NDP have been funding more, and are now making loans to support co-op and market rental construction. If you're willing to see provincial taxes rise to build more subsidized (or even market) housing, you're almost certainly in a minority.

I'd doubt that the Province's educational institutions could be 'cracked down on' (whatever that means) because they're taking international students. The number of students is undoubtedly adding pressure to the Lower Mainland housing market - but the Federal Government, not the Provincial Government, controls those numbers (or up to now, doesn't).

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Little Mountain was one example of a really bad deal made back in 2008 by the then BC Liberals, but it's the only obvious example I can think of. So that's 1,400 homes that should have been built, but haven't been. That's not affected overall supply by any measurable amount, and it isn't an example with a wider application across the province - there aren't dozens of other bad deals made by BC Governments in the past 15 years.

The BC Liberals weren't funding much housing, but the NDP have been funding more, and are now making loans to support co-op and market rental construction. If you're willing to see provincial taxes rise to build more subsidized (or even market) housing, you're almost certainly in a minority.

I'd doubt that the Province's educational institutions could be 'cracked down on' (whatever that means) because they're taking international students. The number of students is undoubtedly adding pressure to the Lower Mainland housing market - but the Federal Government, not the Provincial Government, controls those numbers (or up to now, doesn't).

I agree that the NDP has been doing more than the BC Liberals did. Isn't education a provincial responsibility? What about a commission looking in depth at standards, level of education being given? I'm not thinking of UBC, SFU etc

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I agree that the NDP has been doing more than the BC Liberals did. Isn't education a provincial responsibility? What about a commission looking in depth at standards, level of education being given? I'm not thinking of UBC, SFU etc

If they issue degrees they seem to be scrutinized fairly closely by an independent body appointed by the provincial government. That link has all the institutions that offer degree courses. There's a wider Education Quality Assurance that covers all institutions offering courses to international students. I've seen suggestions that some courses weren't offering the level of education that seemed to have been promised, but that was related to the COVID response and wouldn't seem to be a long term problem.

Even institutions that get in financial problems like Quest in Squamish seem to wind up without major problems, and Capilano University are moving in with $48m of provincial funding. The province are also helping fund 8,000 more on campus student housing beds in the next five years across the province.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And how is that really different from the spirit of the BC NDP act this thread is about? "Municipalities and their NIMBY voters are the problem, pay no attention to the bad policies of senior levels of government that helped created this mess".

I think the approaches by the federal CPC mentioned in that bit on their website is vastly different than what is in the provincial NDPs Housing Act. The Province isn't:
1) threatening to fire various levels of planning staff in cities (the fire the gatekeepers part)
2) the don't have a snitch line
3) they're being less confrontational and more pragmatic by allowing cities to re-examine their OCPs on their own and present to the Province at a later date (respecting local voices, voters, representatives, and jurisdiction).
4) withholding infrastructure spending if starts are under 15% each year, most of which was needed over 10 years ago, like transit. 2021 had roughly the same starts as 2022 and the way financing is going it ain't looking so hot. Do the feds withhold infrastructure funding due to economic realities? Does this delay say SkyTrain to the North Shore which was needed decades ago because we aren't building enough housing now?
5) they have not indicated they will play favorites with infrastructure spending like the CPC has. If a city has been begging the feds for transit money for 15 years and their growth is stalling due to high levels of congestion... do you keep withholding their funding?

I'd rather see the feds push all provinces to do what BC is doing.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

There's a very non-trivial amount of YIMBY voters out there who have a "Trudeau must go" attitude....

That's me. Voted Dipper last time, came less than five hundred votes short of beating the Lib candidate; the Con one wasn't even close, and that was with a stand-up guy like O'Toole in charge of the party. Polly Oliver, the antivaxxer, conspiracy theorist and all-around whiner? Not a chance in hell.

Granted, the inner suburbs and outer suburbs are two very different ballparks, but AFAIK the overlap between "YIMBY" and "angry incel" still isn't enough to flip a swing riding.

[Changing City]

The more I read the CPC statement, the more weird it becomes. It says "In 2022, Vancouver only managed to approve the construction of 6,269 homes." it obviously doesn't reference a source, and it's completely wrong. The City's data shows they approved 8,606 homes in 2022. It's possible the report meant to reference Housing Starts, which were around 6,000, but the City of Vancouver, and every other municipality, can't make developers start housing that's been approved.

To require "unaffordable big cities like Vancouver to increase homebuilding by 15% annually or face big financial penalties and have portions of their federal funding withheld" just guarantees slowing development even more, because the city can't make homebuilders build, and withholding federal funding (which isn't much, fortunately) will just reduce homebuilding more, as it's one of the sources of subsidy for non-market housing.

