The problem with affordable housing is that nobody seems to know what it is.
I’m not saying the City hasn’t been working on housing. Look at the Attainable Housing Project Summary Report, published in May of 2023. That took some time to be acted on, but it led to the Stratford/Perth County Housing Symposium last year, the Housing Needs Assessment, published this March, and to the creation of a Community Improvement Plan, which is under way right now.
You may think all this is taking too long, but that’s committee work for you. It seems to me, though, that we could work faster and better if we could all get together on terminology. Let me give you an example of what I mean, taken from the September 15 public meeting, which began with investStratford’s presentation of plans for a “tax increment equivalency grant” (a 10-year tax break for building owners that decreases over time):
For the purposes today of our conversation we’re receiving feedback about, affordable is being defined as rent that is no greater than 80% of the average market rent, and the program is proposed to be only for tenants dealing at arms length with the landlord.
For residential units of ownership, or residential units not intended for use as a rented residential premise shall be an affordable residential unit if it meets the criteria of no greater than 80% of the average purchase. For clarity, the average of the region. (view at 9:30)
As Jason Davis later pointed out, Stratford is obliged to follow our Official Plan in framing housing policy, according to Ontario Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. The Planning Act mandates that each municipality’s Official Plan set out policies and measures to ensure the adequate provision of affordable housing and all municipal land use and development activities must conform to the Official Plan. That plan is quite clear on the importance of affordable housing (Official Plan, 3.2.4) and gives a clear definition of affordability at page 133. In the case of both ownership and rentals, the lower of two options was to be taken, either 30% of gross income, or a price calculated on average market value.
If someone’s income was high enough that 80% of market was the lower amount that you would be paying, that’s what affordable was. You don’t get to pick and choose one or the other. You need both, and it’s lesser than.
That’s in the Official Plan, that’s what we should be using. The removal of ties to income puts affordable out reach for many individuals and families. Market fluctuation and inflation is not representative of the income or needs of the populace.
Mike Sullivan agrees that not linking rent expenditure to income is a dangerous error.
The current, as of last October, CMHC survey of average rents was at $1,591 for a two bedroom apartment in Stratford …. That’s gone up 40% in three years. So the average rent, of which we’re now aiming at 80% of, has actually gone up by 40% in the last three years, so 80% brings that down—not very far.
If someone in Stratford wants to be considered under a current average market rent in Stratford as affordable, they need an income of $63,000. So that $1,591 for a two bedroom apartment is affordable to someone making $63,000. If you lower it to 80% of that market, so, 1,200 something per year, you still need an income of $50,000.
And I didn’t know we were aiming as the definition of affordable, that people of incomes of $50,000 are what the city of Stratford considers affordable. There aren’t very many single moms out there making 50 grand. But maybe that’s really what we’re doing here. I don’t know.
Ken Wood has the last word, and his point is very simple.
You can make a decision that’s basically for the people of this city, and basically say “who are we trying to help, and who is most in need?”
And I would suggest it’s the people who are really on low income. And statistics and studies and everything else that you do will drive you in a direction, and if you get too close — forest for the trees — you start looking at provincial legislation, you start hearing from people giving you advice, whether they’re on staff and they’re giving you their best advice of the moment based on the latest provincial statements and such. They’re trying to help you make this decision, but don’t get swayed in the wrong direction. Please help the people in this city.
We really can’t argue sensibly about affordable/attainable housing until we know what those words really mean. We can’t expect the general public to become meaningfully involved in housing issues if they don’t understand what these words mean. The City must come out clearly and forcefully on the difference between affordable and attainable housing, enshrine the definitions in our new Official Plan, and explain clearly how they will be used to make policy.
My mother always said that when it comes to housecleaning, you should do the “Worst First.” I think she was right. Let’s be precise in our language, and establish guidelines to help find the people who are most in need.
by Sharon Collingwood
