David Eby is willing to point the finger at 2000s BC Liberals for causing the housing crisis by divesting from housing. So why isn't actively building housing his top priority?
I suspect the public housing build out is coming with the budget. We're seeing hints at that already (the Port Moody project, TransLink's property acquisition fund) but it definitely needs to be big. We'll probably be disappointed but Eby & Kahlon have talked positively of Vienna & Singapore.
You're dead on with the tenant protections though. It's something we should expect every municipality to enact (especially the ones whinging right now about having to change how they work) but the province could've made this its priority.
I would say from the left perspective the short term rental restrictions and the simplified development levies are pretty defensible. The former for obvious reasons. The latter eliminates most of the backroom dealing that turns local government into a slimy used car salesman.
Overall, I'm glad they government is at least willing to put far more attention into this file than we've seen in a long time but there's so much more to do. It's also frustrating they're taking the strategist approach of only doing one thing at a time.
i understand they have Alex Hemingway on as an advisor, so i really hope they take his approach re: financing public housing by mixing in all income levels: https://www.policynote.ca/financing-public-housing/
it would be a way to build housing at a level that's actually needed
What I can see has formed part of the strategy was giving TransLink the power to develop housing near SkyTrain stations, then giving them money to buy up land and now upzoning that land. That will start to pay off in announcements next year.
I know they've also done an audit of publicly owned land with an eye to develop it and criticized Poilievre for talking about selling off public land for housing (rather than just developing it directly).
There's still lots to criticize in the meantime, like the alternative sheltering definition. Or that they continue to turn a cold shoulder to the 6 people dying every day of unregulated drugs.
I don't think the blanket upzoning is without criticism, though. It's beyond bizarre for the province to leave tenant protections up to the cities. They could literally just *do their jobs* to ensure not only are displaced tenants protected, but also the relative affordability of older buildings and the heritage of places like Chinatown. (Edit: I'd mentioned the cities' powers to enact tenant protections being tied to zoning, but I literally just heard back from the City of Burnaby, and it sounds like they've been assured they'll have that power without zoning amendments. Unclear how that'll work without legislative changes (***which they could just use to do the tenant protections province wide***) but I guess we'll see.)
Developers aren't building for affordability. They won't solve the problem they benefit from.
In any case, I am looking forward to seeing what they come up with for public housing plan, but I'm pretty anxious, given their track record on other issues, that it'll be another half-measure that they talk up as if it's Vienna, and in the process diminish people's view of public housing, potentially making the problem even worse in the long run.
Thanks for the shout out!
I suspect the public housing build out is coming with the budget. We're seeing hints at that already (the Port Moody project, TransLink's property acquisition fund) but it definitely needs to be big. We'll probably be disappointed but Eby & Kahlon have talked positively of Vienna & Singapore.
You're dead on with the tenant protections though. It's something we should expect every municipality to enact (especially the ones whinging right now about having to change how they work) but the province could've made this its priority.
I would say from the left perspective the short term rental restrictions and the simplified development levies are pretty defensible. The former for obvious reasons. The latter eliminates most of the backroom dealing that turns local government into a slimy used car salesman.
Overall, I'm glad they government is at least willing to put far more attention into this file than we've seen in a long time but there's so much more to do. It's also frustrating they're taking the strategist approach of only doing one thing at a time.
i understand they have Alex Hemingway on as an advisor, so i really hope they take his approach re: financing public housing by mixing in all income levels: https://www.policynote.ca/financing-public-housing/
it would be a way to build housing at a level that's actually needed
Absolutely!
What I can see has formed part of the strategy was giving TransLink the power to develop housing near SkyTrain stations, then giving them money to buy up land and now upzoning that land. That will start to pay off in announcements next year.
I know they've also done an audit of publicly owned land with an eye to develop it and criticized Poilievre for talking about selling off public land for housing (rather than just developing it directly).
There's still lots to criticize in the meantime, like the alternative sheltering definition. Or that they continue to turn a cold shoulder to the 6 people dying every day of unregulated drugs.
I don't think the blanket upzoning is without criticism, though. It's beyond bizarre for the province to leave tenant protections up to the cities. They could literally just *do their jobs* to ensure not only are displaced tenants protected, but also the relative affordability of older buildings and the heritage of places like Chinatown. (Edit: I'd mentioned the cities' powers to enact tenant protections being tied to zoning, but I literally just heard back from the City of Burnaby, and it sounds like they've been assured they'll have that power without zoning amendments. Unclear how that'll work without legislative changes (***which they could just use to do the tenant protections province wide***) but I guess we'll see.)
Developers aren't building for affordability. They won't solve the problem they benefit from.
In any case, I am looking forward to seeing what they come up with for public housing plan, but I'm pretty anxious, given their track record on other issues, that it'll be another half-measure that they talk up as if it's Vienna, and in the process diminish people's view of public housing, potentially making the problem even worse in the long run.