As noted previously, in Metro Vancouver municipalities there are thousands more units approved than are being built, for a variety of reasons, mostly related to the housing market and rising interest rates (both for strata and rental units).

[seamusmcduff]

Wow this is a depressing read, and clearly shows the lack of time spent on trying to understand City processes and how they function.

Yes, there is definitely a lot of red tape that could be reworked or removed, but the same people who facilitate that red tape also happen to facilitate actually moving projects forward and getting them to a place where they can be built.

Apparently their ideal situation is where projects are approved without review, and there is inadequate servicing/roads/parks/schools, non functional parking/loading/drive aisles/interior spaces, an absence of the required legal agreements, and nothing is coordinated beforehand to make sure it can actually work, among many of the other things the "gatekeepers" do.

Having less red tape doesn't mean there will be less work, especially if it actually results in new projects. There's still tons of work to be done since most of the red tape you can actually remove without creating other issues stops projects from happening at all, and isn't usually slowing things down throughout the process.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's me. Voted Dipper last time, came less than five hundred votes short of beating the Lib candidate; the Con one wasn't even close, and that was with a stand-up guy like O'Toole in charge of the party. Polly Oliver, the antivaxxer, conspiracy theorist and all-around whiner? Not a chance in hell.

Granted, the inner suburbs and outer suburbs are two very different ballparks, but AFAIK the overlap between "YIMBY" and "angry incel" still isn't enough to flip a swing riding.

Respectfully, none of the ridings in Vancouver proper (assuming that's where you live based on your location) except maybe Vancouver Quadra (which the CPC might gain) are the "suburbs". It's in ridings like Cloverdale–Langley City, Port Moody–Coquitlam, and West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast–Sea to Sky Country where the CPC is trying to make inroads (and is currently succeeding).

Not sure how much faith you put in the 338 Canada guy, but things don't look too hot for the LPC in the BC suburbs.

https://338canada.com/bc.htm

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

Apparently their ideal situation is where projects are approved without review, and there is inadequate servicing/roads/parks/schools, non functional parking/loading/drive aisles/interior spaces, an absence of the required legal agreements, and nothing is coordinated beforehand to make sure it can actually work, among many of the other things the "gatekeepers" do.

Respectfully, if this is what you think the approval process with the CoV looks like for projects, you've never tried to get a project approved. If you got the CoV planning department to switch to approving developments based on your list every developer in the city would throw you a party.

[Migrant_Coconut]

It's relative. Much of downtown considers Kitsilano, Mount Pleasant, East Van and even Strathcona "the suburbs."

As for BC's ridings, keep in mind that 338 also called 2019 as a Con majority. That obviously didn't happen.
Coq-Port Moody flips between Con and Dipper (the Libs have been third for the last ten years), while the Cons actually lost their seat in Cloverdale-Langley last election... and "more development or else" will definitely not play well in West Van.

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

Apparently their ideal situation is where projects are approved without review, and there is inadequate servicing/roads/parks/schools, non functional parking/loading/drive aisles/interior spaces, an absence of the required legal agreements, and nothing is coordinated beforehand to make sure it can actually work, among many of the other things the "gatekeepers" do.

That's the an-cap wet dream, actually.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It's relative. Much of downtown considers Kitsilano, Mount Pleasant, East Van and even Strathcona "the suburbs."

As for BC's ridings, keep in mind that 338 also called 2019 as a Con majority. That obviously didn't happen.
Coq-Port Moody flips between Con and Dipper (the Libs have been third for the last ten years), while the Cons actually lost their seat in Cloverdale-Langley last election... and "more development or else" will definitely not play well in West Van.

Sure, "suburb" is relative, but everyone knows the CPC isn't going to bother trying to convince the Vancouver Kingsway or Vancouver East voter.

You should know that everyone was calling a CPC majority in May, 5 months before the October election. 338 predicted a Liberal minority the day before the election. History speaks for itself. Don't be so quick to source the first article you find! If the election were to be held today, how far off do you think 338 would be?

[Migrant_Coconut]

That's the point - the election is two years and two months from now, much too far away to call results with anything resembling "accuracy." All we can see right now is that both major party leaders are so far equally useless.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's the point - the election is two years and two months from now, much too far away to call results with anything resembling "accuracy." All we can see right now is that both major party leaders are so far equally useless.

