3488 replies to this topic

[Victoria Watcher]

I'm shocked. You mean just throwing (a lot of) money at the issue didn't miraculously make the housing appear? It's almost as if these announcements are made more for political gain than any practical purpose.

 

I do not quite understand why these projects (most projects, really, profit or NP) have to be individually designed.  Can't we take off-the-shelf designs?

[Victoria Watcher]

Comment: B.C.'s new 'rental' fund might actually reduce rentals

 

The new Rental Protection Fund won’t address the issue at the root of B.C.’s rental woes — a severe imbalance between the number of renters and the availability of units to rent — and may actually make things worse.

 

https://www.timescol...rentals-6455431

 

 

 

Again, the rental fund won’t do anything to increase the supply of rental housing or any other kind of housing for that matter. It will simply move housing units out of the private market and into the non-profit sector.

 

That might sound appealing to some, but here’s the problem — the non-profit sector doesn’t have the same access to capital as businesses and entrepreneurs, so non-profits aren’t as well-positioned to upgrade and expand existing properties.

 

Consequently, after a non-profit purchases an existing building with money from the government’s new fund, it may not be able to redevelop that building and add more units. This unintended consequence could perversely result in fewer units being built than would be the case absent this latest government intervention.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 30 January 2023 - 10:17 AM.

[Mike K.]

It just numbers, people.

While we’re arguing about private or non-profit housing, BC’s population is growing by record numbers of people outpacing the ability to supply sufficient numbers of housing. Not private industry nor public housing can solve this issue if the population grows faster than all hands on deck can support.

Curiously, the planned 1,500-units of apartments by Starlight will give us a glimpse into just how pro-housing the current Victoria council is. They ran on getting MMHI approved, but will they approve 1,500 new units that require no displacement to be built? We’ll see in under two weeks.

[Victoria Watcher]

It's too bad we can't find an area of town to really put some high-density housing.  Near transit and walking distance to shopping and downtown.  Where there would be next to no neighbour push-back.

 

 

 

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 30 January 2023 - 10:38 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

Victoria councillors hoping city can expedite zero-carbon mandate for new buildings

 

All new structures currently must not produce any greenhouse gases by July 2025

 

 

 

When B.C.’s capital city mandated that all new buildings couldn’t produce any greenhouse gases as of July 2025, Victoria touted itself as a leader for bringing in the requirement five years ahead of the province’s timeline.

 

Half a year later and with a new set of councillors, the city could accelerate the already expedited timeline.

 

 

 

 

https://www.vicnews....-new-buildings/

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 17 February 2023 - 04:20 PM.

[dasmo]

Because that will help affordability..... 

 

F**k these people and their mandates. I don't know a more elegant way to put it anymore. 

[Nparker]

This is what happens when ideology trumps intelligence.

[Barrrister]

This is what happens when people dont vote or organize ahead for the next election.

[Matt R.]

Think of all the hot air that would be saved with amalgamation… 12 fewer councils worth of mouth breathing.

[Nparker]

This is what happens when people don't vote or organize ahead for the next election.

I voted and still got stuck with this ****show.

[dasmo]

I voted and still got stuck with this ****show.

The people spoke. All 1500 of them.

[LJ]

Apparently every city has an affordable home crisis...

 

https://www.azcentra...ts/69848898007/

[Sparky]

^ Paywall.

[LJ]

^That's too bad, it was a good article.

 

I don't know how to source it elsewhere.

[Mike K.]

Today a majority of the #CRD board voted to remove a $3.6 million investment in Land Banking & Affordable Housing from the budget.

We won’t have capital for net new housing initiatives in 2023 as a result of this decision.

This impacts our ability to seize housing opportunities

https://twitter.com/...LNt72cvXf0yWpgg

Asked who voted against this:

Myself [Saanich], Brent [not sure who that is], Coleman [Victoria], Murdock [Saanich], Thompson [Victoria], Plant [Saanich], Caradonna [Victoria], Brice [Saanich], Alto [Victoria], (not sure I missed someone, but don’t think I did)

[lanforod]

So our tax increase from the CRD will be lower?

