Jump to content

      













Photo

Municipal Candidates’ Affordability Ratings


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 citiesforeveryone

citiesforeveryone
  • Member
  • 5 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 02:37 PM

Affordability is an important issue in the 2018 municipal election. Many voters want guidance to identify candidates who will reflect their values when making decisions that affect affordability.

 

To help voters evaluate candidates’ positions, Cities for Everyone surveyed mayoral and city council candidates in Victoria, Saanich and Oak Bay. Of 93 candidates contacted we received 31 completed surveys. We also analyzed candidates’ websites and interviews, incumbents’ voting records and the quality of their campaign.

 

This analysis found that candidates tend to fall into four general categories:

1. Comprehensive affordability. Supports policies that allow more compact infill in residential neighborhoods to increase low- and moderate-income affordability.

2. Low-income affordability. Focuses on subsidizing and mandating below-market housing to increase affordability for people with low incomes and special housing needs.

3. “Protect neighborhoods.” Opposes neighborhood change and therefore affordable infill.

4. Unconcerned or unclear. Provides little information about their position on affordability.

 

 

The distinction between Comprehensive and Low-income affordability is important because there are often trade-offs between these goals. Some policies intended to increase low-income affordability can reduce middle-income affordability, for example, if inclusionary zoning increases moderate-priced housing costs, or housing demolition prohibitions prevent development of larger buildings. Comprehensive affordability advocates support more development of both low- and moderate priced housing in walkable urban neighborhoods.

 

The table below summarizes the results. It indicates which candidates tend to reflect various affordability priorities. This can help voters choose the candidates who will best represent their priorities. 

 

 

Candidates Categorized by Their Affordability Priorities (www.citiesforeveryone.org)

Municipal Candidates’ Affordability Ratings.png

 

This table summarizes Cities for Everyone’s Candidate Affordability Ratings.

 

 

Both citizens and candidates vary in their affordability priorities. Some favor policies targeted at reducing homelessness and increasing housing for the lowest income households; others want to increase affordable housing and transportation options for both low- and middle-income households; and some are more concerned about preserving single-family housing in residential neighborhoods and so oppose policies that allow more affordable infill. Our Candidates’ Affordability Rating allows voters to identify the candidates who best reflect their values.

 

For more information

“Vote for Affordability! Victoria, Saanich and Oak Bay Candidates’ Affordability Ratings” (http://citiesforever...ity-Ratings.pdf).

Victoria Affordability Backgrounder: Using Urban Economics to Understand Housing Unaffordability Problems and Solutions” (http://citiesforever...2018/09/vab.pdf).

A 1.5% Neighbourhood Solution to Inaffordability (http://citiesforever...2018/07/nas.pdf).


Edited by citiesforeveryone, 06 October 2018 - 02:41 PM.

  • Baro, Jared and nerka like this

#2 SimonH

SimonH
  • Member
  • 488 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 03:08 PM

Affordability is an important issue in the 2018 municipal election. Many voters want guidance to identify candidates who will reflect their values when making decisions that affect affordability.

 

To help voters evaluate candidates’ positions, Cities for Everyone surveyed mayoral and city council candidates in Victoria, Saanich and Oak Bay. Of 93 candidates contacted we received 31 completed surveys. We also analyzed candidates’ websites and interviews, incumbents’ voting records and the quality of their campaign.

 

This analysis found that candidates tend to fall into four general categories:

1. Comprehensive affordability. Supports policies that allow more compact infill in residential neighborhoods to increase low- and moderate-income affordability.

2. Low-income affordability. Focuses on subsidizing and mandating below-market housing to increase affordability for people with low incomes and special housing needs.

3. “Protect neighborhoods.” Opposes neighborhood change and therefore affordable infill.

4. Unconcerned or unclear. Provides little information about their position on affordability.

 

 

The distinction between Comprehensive and Low-income affordability is important because there are often trade-offs between these goals. Some policies intended to increase low-income affordability can reduce middle-income affordability, for example, if inclusionary zoning increases moderate-priced housing costs, or housing demolition prohibitions prevent development of larger buildings. Comprehensive affordability advocates support more development of both low- and moderate priced housing in walkable urban neighborhoods.

 

The table below summarizes the results. It indicates which candidates tend to reflect various affordability priorities. This can help voters choose the candidates who will best represent their priorities. 

 

 

Candidates Categorized by Their Affordability Priorities (www.citiesforeveryone.org)

Municipal Candidates’ Affordability Ratings.png

 

This table summarizes Cities for Everyone’s Candidate Affordability Ratings.

