Affordability

[ToddT]

This city's idea of affordability is so messed up. Here is an EXCELLENT editorial from the Herald that proves that point:
http://www.pentictonherald.ca/opinion/l ... ffeb4.html

Here it is:


At the November 3rd City Council Meeting, the last act of this City Council before the Civic election, was to vote in favour of a proposed development and voted against the existing Zoning Bylaws on this City. This City Council voted against the wishes of the neighbours directly affected by this development. The justification for their decision was densification of this City and attracting people to the City with affordable housing.

Some facts on these subjects;

Penticton population growth between 2001 and 2006 was 3%Penticton population growth between 2006 and 2011 was 2.6%Penticton population density is 24.6 – Provincial average density is 18.5Penticton unemployment rate is 7.3 – Provincial average is 5.9Current properties available in Penticton between $350,000 & $450,000 total 46Current properties available in the immediate are of proposed development = 6

with prices between $385,000 & $450,000 with 2 addition properties available at

Marina Way under $400,000 a total of 8 units currently available in the area

Penticton average Family Income is $63,442 – 30% (which is set as ‘affordable’) is $1586\monthMortgage of $400,000 @ 3% is 2218.39\month - $632\month more than what is deemed ‘affordable’Public speakers at the City Council meeting – 8 supporting (2 live in the neighbourhood)

17 opposed (16 live in the neighbourhood)

Over 100 signatures of immediate neighbours (+90%) opposed

Penticton has a declining growth rate. Penticton already has density 50% above the provincial average. Penticton has a greater unemployment rate than the provincial average. Penticton currently has 46 units available in the price range of the development in question. The average Family Income in Penticton is lower than what is considered ‘affordable’ than the asking price of one of the duplexes in this development.

This City Council, all but Councilor Katie Robinson, voted against the neighbours directly affected by the development, voted against the current zoning of the property and voted against the existing Bylaws for Duplex housing.

Property owner beware. The existing bylaws of the City of Penticton mean nothing.

Realtors and developer run this city.

Troy Fader.

[twobits]

Could you please repost that? It is a little confusing. I am honestly not sure what point you are trying to make.

[ToddT]

The editorial is a little confusing. The city has essentially deemed a $400,000 duplex affordable housing.

[twobits]

The editorial is a little confusing. The city has essentially deemed a $400,000 duplex affordable housing.

Where has this selling price of 400k for a 1/2 duplex been verified from? Did the applicant of the rezoning provide that price?

[ToddT]

I have verified it personally from the developer.

It was being marketed as "affordable housing" because they are building new without raising the median home price for the area. I thought it was a slap in the face to those that truly need affordable housing.

I thought the editorial laid out some nice facts that prove $400,000 is nowhere near affordable housing, and that the city approved the development despite the concerns of the neighbourhood, and going against the OCP, is plain ignorant.

[ToddT]

I should add, I am in no way crapping on this development. I think it looks nice, the builder is reputable, and the area needs an upgrade. I just don't like the way it is being marketed. And I especially don't like how the city refused to listen to the neighbourhood.

[fluffy]

I have to wonder just who an "affordable" home is meant to be available to? It might be a little hard-nosed, but should a family with a household income of thirty or forty or even fifty thousand dollars a year be entitled to home ownership in a location where an empty lot is worth a couple of hundred thousand dollars? Are we talking about subsidization?

[ToddT]

Well that's just it Fluffy. Everyone and their dog knows that the Churchill neighbourhood is undergoing a makeover. With its proximity to the lake, and the more modern homes being built it's pretty clear it will be a posh area. Really it already is. I just see it as a slap in the face to market it as "affordable housing." If we're calling it an affordable home in that neighbourhood, are we suggesting that the other homes are not affordable?

There is plenty of discussion on the developer's FB page, and the comments range from "what's affordable to me might not be affordable to you" to "$400,000 is very affordable in a place like Calgary." The entire sentiment of affordable housing is completely lost in these arguments.

[WTTG]

Um--dumb question here (right twobits?)--duplex--400,000 a unit or 400,000 for the whole building?

[ToddT]

per side.

[twobits]

per side.

Todd...you make some valid observations. It is all about the perspective of affordability.....but....

If the current home and lot are going for 400k, then the land based cost per stratified unit is 100k. For a home with this density ratio and an actual patch of your own dirt to plant a garden or put out a patio table set, where are you going to get that any cheaper than 100k? Under the circumstances, and the prime nature of the location....yes.....one could argue it is affordable housing. Is it not after all providing a quality family home for four families in a very nice location rather than just one at the same price point?

Furthermore, the neighbourhood is an old one that has been in transition for a number of years now.....as you point out. While some of the neighbours would prefer to hang onto the notion of one dwelling per lot, it is a nimby attitude in a area of old homes where the direction is densification. People cannot oppose this kind of redevelopment, then lament a stagnant downtown, and with their second breath also cry out about urban sprawl.
I also think the current opponents will in the very near term be quite quiet when they are cashing the cheque that this type of redevelopment will bring them. Shall we then call them "*bleep*" for commanding market price for their land and thus increasing the cost of housing or is that term just reserved for the guy that redevelops the property?

[ToddT]

All great points TwoBits. I am certainly "for" this development. Working in the construction supply industry, it is a breath of fresh air for people like me to see densification, especially in nicer neighbourhoods, because the value of the products used tends to go up. Likewise, with me workign in the industry I should probably just keep my mouth shut, but I'm not a part of the old boys club.

Based on the facts that we know though, maybe a better way to market the home would be as <sarcasm> "the cheapest house on the block." </sarcasm>

Agreed, affordability is all about perspective. So let's just drop the marketing ploy, and call it "economically driven real estate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_housing

[mrmagoo]

They should adjust the ocp to allow duplexes in this area if it does not already imo. There are already a number of them on Churchill and the proximity to the beach and town makes it a desirable area. It is not about the overall demographics/economics of Penticton, it is what each sub-area supports as highest and best use.

If Penticton wants to grow part of its market is going to be people from out of town with summer places like a half-duplex who buy early and retire to it later.

Marketing this as 'affordable housing' is does seem disingenuous.

[glassmaster]

$400,000.00 on Churchill Street could be considered affordable (for the area). If the developer had taken down the original war time house - and replaced it with a brand new single family home - the price would likely be in the $600,000 - $700,000 range. In my humble opinion, this is an ideal area for some density. Although I appreciate the passion of the locals that showed up to try and stop things from changing - their nostalgia did not outweigh the benefits of densification in an area so close to downtown.

[ToddT]

I suppose the term and definition of "affordable housing" is lost in today's world. I agree 100% glassmaster. You must market to the masses.