[Sparky]

^That's too bad, it was a good article.

I don't know how to source it elsewhere.

Who was the author?

[LJ]

Who was the author?

Why solutions for Arizona's housing shortage are facing fights

Catherine Reagor

Arizona Republic

 

Hear this story

View Comments

Leer en español

Arizona’s housing shortage is straining many renters’ budgets and forcing too many out of their homes.

The state’s population has grown faster than the construction of homes and apartments since the Great Recession, and the resulting shortage pushed up home prices and rents.

Arizona needs at least 270,000 additional homes, and many of them need to be affordable for people making minimum wage.

Burdensome zoning and other regulatory issues are big and costly reasons for not enough rental homes, particularly affordable ones, getting built.

A rapidly rising wave of not-in-my-backyard-ism that has led to packed neighborhood meetings with angry residents putting city council members on the hot seat is another big reason.

As the problem drags out, building and land costs are climbing, making much-needed housing even tougher to build.

 

 

 

A group of legislators, other government officials and housing experts are proposing some potential solutions to the widespread problem after meeting for six months last year.

Many of the recommendations, including allowing cities and counties to require developers to include some affordable housing in housing projects, require legislation and other big lifts.  

 

Housing takes too long to build, according to Sen. Steve Kaiser, R-Phoenix, who was co-chair of the Housing Supply Study Committee created last year. The committee found in many cases it’s taking at least two years for apartments to be planned and built.

Kaiser introduced a bill last week that would limit some of what municipalities can require from developers, expedite the planning and development process and potentially compensate developers who lose money on projects that stall to spur more housing to go up faster.

The bill passed Wednesday, Feb. 8, through the Senate Commerce Committee, which Kaiser chairs.

But the legislation drew criticism at the hearing from some housing advocates and committee members who said it doesn’t specifically address affordable housing.

 

More:Affordable housing project causes controversy in Chandler. What's true?

Many Arizonans are stretched to afford a home

Almost 520,000 metro Phoenix residents are paying more for housing than they can afford, according to the Maricopa Association of Governments.

Arizona's homeless population increased by 23% between 2020 and 2022.

“We need to make progress on the state’s housing problems right away,” said Joan Serviss, director of the Arizona Housing Department, who was on the housing supply committee too. “We need more resources for housing and the unhoused fast.”

 

Critics say housing legislation is not focused on affordability

Kaiser’s bill calls for:

• Allowing single-room rentals so more people can rent a room in a house, which could specifically help seniors with fixed incomes facing homelessness, said Kaiser.
• Reducing design review requirements from municipalities.
• Building more accessory dwelling units, which are secondary, smaller and less expensive homes on residential lots. These currently are tough to build and require special zoning in many communities.
• Developing homes on smaller lots and building more townhomes and fourplexes, all of which are tougher to get zoning for now.
• Adding manufactured homes in neighborhoods as long as their values are in line with other houses in the area.
• Providing “at-risk” permits that would allow builders to keep developing infrastructure for apartments and homes on conditional zoning approval, so the process isn’t as slow and costly.
• Allowing multifamily development on commercially zoned land within two miles of light rail.

 

The bill doesn’t include inclusionary zoning, which allows municipalities to require a certain amount of affordable housing in a residential project.  

Tempe Mayor Corey Woods, who was on the housing supply committee, is against the legislation. He said it doesn’t address enough of the group’s recommendations.

“Building more housing doesn’t guarantee affordable homes,” he said. “We need development that requires affordable housing.”

He pointed out Arizona is one of a few states that ban inclusionary zoning and rent control.

 

Other proposals from the housing supply committee to help ease Arizona’s housing crisis include increasing the amount of money going to the state’s housing trust fund, something Gov. Katie Hobbs supports, as does Kaiser’s bill.

Another recommendation is reviving a statewide government agency group on housing and homelessness, which is already in the works.

Both the study committee and Kaiser’s legislation call for bigger Arizona cities to create a report on available housing and population growth to track housing shortages.

