“More houses! More houses!”

By Anne Finlay- Stewart

Let’s say we set out to solve a community transportation problem by wooing a big Mercedes dealership. The town offers to build a road directly to it.  The theory is, if the people who could afford a Mercedes traded in their current Toyotas, Fords and KIAs to buy new cars, there would be such a supply of used vehicles that prices would go down and provide everyone else in town with an affordable car.  

I’ve heard this same logic in council chambers – building more of  “any kind” of housing – is the solution. In fact, the Owen Sound council has approved 3,025 units of future housing, enough for a 30% growth in population, with less than 2% of the units committed to any standard of affordability.  

What is the impact in a community when we turn our attention not only WHAT is built, but to who can afford to live there and WHO does the developing.

Commercial developers build when and what the market dictates.  They may not hold the solution to the affordability crisis because it is simply not in their business plans to lose money.

In large mixed development plans, we’ve seen the $950K+ detached houses – the Mercedes – pre-sold as Phase 1. With originally anticipated completion dates of “mid-2025”,  there is yet to be a shovel in the ground.  Purpose-built rentals, townhouses and 6-plexes are in phases simply labelled “Future”.  

Developers are asking municipalities for extensions for their site plans, originally approved years ago, as they wait for building costs, labour availability, market and commercial lending conditions to improve.

Commercial profit margin of 20% or more puts new builds out of reach of the average family, and we’re now seeing developments with as many as a third of the houses still vacant.  

Complex issues cannot be resolved with simple answers like “more houses”.

The community knows what it needs and it knows what it’s got.  An all-hands-on-deck approach to community engagement allows for innovative plans, partnerships and collaborations that can meet the unique circumstances of a particular community in a way no cookie-cutter development can.

An example. When the CEO of an essential community service like the hospital tells the municipality that its biggest stumbling block to staff recruitment and retention is appropriate housing, they will not be reassured by paper plans and wishful time-lines.  The most urgent need for housing in that community might be for the PSWs, maintenance and dietary staff.  Many communities in Ontario are ramping up the build of non-market affordable development based on local income measures – what affordability means right here.

When commercial developers bring their own labour and purchase materials far outside the community,  no new money or job security accrues to the local economy.  Profit, and the buildings themselves, are private wealth and assets.

In non-market housing, whether co-ops, land trusts, charities or not-for-profits, wealth is retained in community organizations for the long term. The buildings themselves build equity, becoming leverageable community assets.   Private capital from local investors  can provide part of the housing financing, increasing the pool.  Broader public engagement,  opportunities to invest in one’s own neighbours, and a reduction in NIMBYism are other benefits of community-based financing that are well documented.

As economic uncertainty grows, non-market builds can provide work for local tradespeople, keeping them in the community. These are the same tradespeople that everyone depends on to maintain and improve the services in their homes and businesses.

Suppliers, design and construction professionals are also being paid, mitigating some of the boom and bust cycles and keeping money circulating in all the community businesses, services and organizations they use and support.

The housing issues in large cities  get the most ink and airtime, but the rural communities that feed the rest of the province and local economies need appropriate, affordable  housing.  Agricultural workers, visitors, retirees and the rest of us need service workers to be able to live in our communities  to provide for our  needs.  

Just as the agricultural economy in Ontario itself was created co-operatively, using pooled  community wealth, rural housing can be built the same way.