Homeowner grant tops pork-barrel schemes

Skill-testing question: What’s the difference between a pig and a hog? Answer: Nothing. They’re both examples of barefaced government scams.

Back in the day, Saskatchewan had a Property Improvement Grant. Here in B.C. we have a Home Owner Grant.

But PIG or HOG, it’s all the same thing.

There’s only one purpose, and that’s to bribe recipients to vote for the government.

Think about it. Why does the owner of a house in Victoria, average cost $900,000, need a government handout? How is subsidizing the comfortably off in any sense a legitimate public service?

And let’s be clear which government we’re talking about. You apply for the grant to your local municipality, which gladly lops some money off your property taxes.

But that cash came from the province, which refunds municipalities in full for the grants they disburse. The whole thing is nothing but a votegrubbing money wheel.

And not a small one. It costs the taxpayers of B.C., the vast majority of whom do not own a house, $820 million to finance this chicanery. That’s two-thirds of the entire Fair Pharmacare budget.

Mark Twain once called a gold mine a hole in the ground with a liar on top. Here we have a mountain of gold with a hog wallow on top.

And we’re only halfway up the mountain. At the last provincial election, the NDP promised to introduce a $400-a-year grant for renters (we could call it the Protection of Renters Kickback, or PORK for short).

The math here is a little iffy — there are varying definitions of an apartment — but roughly speaking, we’re talking about an additional $250 million.

Even for Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver, this was too much. He pointed out, displaying a grasp of economics not always visible, that this would merely encourage landlords to up their rents.

Which brings us to the point of this rant. A couple of weeks ago, the province approved an allowable rent increase of 4.5 per cent, the largest since 2004.

This from a government that promised more affordable housing. By contrast, the average increase over the preceding 10 years was 3.2 per cent.

There is some justification for a larger-than-usual lift.

If we want more rental accommodation in centres such as Greater Victoria, and clearly we do, stiffing landlords isn’t the way to accomplish it.

New York City experimented with rent freezes over the years. Predictably, the results were less affordable housing and more gentrification, as financially strapped landlords got out of the market.

However, here is a proposal. In last spring’s provincial budget, Finance Minister Carole James promised $170 million to construct 2,500 new units of supportive housing over the next three years. Her purpose, in part, was to address the growing crisis of homelessness.

If we add together the amount we spend on HOG grants, the $170 million already promised for supportive housing and the estimated amount James might have to pay for rental grants, we get a rough total of $1.24 billion.

None of this — not one cent of it — will reduce homelessness or buy us more rental apartments. As Weaver noted, all it will do is drive up the price of housing.

But if, instead, we spent it on supportive accommodation, rather than 2,500 new units, we could build 18,235 units.

That would put a real dent in homelessness.

If the 10 years since the recession has taught us anything, it is that government is stretched to breaking point. There isn’t enough money even to maintain basic services such as health care at the levels required.

In such an environment, and it isn’t going to improve any time soon, something has to go.

And pork-barrel schemes should be at the top of the list, starting with the piggiest of them all — the HOG grant.