Permanent campers:Rising rents are pushing people to live on public lands

Not addressing housing problems will hurt the economy

Economic development experts say Arizona’s housing shortage and high housing costs are already deterring some businesses from locating here.

A group of real estate and other business leaders formed a housing advocacy group called Home Arizona in late 2021 to encourage policymakers to study the shortage and potential solutions before it becomes a bigger problem for growth.

Due to rising housing costs, the typical restaurant or retail worker couldn’t afford a one-bedroom apartment in metro Phoenix’s 11 biggest municipalities in 2022, according to research on wages and rents economist Elliott Pollack did for Home Arizona.

 

A home is considered affordable if it doesn’t cost more than 30% of a household’s annual income.

Elementary school teachers and construction workers making around $50,000 can only afford one-bedroom apartments in Phoenix and Glendale. Firefighters can afford one-bedroom rentals in four Valley cities.

Apartments to be first phase of Christown shopping center redevelopmentMaricopa County inspectors cite Mesa, Phoenix restaurantsAPS customers may see another bill increase. Here's whyWhy the Taylor Swift tour is a big deal for Glendale

None of the essential workers tracked in the survey, including nurses and police officers, can afford to buy a typical Valley house.

Michael Lieb, a real estate broker and developer who co-founded Home Arizona, said not-in-my-backyard attitudes need to be addressed now, or Arizona’s economy will suffer.  

“Most neighborhood residents will agree there’s a need for more apartments and other housing, just not within close proximity of their neighborhoods,” he said. “We need to get elected officials to stop listening to the vocal minority in many cases and do what’s best for cities' long-term needs and approve more housing of all types.”

NIMBYism has never been as divisive in Arizona, and projects that meet a municipality's zoning and planning requirements can still get voted down.

“Fixing Arizona’s housing shortage is a big lift, and I am afraid the political will is not there,” said César Chávez, a former Phoenix state representative who co-chaired the housing supply committee. “It’s a polarizing conversation.”

He's now a partner with the lobbying firm Oracle Strategies and said legislators trying to tackle the issue and go against neighbors fighting housing developments should “expect to lose their next election.”

 

Reach the reporter at catherine.reagor@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8040.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by LJ, 16 March 2023 - 07:26 PM.

[Sparky]

^ Thanks LJ. One could re-write that article and replace Phoenix with Victoria and the same problems would apply (like you said),

 

On the supply and demand topic, I can't help but feeling that areas that are experiencing a high degree of migration are facing the brunt of this problem. The more an area is deemed desirable because of it's lifestyle perks...the greater the problem. (enjoyable weather and lifestyle has now become more important than enjoyable employment) 

 

Personally i feel that 15 minute crowd are not helping the situation. Satellite communities located 10-30 miles outside a major center could be one of the solutions, but the likes of Gretta probably would disagree. They would rather dismantle what has been in the past... a desirable staple (single family housing) and replace that with a more communal living arrangement (multi unit housing). Who doesn't want to live in one of those?

 

The fact is us boomers are experiencing a beat down that will see the way of life that we have lived disappear....and we are being made to feel guilty about that every day.

 

Oh, I almost forgot...and we are also expected to finance this disappearance in one way or another.

[Victoria Watcher]

Personally i feel that 15 minute crowd are not helping the situation. Satellite communities located 10-30 miles outside a major center could be one of the solutions, but the likes of Gretta probably would disagree. They would rather dismantle what has been in the past... a desirable staple (single family housing) and replace that with a more communal living arrangement (multi unit housing). Who doesn't want to live in one of those?

 

Do we have any space for those satellite communities?

 

 

If you were to bring together 1,000 of the best civil engineers, geographers, other experts and said "OK, find us the best 30 spots below Cumberland to put 30,000-person communities, best for water, sewage, power, other infrastructure and connections and beauty and with the least natural disruption", they'd do it, and British Columbians and Vancouver Islanders would not accept a single one of them.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 17 March 2023 - 04:56 AM.