Sicamous’ affordable housing strategy is at worst, a socialist manipulation and, at best, a good guideline but with details yet to be ironed out.
This represents the gamut of responses that came from mayor and council following an in-depth explanation on how and why the strategy came into being, provided by True Consulting’s Jane Mastin at the May 25 committee of the whole meeting.
New residential development coming online is now being impacted by the strategy, adopted by council in 2009. The strategy, according to Mastin, provides tools the district may use to provide developer-driven affordable housing. This could be a lot with house, held at around $190,000 (debt cost – actual cost would be around $211,000), plus about two-per cent annually for inflation. Alternatively, developers in some circumstances may provide cash-in-lieu. This would go into a housing reserve fund for the district to create affordable housing opportunities.
Concessions to the developer would include a waiving of development costs charges, and density bonusing.
Affordable lots would have a district housing agreement registered on the title, ensuring the value remains constant, and the sale of these lots would be restricted to buyers who meet criteria laid out in the strategy (own or employed by local business, with total taxable incomes between $40,000 and $60,000).
The goal behind the strategy’s creation, said Mastin, was to create a diversity of housing to appeal to people in various stages of their lives, from young families to seniors. The strategy was also tailored to meet the needs of employers in the community, particularly houseboat companies, which was experiencing difficulty attracting employees because of the lack of affordable housing.
“And then we started looking at the real estate prices and finding… prices of properties were going up, and these people were effectively going to be priced out of a market, and that was really key to the future of the community, being able to provide housing for them,” said Mastin.
Coun. Don Richardson said he supported the idea behind the strategy, but called it a “socialistic manipulation,” explaining that “affordable” should be based on one’s ability to pay for something.
“When I was a kid, I wanted a new house – I couldn’t afford a new house – you buy a fixer-upper, you live with a bunch of people… ,” said Richardson. “ If I was a developer and you’re going to make me pay up so much to do a job, guess where I’m going – out of here. In the free market system, you’re actually stifling it a bit because you’re putting conditions and parameters…”
In response, Mastin explained the strategy represents the wishes of the community, and that reliance on the free market has created the need for affordable housing.
“Letting the free market system unfold the way it has is problematic, particularly in this community, where it’s an amenity community,” said Mastin. “People are coming here and buying up houses just so they can park their RVs on them for the winter, and those houses are gone from the system.”
Coun. Fred Busch questioned the accuracy of income figures used in the strategy, wanting assurance they don’t just represent single-income households.
“I realize we’re living in a conservative community, in a Conservative riding where women aren’t supposed to go out and leave the home, but that’s not realistic in today’s times,” said Busch. Mastin confirmed the figures represent the median income of households with two or more persons.
Busch also questioned how long a property could be held as part of the affordable housing strategy. Mastin said that she had envisioned them being held in perpetuity, but that ultimately it would be a policy decision of council.
“You are waiving DCCs, you are holding a developer to minimize profits on those parcels, for a public good that has been determined needed in the community,” said Mastin. “I would encourage that you protect that housing as affordable housing for as long as possible. I’m thinking you’re looking at 25 years, 50 years, but maybe you have other factors to consider.”
District administrator Alan Harris noted that one developer, in the process of creating an affordable housing project on land removed from the Agricultural Land Commission for that purpose, has expressed interest in a 10-year housing agreement, while he and staff are angling for more – up to 25 years. But this, said MacLeod, is one of the details that council will have to iron out.
“Hopefully, within the 10 years, there’s more subdivisions coming along and there are more units coming online…,” said MacLeod, commenting on the complexities of the strategy that need to be dealt with. “ I think we’ve done well up to this point and I think… it’s the details at the end of this affordable housing, how it’s going to work, I don’t think we’ve hammered that out.”