Opinion polls aren't predicting future results. They're predicting current results. Yes, the situation can change in the next two years but as things stand right now the LPC is hurting and the CPC is capitalizing. Scheer ran a horrible campaign and managed to turn away both Quebec with his abysmal French, and all the progressive conservatives and blue liberals with his not-so-secret not-very-progressive conservative social views. You can't win in the Quebec suburbs without French and you certainly can't win in the BC suburbs without at least moderately socially liberal views.

Poilievre is a native French speaker and doesn't have the socially conservative baggage Scheer had. I wouldn't count him out just yet.

This is all coming from an ABC (federal ABC) voter.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I've been talking about the actual election this entire time, and "current results" are somewhat useless in that regard.

Francophone or not, Polly Oliver's already thrown in support for the convoys and WEF conspiracies (I'll make it fair and give him the benefit of the doubt on the anti-abortion, Straight Pride and MGTOW crap); that's plenty of social conservative baggage just in the first ten months. Will the Libs who hate JT pick him over Singh just for a "develop or else" platform? Probably not.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I think the approaches by the federal CPC mentioned in that bit on their website is vastly different than what is in the provincial NDPs Housing Act. The Province isn't:
1) threatening to fire various levels of planning staff in cities (the fire the gatekeepers part)
2) the don't have a snitch line
3) they're being less confrontational and more pragmatic by allowing cities to re-examine their OCPs on their own and present to the Province at a later date (respecting local voices, voters, representatives, and jurisdiction).
4) withholding infrastructure spending if starts are under 15% each year, most of which was needed over 10 years ago, like transit. 2021 had roughly the same starts as 2022 and the way financing is going it ain't looking so hot. Do the feds withhold infrastructure funding due to economic realities? Does this delay say SkyTrain to the North Shore which was needed decades ago because we aren't building enough housing now?
5) they have not indicated they will play favorites with infrastructure spending like the CPC has. If a city has been begging the feds for transit money for 15 years and their growth is stalling due to high levels of congestion... do you keep withholding their funding?

I'd rather see the feds push all provinces to do what BC is doing.

Yes, the Tory "plan" is full of childish political rhetoric that they couldn't, or wouldn't, do if they won. Welcome to politics. But the end message is the same as the BC NDP, essentially: We know better than those democratically elected municipal politicians we think are beholden to NIMBYs". Silly, when of course municipal politicians are beholden to those who elected them, just as provincial and federal politicians are. It is a troubling attitude when municipal politics are the most grassroots, with better access to elected representatives than senior levels of gov't.

Of course, the other silly part of the BC NDP and Tory strategy is illustrated by this headline today (yes I know it is Toronto but it is the same everywhere):

Toronto-area home building shifts into low gear as developers pause or cancel projects
SHANE DINGMAN REAL ESTATE REPORTER
TORONTO
PUBLISHED 10 HOURS AGO

Toronto-area homebuilders say a perfect storm of factors has more real estate developers pausing or cancelling new projects, even as the province touts new plans to achieve its ambitious goal of building 1.5 million new homes by 2031.

“If you’re a builder and you have a building permit, that doesn’t say you have to build,” said Richard Lyall, president of the Residential Construction Council of Ontario (RESCON). “We have builders that have land, they could build, but they are not going to cut prices to hit their market. They can sit back on the land and wait until things settle down and become a little more predictable.”

That mirrors sentiments measured by the Canadian Home Builders’ Association (CHBA), which surveys homebuilders to produce a quarterly report called the Housing Marketing Index (HMI). On Aug. 9, the CHBA’s second quarter HMI report found 22 per cent of builders were cancelling construction plans, while 67 per cent said they were building fewer units.

Experts close to the industry say the confluence of rising costs and demand weakened by successive interest rate hikes by the Bank of Canada has knocked the starch out of the industry...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real...pers-pause-or/

Developers are businesses. They can't just be ordered to build if they don't see a decent return on the project.

[Migrant_Coconut]

That's why everybody wants Ottawa to waive GST on market rentals, among other things.

Originally Posted by whatnext

... But the end message is the same as the BC NDP, essentially: We know better than those democratically elected municipal politicians we think are beholden to NIMBYs". Silly, when of course municipal politicians are beholden to those who elected them, just as provincial and federal politicians are. It is a troubling attitude when municipal politics are the most grassroots, with better access to elected representatives than senior levels of gov't.

Which is why the NDP is offering to work with those elected municipal governments instead, and only against them as an ultra-last resort. The only source saying that it's the first resort is the Liberal United opposition that caused the housing crisis in the first place (either on purpose or through negligence, take your pick).

The CPC's plan is to work against them as the only resort. That's the difference.