 

 

Both citizens and candidates vary in their affordability priorities. Some favor policies targeted at reducing homelessness and increasing housing for the lowest income households; others want to increase affordable housing and transportation options for both low- and middle-income households; and some are more concerned about preserving single-family housing in residential neighborhoods and so oppose policies that allow more affordable infill. Our Candidates’ Affordability Rating allows voters to identify the candidates who best reflect their values.

 

For more information

“Vote for Affordability! Victoria, Saanich and Oak Bay Candidates’ Affordability Ratings” (http://citiesforever...ity-Ratings.pdf).

Victoria Affordability Backgrounder: Using Urban Economics to Understand Housing Unaffordability Problems and Solutions” (http://citiesforever...2018/09/vab.pdf).

A 1.5% Neighbourhood Solution to Inaffordability (http://citiesforever...2018/07/nas.pdf).

Is that you Lisa ?


  • Bob Fugger, sdwright.vic and rmpeers like this

#3 sdwright.vic

sdwright.vic

    Burnside-Gorge

  • Member
  • 6,448 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 03:41 PM

^Thank you! This post is way to much like advertising.
  • rmpeers likes this
Predictive text and a tiny keyboard are not my friends!

#4 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,176 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 06 October 2018 - 04:21 PM

I like how it pseudo-quantifies qualifiable and subjective data.  Numbers mean good.


  • Nparker, sebberry, sdwright.vic and 1 other like this

#5 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 9,359 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 06:57 PM

^Thank you! This post is way to much like advertising.

 

????


"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#6 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 07:19 PM

????

 

I think a lot of pro-development right-of-centre (for victoria) folk are upset the right-of-centre candidates in Victoria seem to be mostly anti-development "protect neighbourhoods" nimby's which presents uncomfortable thoughts and choices.  I'm not sure how to read the candidates any other way though based on the pretty clearly defined categories. The groupings seem as fair as possible.  If the broad category someone's been slotted into doesn't seem fair or doesn't match their statements or record, explain why and I'm sure "cities for everyone" will be happy to wiggle them around.


  • Jared likes this
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#7 rmpeers

rmpeers
  • Member
  • 1,008 posts

Posted 06 October 2018 - 07:25 PM

Are there actually any right of centre candidates, though, in terms of the electable candidates?

Right now the three categories seem to be Centre Left, Far Left and Far Side of Crazy.

Edited by rmpeers, 06 October 2018 - 07:25 PM.


#8 citiesforeveryone

citiesforeveryone
  • Member
  • 5 posts

Posted 07 October 2018 - 08:44 AM

Thanks everyone for your comments.
Be sure to check out the FULL report which has more detail and reasoning behind this summarized table. (It's only 4 pages, won't take long!). Full report on Cities for Everyone’s website and at https://bit.ly/2OxrEpm

About us: We are an independent community organization (non-partizan too) that supports affordable development policies in order to provide security, mobility and opportunity for people with all incomes and abilities. We advocate for transportation as well as housing affordability, and for middle-income as well as lower-income affordability.
We educate and advocate for practical policy reforms that create much more affordable, inclusive and sustainable communities.



#9 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,157 posts

Posted 07 October 2018 - 09:38 AM

Thanks everyone for your comments.
Be sure to check out the FULL report which has more detail and reasoning behind this summarized table. (It's only 4 pages, won't take long!). Full report on Cities for Everyone’s website and at https://bit.ly/2OxrEpm

About us: We are an independent community organization (non-partizan too) that supports affordable development policies in order to provide security, mobility and opportunity for people with all incomes and abilities. We advocate for transportation as well as housing affordability, and for middle-income as well as lower-income affordability.
We educate and advocate for practical policy reforms that create much more affordable, inclusive and sustainable communities.

 

Not registered with elections BC. 

 

You need to read the rules before someone complains.


Edited by spanky123, 07 October 2018 - 09:38 AM.

  • sdwright.vic likes this

#10 FernwoodFrank

FernwoodFrank
  • Member
  • 8 posts

Posted 08 October 2018 - 06:44 AM

Why did Lisa Helps get a good score on this "survey" ?A quick google of Todd Litman who runs The Victoria Transport Policy Institute and Cities for everyone. Mr. Litman has worked on numerous studies that evaluate transportation costs, benefits and innovations.How much does he get in consulting work with the city and the bicycle lanes?His son Raviv Litman is the Victoria operations manager, U-bicycle - those green bicyles left around town.
They probably give Thanks to Lisa every day of the year.


  • Bob Fugger, SimonH and Victoria Watcher like this

 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users