Canadians are desperate for an adult in the room as the housing crisis drags on.
Recently, conversations turned to who is responsible for the current state of affairs. It brings to mind the story about four people named everybody, somebody, anybody and nobody. The word play goes something like: a big important job was at hand. Everybody was sure somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that inaction because it was everybody’s job.
Watching the leader of the opposition Pierre Poilievre go after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was a bit much to swallow. The fact of the matter is successive governments have failed to encourage private investment and have themselves been unwilling to step up and build public housing.
While the concept of home ownership is certainly something worth striving for, it has to be acknowledged that a segment of society will never attain that milestone.
Ownership demands the financial wherewithal to afford a down payment and payments. It also demands the ability to pay monthly expenses, whether that entails routine maintenance, property taxes or utilities. In the case of those with challenges that limit their ability to work, or for those employed at lower-wage workplaces, rental housing is their only option.
The post-pandemic economic climate, after rounds of borrowing and super-low interest rates, is such that prices for land and homes has risen astronomically, rents have in many cases increased to a point of unaffordability and accelerated immigration has put a crimp on housing stock.
Add properties withdrawn from the market to feed tourism needs or off-shore investments, sometimes under dubious circumstances, and the market is out of sorts. It has become unnatural.
Although the free market tends to correct pricing over time, this correction is months, if not years, away. For those who took the plunge in recent years and bought their first home, a drop in prices could very well put their equity underwater. That is a tragedy in and of itself.
At the provincial level, the housing file has been equally uninspiring. Tools that may help municipalities insist on new development incorporating a rental component haven’t been given their full due. Instead, larger big-city developers have relied on cookie-cutter housing to maximize corporate returns. We hazard to guess if shown the way and directed to incorporate multi-unit residential structures, private planners and engineers could accommodate such a vision and still make money.
Walking away from Greenbelt commitments as the Ford Conservatives have, is not a responsible approach to building more homes. If we get more of the same, without adequate rental components it is a case of the same old, same old. How is that working for segments of the population that cannot afford market rate housing?
Municipalities are not blameless in this exercise either. Punitive regulations and reactive versus pro-active planning stances have stymied affordable options. There is some movement on this front and although the County of Wellington has been more engaged on housing needs than many, we have local politicians who find it difficult to make decisions and others yet with limited financial experience who struggle to see their role in making projects happen.
The enthusiasm in recent years around tiny homes and modified shipping containers seems a half-measure that bodes watching. Yes, it provides a degree of independence and short-term costs can be appealing, but thinking in a bigger picture sense, the infrastructure requirements make a permanent housing strategy wiser in the long run.
It is time for each level of government to work with a common goal in mind: that people regardless of social status should have access to safe, secure housing.
