What is affordable? Housing taskforce to reconsider definition

Summer Stevenson wants to redefine affordable housing — based on what people can actually afford.

Project manager for the city’s housing accelerator fund program — an initiative aimed at building over 1,600 new units in Thunder Bay by February 2027 — Stevenson is proposing changes to the definition of “affordable” housing, as it relates to a specific funding stream.

The affordable rental housing fund is available to not-for-profits to create affordable housing for low-to-moderate income households.

Right now, the program is using a definition of “affordable” that is based on the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s average market rent, said Stevenson. Affordable, she said, currently means a unit that is no more than 80 per cent of the cost of the city’s average market rent for the same type of space.

The proposed change would effectively do away with that definition, for the affordable rental housing fund’s purposes, replacing it with one that uses gross annual household income — specifically that an affordable unit is one that costs (including rent and utilities) 30 per cent or less of one’s household income.

“We know that rents are increasing at a higher rate than salaries are,” Stevenson said.

“If we look at that year over year, if rents continue to increase and we don’t do the same thing with rent or household incomes, we’re going to meet a point where 80 per cent of average market rent really doesn’t mean affordable.”

The Mayor’s Taskforce on Building More Homes advisory committee is scheduled to receive Stevenson’s report on Wednesday.

Of the 1,600 new units the city aims to build, just over 20.5 per cent of them have to be considered affordable, according to the report. The proposed 30-per-cent-of- income-or-less definition would apply to units for renters with low to moderate incomes only — low incomes are those between $19,000 and $35,300 per year, and moderate incomes are $44,000 to $64,700 per year — all in 2023 dollars, Stevenson said.

If the change is adopted, it would effectively mean in order to qualify for the affordable rental housing fund, a not-for-profit organization would have to ensure that any build would have at least 30 per cent of its units be “affordable” under the new definition, Stevenson said.

The fund’s first intake window using the 80-per-cent-of-the-market-rate criteria ran during June and July 2024, Stevenson said, and the city awarded funding to six projects.

“These changes are recommended now because we need to ensure that we’re continuing to meet the needs of low-and-moderate-income households in Thunder Bay,” Stevenson said, adding that the city is also working on a housing needs assessment, which is a requirement of the housing accelerator fund and potential future federal funding streams.

“When you start to add all of these different variables, something like average market rent makes that really, really complicated,” she continued.

“Because we’re just looking at whatever the market is saying, which we know … really since the pandemic is that we’ve been seeing this huge increase in rents, year over year, that really isn’t being matched at the household income level.”

The proposed changes — using household income to define affordable — means using metrics that are more “futureproof,” Stevenson said.

The mayor’s taskforce committee is scheduled to discuss the proposed changes this week. If the members agree to the recommendation, that will go into a report reviewing the overall affordable rental housing funding program, Stevenson said.

That report, she added, is scheduled to be submitted to committee of the whole in June; that’s when Stevenson said she expects council to deliberate any proposed changes.

“I think it’s really important … for everyone to think about what more affordable housing might mean for both their friends, their family and their community,” she said.

“It’s really important that we expand that definition, and we think about that 30 per cent of our gross household income because it’s important that everybody across all income spectrums has a safe and affordable place to live.” – tbnewswatch.com

article website here

What exactly is ‘affordable’ housing?  This is the question I have been asking for quite a while.  We need more ‘affordable’ housing is the mantra being chanted by politicians near and far.  A song being sung by  local taxpayer funded NGOs .

But what is ‘affordable’.  Affordable for who?   Affordable for taxpayers?   Of course not. Taxpayers have an infinite amount of cash.  At least that is how governments see the working class.

Nope, affordable’ for the renters. Our city wants to define the term ‘affordable’ when it comes to housing as rent costing no more than 30% of income.  This is much lower than the Canada Mortgage and Housing  Corporation’s definition of rent not being more than 80% of income.  Quite a difference.  The difference is going to be covered by the taxpayers.  Hurrah!

What I see here is an apartment complex or apartment complexes where renters are paying different rates for identical apartments. The more you make, the more you pay.  If your income is zero, then as I  I understand it,  your rent would be zero.  The lower your income, the lower your rent payment.  Wonderful.

I can see a problem here.  The same problem that I saw with Universal Income. A distinct disincentive to earn money.  A distinct incentive to earn more money.   Why look for a higher paying job when it will mean that your rent payments will go up?  In fact, why work at all?

Why would people want to pay $2000 a  month for an apartment when there are apartments available for almost free? Or even free?   With food, clothing , apartment and other necessities of life being provided for free, a person can live a comfortable life doing nothing.  Life is good.

What are the taxpayers getting in return for this ‘affordable’ housing? As it is right now, nothing.  Nada. Zip. Zero.

Quid Quo Pro.  Something for something.  Taxpayers should benefit as well for the millions of tax dollars that they will be required to pay for the ‘affordable’ housing program.

I believe that there needs to be strings attached. In exchange for the apartment, clothes, food etc, the person must agree to make a concerted effort to improve their life.  Addicts need to enroll in  mandatory programs.  All people need to enroll into  occupation training programs. Failure to take any of these programs seriously will result in eviction.  Its a hand up not a hand out.  No free rides.

A person who depends on the generosity of strangers for their very survival should not be better off than the working person.