Housing plans miss the mark

Toronto has had an affordable housing crisis for decades.

That’s why the city’s homeless shelters are bursting at the seams, the wait-list for social housing runs to the tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of renters struggle to pay their monthly bills as rents rise faster than incomes, particularly for those in low-wage jobs.

But the issue has been getting a lot more attention of late, in part because middle-income households are starting to feel the squeeze.

Even those who have a toe-hold in the condo market or are comfortably living in houses are wondering if their own children will be able to afford to stay in the city.

And businesses are warning that Toronto’s ability to attract workers will suffer because of limited housing options.

The private housing market will not normally produce housing that is affordable to low- and moderate-income earners.

It’s up to the city — and its partners at Queen’s Park and Ottawa — to encourage those outcomes by using all the tools at its disposal, which is everything from land and fees to rent subsidies, and doing more with not-for-profit developers.

Little surprise then that John Tory, who is seeking reelection as mayor, and Jennifer Keesmaat, the leading challenger for the job, have made affordable housing a key focus of their campaigns.

They both say the city needs to do a better job of using what it has control over — land — to get more of the affordable housing that Toronto so desperately needs.

But they should address how their plans will actually work before Torontonians cast their ballots on Oct. 22.

Tory’s plan calls for building 40,000 new affordable rentals over 12 years.

That’s about 3,300 a year — and more than three times what the city has managed to approve, let alone build, during his first term as mayor.

Tory argues that CreateTO, a new entity to manage all the city’s land holdings, will speed up the process of transferring land to developers, which would result in the city being able to ramp up the affordable housing numbers.

And there’s every reason to believe that could be the case.

The far bigger problem is that Tory’s plan badly misses the mark on what affordable means.

Under his plan, units at average market rents are deemed affordable.

So a one-bedroom at $1,202 and a 2-bedroom at $1,426 is called affordable, only it’s not to households that earn less than $50,000 a year. And, over time, rents tied to the market only become less affordable as rents rise annually faster than incomes.

Keesmaat’s plan sets affordability at 80 per cent of market rent, thereby reducing those rents by over $200 a month.

This is better than Tory’s affordability definition, but it still doesn’t come close to providing housing that will “give the 90,000 families on the housing waitlist hope” or “deal with our overcrowded shelters,” as she claims.

And city coffers will never be able to make up that difference with rent subsidies for those at the lowest incomes, which is rightly the responsibility of senior governments.

The other problem is that there is no evidence that simply handing city land over to private developers will be enough to achieve those lower rents, or that the city, not to mention the construction industry, can possibly deliver on her promise of 100,000 units — 10,000 each year for 10 years.

But Keesmaat’s plan to make affordable housing the core mandate of CreateTO and require rents achieved in deals with developers to stay affordable permanently, not just for the 25 years or so that is currently common, is exactly what’s needed.

Tory and Keesmaat both need to be clearer with voters about what “affordable” housing means to them.

That’s because residents have a right to expect that when the city gives away public resources — and that is what providing free land and waiving development charges, fees and property taxes really amounts to — it is driving the outcomes the city needs most.

Increasing affordable housing also requires a series of smaller, less flashy answers. And some of those require leaders with the political will to have honest conversations with this city’s residents about development.

Many people have come around to the idea that urban sprawl, which paves over farmland and leads to ever-increasing commute times, is bad. Fewer people, it seems, are ready to embrace the corollary that density is good — and most especially when it might be coming anywhere near where they live.

And that’s not just NIMBY fights when it comes to a proposed 80-storey tower. It comes in the form of opposition to mid-rise and stacked townhomes. Indeed, in some parts of the city, second suites in detached homes are still too much to bear.

This can’t continue. To create a thriving city that maximizes transit, schools and public spaces, increased density and new affordable housing can’t be relegated to the few sites suitable for massive towers.

It’s welcome that those vying to lead this city are stepping up with affordable housing plans that seek to use the tools they have. But, even if they get those plans right, the city can’t solve this crisis alone.

The next mayor must work just as hard to maximize what Toronto can get under the federal housing program, and find a way to get Ontario to come to the table with additional housing funding as B.C. and Quebec have.

As with most issues in this mayoral campaign, Tory calls his plan “the most workable and most realistic,” and Keesmaat says her plan is “a vision that’s much, much bolder.”

The truth is they both fall short of true affordability, and they should level with voters about what kind of “affordable” housing they intend to produce.

The private housing market will not normally produce housing that is affordable to low- and moderate-income earners