Choice is at the core of housing equity

Focusing on diversity increases the options, and shouldn’t that be the end result?

I’ve written before about my house. I bought it as a fixer-upper and I’ve been working at just that for the last 15 years. Now, I have specific desires and dreams, but very little money so it’s a good thing I’m a patient person. But I knew when I bought it that it would probably take up every penny of my disposable income for the rest of my life.

There’s always something to work on: some of the walls are cracked and the plaster is falling out; the bathroom needs a complete overhaul; the floors need replacing; but there’s a new roof in the making. I could go on and on. And on.

Back when I bought my house, if I wanted into the housing market, a fixer-upper was my only option. As a single-income family, options were limited. I think I got a great deal with my location, location, location, and I can only imagine how much it’s increased in price over the last five years. And boy, do I like imagining it. It does, however, leave me house rich, but cash poor.

So I can relate to the position that we find ourselves in regarding the maintenance of our affordable housing stock. CityHousing Hamilton alone has 150 units that are vacant because of needed repairs and estimates the housing repair backlog bill at $100 million. Tackled piecemeal with $8 million a year, it will take some time to bring everything up to standard.

And it’s not just the CityHousing Hamilton stock, either.

Kiwanis Homes recently approached the City of Hamilton for help in administering a program that would see its affordable housing stock of 260 units sold to fund the construction of 1,000 new units. Those units wouldn’t be the same as the single-family, duplex or triplex homes they now are. But the new owners would hopefully be the old renters, and home ownership is a Canadian dream, right?

Within a kilometre of the proposed LRT, the houses are ripe for the picking, perhaps even overly ripe, as another reason for the sale is the repair and maintenance bill facing these 25-plus year-old houses, which require significant renovations. Kiwanis pegs it at three times greater than their capital reserves. I’m guessing that’s a pretty big number.

It’s an interesting proposal and one that I would jump at as a way to enter the housing market myself — if the conditions were right. They sound like fixer-uppers to me, and I don’t mind living in chaos and confusion with everything covered in sawdust. But I’ve learned it probably wasn’t the best environment for my kids to live in, they were my dreams after all, not theirs. They just wanted a bit of paint and plaster; I wanted restored woodwork and new walls. I’m fortunate they still talk to me.

After 25 years there will be a number of issues from the roof to the basement that will need fixing, and those repairs will be costly. Who will pick up the cost? Will the houses be discounted to account for the needed repairs? Even then, with the hot Hamilton housing market, will fair market value still force the current renters out in the cold even if discounted for repairs? With home ownership, comes home maintenance. Is it a cost the current renters can afford or even want to take on? Is this just off-loading the problem and at a profit to boot?

The lure, of course, is the 1,000 new units the profits could build. I’m guessing those units will be on the higher-density side and not the single-family, duplex or triplex homes currently in stock.

The current discussion around inclusive zoning focuses on opening up new developments to mixed-income occupants, and is underpinned by evidence that supports the integration of all income levels contributes to a more equitable community.

Is this not further marginalization and isolation of lower-income families in highdensity complexes? How inclusive is that?

Which is why diversity in the affordable housing stock is so important to maintain. If it’s housing equity that we’re trying to achieve, then there must be options for all kinds of housing stock from single-family to high-density dwellings. That’s not going to happen if we dump the single-family, duplex and triplex dwellings.

I’m a big supporter of high-density living, for those who like that lifestyle. I like living closer to the ground myself. It’s a quality-oflife issue, housing. Fortunately, I’ve also had choices, I could stay or I could go. Choices increase with income. Those with little income, have little choice. Focusing on diversity increases choice and shouldn’t that be the end result?