John Zeger - Council Candidate

[SOMA]

affordable housing is based upon disposable income, so do the math John, unless subsidized affordable housing at today's construction costs is not possible even if the land cost is zero.

[fluffy]

John Z. has long been a proponent of inclusionary housing, where a developer's building proposal must include a given percentage of "affordable" units in the mix or they don't get a permit. I believe that in John's mind the cost of building these units would come out of the developer's pocket money, but in reality their cost would just be distributed among the market value units by way of price increases, in effect having the market value purchasers subsidizing the affordable purchasers.

The question, and it's not an easy one to answer, is what debt of responsibility is there to supply housing at below market value to those who cannot afford the going rate, and who should shoulder this responsibility?

[SOMA]

John Z. has long been a proponent of inclusionary housing, where a developer's building proposal must include a given percentage of "affordable" units in the mix or they don't get a permit. I believe that in John's mind the cost of building these units would come out of the developer's pocket money, but in reality their cost would just be distributed among the market value units by way of price increases, in effect having the market value purchasers subsidizing the affordable purchasers.

The question, and it's not an easy one to answer, is what debt of responsibility is there to supply housing at below market value to those who cannot afford the going rate, and who should shoulder this responsibility?

Well stated. It is the responsibility of the province and city to provide non market units and they would need to bear this cost in their budgets and in their land inventories. The current strategy isn't working since developers can pay cash in lieu of including affordable units inside the project, and if the units are included they typically end up being sold to friends and family of the developer anyway.

[fluffy]

Well stated. It is the responsibility of the province and city to provide non market units and they would need to bear this cost in their budgets and in their land inventories. The current strategy isn't working since developers can pay cash in lieu of including affordable units inside the project, and if the units are included they typically end up being sold to friends and family of the developer anyway.

So in essence, the burden of payment falls to the taxpaying public. I have no real problem with this, as it has long been the way of our country that the "haves" subsidize the "have nots" by way of them bearing a larger tax burden therefore financing a larger share of the public safety net. Inclusionary housing is still an option, provided there could be a way of administering such a program without the chance of preferential treatment for people who are "better connected" than others. Perhaps an increase in development cost charges with the money going into a publicly administered pool which would in turn buy up properties at market value and then resell at a more affordable level to those who qualify on a financial need basis. Resale of these units would have to be closely monitored as well, perhaps a stipulation that once a unit is designated as "affordable housing" it must always remain so, with subsequent sales governed accordingly.

[SOMA]

Well stated. It is the responsibility of the province and city to provide non market units and they would need to bear this cost in their budgets and in their land inventories. The current strategy isn't working since developers can pay cash in lieu of including affordable units inside the project, and if the units are included they typically end up being sold to friends and family of the developer anyway.

So in essence, the burden of payment falls to the taxpaying public. I have no real problem with this, as it has long been the way of our country that the "haves" subsidize the "have nots" by way of them bearing a larger tax burden therefore financing a larger share of the public safety net. Inclusionary housing is still an option, provided there could be a way of administering such a program without the chance of preferential treatment for people who are "better connected" than others. Perhaps an increase in development cost charges with the money going into a publicly administered pool which would in turn buy up properties at market value and then resell at a more affordable level to those who qualify on a financial need basis. Resale of these units would have to be closely monitored as well, perhaps a stipulation that once a unit is designated as "affordable
housing" it must always remain so, with subsequent sales governed accordingly.

Yes but the reality here is twofold, 1 we have affordable housing in this market and it is called a MHP, and 2 the notion of being amble to provide unsubsidized new construction units given current land, servicing, construction costs is mathematically impossible because of wages and disposable income. Somehow we have gotten to a point where the lower income expects to have access to new construction units in one of the most expensive markets in the country; of is just not possible unless it is subsidized by the gov. Raising DCC's to pay for affordable housing just makes prices higher since the developer us just a middleman and the increase is always past onto the buyers.

[fluffy]

]Yes but the reality here is twofold, 1 we have affordable housing in this market and it is called a MHP, and 2 the notion of being amble to provide unsubsidized new construction units given current land, servicing, construction costs is mathematically impossible because of wages and disposable income. Somehow we have gotten to a point where the lower income expects to have access to new construction units in one of the most expensive markets in the country; of is just not possible unless it is subsidized by the gov. Raising DCC's to pay for affordable housing just makes prices higher since the developer us just a middleman and the increase is always past onto the buyers.

This is what I was talking about above, should the social safety net extend so far as to subsidize the purchase of housing for people who couldn't afford it otherwise? I'm kind of torn here, I'm all for helping those in need, but I'm wondering if actually providing home ownership at prices substantially below market value would open a pretty nasty can of worms? Is home ownership a basic right due to all or a privilege due to those who earn it?

[Bsuds]

I could agree to subsidized rental housing but not ownership. I don't think that is fair to those who work hard to purchase their homes.

[SOMA]

]Yes but the reality here is twofold, 1 we have affordable housing in this market and it is called a MHP, and 2 the notion of being amble to provide unsubsidized new construction units given current land, servicing, construction costs is mathematically impossible because of wages and disposable income. Somehow we have gotten to a point where the lower income expects to have access to new construction units in one of the most expensive markets in the country; of is just not possible unless it is subsidized by the gov. Raising DCC's to pay for affordable housing just makes prices higher since the developer us just a middleman and the increase is always past onto the buyers.

This is what I was talking about above, should the social safety net extend so far as to subsidize the purchase of housing for people who couldn't afford it otherwise? I'm kind of torn here, I'm all for helping those in need, but I'm wondering if actually providing home ownership at prices substantially below market value would open a pretty nasty can of worms? Is home ownership a basic right due to all or a privilege due to those who earn it?

It is an earned right, yet every economic engine needs lower wage earners to function and taxpayers are already paying too much so a new housing model solution needs to be designed, one that can accept current land costs and one that is not subsidized.

[CountryAtHeart]

I could agree to subsidized rental housing but not ownership. I don't think that is fair to those who work hard to purchase their homes.

I agree with you. I think the best thing is for the city to own their own places and then rent them out.
When everyday people are working very hard for their home, it isn't really fair for others to get home ownership for cheap just because they make less, however to offer cheaper rent I feel is OK. It is getting harder and harder for a lot of people to make it.
Just when you think, ahh...we are making a little more each month, then you get a big reduction in child tax credits, and then you make just enough that you know longer get GST or these climate credits etc. It seems everytime you take a step forward, you get pushed back three more.

[strikes&gutters]

I also agree with subsidized rentals, not ownership. I guess the way that I see it, subsidized rentals allow those lower-income renters to save money on rent. Those that are determined to own a home will sock those savings away and eventually get there.

If the City wants subsidized ownership, they are going to have to come up with a stricter screening and qualifications process. None of us want to see wealthy people's kids buying up these units (which has been suggested is currently happening)

[SOMA]

I also agree with subsidized rentals, not ownership. I guess the way that I see it, subsidized rentals allow those lower-income renters to save money on rent. Those that are determined to own a home will sock those savings away and eventually get there.

If the City wants subsidized ownership, they are going to have to come up with a stricter screening and qualifications process. None of us want to see wealthy people's kids buying up these units (which has been suggested is currently happening)

Taxpayers are not going to buy into subsidized housing in Kelowna if it means increased taxes. The solution will be up to new housing models and new residential zone bylaws.

[quietlywatching84]

Just some food for thought -

I was reading recently about this problem. A big problem is that for at least the last 50 years or more the 90s we actually had a National Housing Policy run by the federal government that pumped money into all sorts of set-ups (i'd imagine ownership and rental).

Those 90s tax cuts that balanced our budget included the end of that policy. Like MOST things that people complain about the city not doing in Kelowna, these responsibilities were offloaded by the feds but are traditionally National policies.

Unfortunatley, the federal gov't has alot more money, and KEY here, alot more power in taxation, thus they can do alot more nifty stuff (and had for decades) that you wouldn't so much notice on your taxes.

Remember when legal basement suites showed up - that was one of the few "creative" ideas municipalities across Canada figured out to deal with the problem without the federal money.

Unfortunatley, cities are actually gutless one legged forms of government in our constitution compared to every other level, so they really have alot of tied hands and big problems to deal with.

If I were you, I'd go talk to the folks in east-van. They went to the nearest money maker - the provincial gov't, and have alot more money flowing into the area for this problem. They seem to be smarter.

And I agree - Mr. Zeger is incorrect in looking for a solution at the municipal level, he's running in the wrong election (oops!).

[onestop67]

The chances of him being elected are slim to none. And even if he was elected (God forbid) do you think the rest of the council is going to agree with anything he proposes?

While I love a thread that shows reasons why JZ is out of touch with reality and the common person, I think it should be noted that he and his ideals won't be on council unless everyone but him forgets to vote.

[fluffy]

I agree onestop. While I have always had a degree of admiration for his passion towards the causes he champions, his emotional make-up simply would not allow him to function effectively as part of a team. He is far too confrontational.

As for affordable housing, this was once the favorite realm of service clubs like Kiwanis and Rotary and such. Has the run-up in property and construction prices put this out of their reach or is it lack of support from the different levels of government? There used to be a small Kiwanis housing development near the north end of Van Horne St., on a fairly sizable chunk of land. The neighbourhood was already home to a number of high density apartment buildings, so the Kiwanis property was cleared to make way for a higher density project for seniors and people of limited means. I can't remember exactly why it ground to a halt, but I remember hearing that the Kiwanians had decided that they were unable to proceed and were considering selling the property. Anyone rember any details about this one, it was a couple of years back I think.

[quietlywatching84]

The chances of him being elected are slim to none. And even if he was elected (God forbid) do you think the rest of the council is going to agree with anything he proposes?

While I love a thread that shows reasons why JZ is out of touch with reality and the common person, I think it should be noted that he and his ideals won't be on council unless everyone but him forgets to vote.

I agree 100%.

You also can't ignore the fact that petty things like city politics become much more fun to watch when you get a few mixed nuts.

Just imagine if everybody was normal on castanet, this place would suck!