By Karen Kleiss, Edmonton Journal October 12, 2010 6:24 AM
Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Housing+plan+overturns+decades+practice/3656457/story.html#ixzz129xvk3ax
Walter Trocenko, head of the City of Edmonton's housing branch, is photographed near inner city housing in Edmonton on October 1, 2010. Trocenko supports a "flexible cap" protocol.
Photograph by: Larry Wong, edmontonjournal.com
EDMONTON - During a tense hearing at City Hall last spring, the head of the housing branch outlined a plan that would be the first of its kind in North America, one that showed how he thinks the city should build homes for the poor and vulnerable.
Walter Trocenko's idea was to hold off on more subsidized housing in 13 inner-city communities, where poverty is already high, quality of life is low, and residents complain of crime, drug dealing, prostitution and cleaning up human feces in their yards.
In the future, he said, the city should only fund more subsidized housing in those neighbourhoods if the communities support the idea, or if it meets one of the city's goals, such as revitalization or ending homelessness.
Meanwhile, city policies should encourage developers to build subsidized housing units in the dozens of neighbourhoods that have very few, or none at all. He called it a "flexible cap" protocol.
"If we are using taxpayer money to provide more subsidized housing, then we need to understand how those investments affect the communities they're going into," Trocenko said recently. "That's what this protocol is about."
If it is adopted, it will be the first such plan in North America, and the city's first attempt to influence the location of subsidized housing since the 1970s.
"This is about reinventing the way we've done things for decades," Trocenko said. "In the future, an instrument like this protocol will significantly influence the redistribution of subsidized housing in a way that is really sensitive to community needs."
Neighbourhoods should get behind the protocol, he said. "It does what they want. It invests in the right projects for the communities, which have the right balance."
At the debate that followed his presentation, however, communities did not get behind the protocol. It raged on for six hours, as frustrated inner-city residents stepped up to the microphone one after another to say their neighbourhoods are on the verge of social collapse.
They said a flexible cap wasn't enough, they want a hard cap and no more low-income housing, full stop. One man, a preacher, said his neighbourhood has become a ghetto.
Concentrating poverty has negative consequences for a city and its residents, whether they live in the core or in the suburbs. But not everyone agrees low-income housing causes the concentration of poverty.
"There is a relationship between subsidized housing and poverty; the question is whether it is a positive or negative relationship," Trocenko said. "On the one hand, when you cross a threshold and you put too much subsidized housing in a specific area, in some cases it has a significant impact. On the flip side, what's wrong with providing a decent, respectful place for someone who is homeless to live in our community? The answer is: nothing."
David Berger is deputy director of Boyle Street Community Services, which announced its first inner-city housing development this year. Like many advocates in Edmonton, he believes well-run subsidized housing makes a positive contribution to inner-city communities because it gets people off the streets and into homes, where they can receive services.
"The next subsidized housing development shouldn't have to pay the price for past failures," he said. "There is prejudice. People equate subsidized housing with social disruption. That is not necessarily the case. One can run a very good housing project, with a mix of people with a variety of needs and backgrounds. It's incumbent on operators and developers to work closely with their neighbours and make sure their projects are a boon to the neighbourhood, not a detriment."
Trocenko's flexible cap protocol is a compromise: it leaves the door open to developments that will benefit distressed communities and closes the door on everything else. It is a part of a solution to developing healthy, inclusive communities. City council's executive committee asked him to start work on the protocol and he expects to present it in the spring of 2011. Council approval, though, would only be the beginning. The protocol will only be binding on money the city controls, not on the tens of millions of dollars the province has poured into subsidized housing since 2007.
A Journal analysis shows $5 of every $10 of the $113 million the province has spent to build more subsidized housing in Edmonton went into four of the city's most blighted communities. In all, $57 million was spent to build more than 500 units in McCauley, Boyle, Central McDougall and Garneau.
Trocenko said the city and province have a strong, collaborative relationship that will make it easier to apply the protocol principles to provincially funded projects. "The protocol is built on trust and a good working relationship -- without that, it will not work," he said.
Housing Minister Jonathan Denis said the province will continue to consult with the city.
"As long as I have been the minister, we've always respected the wishes of the municipality with respect to zoning. If we receive very strong opposition from the municipality not to place a project in a given area, that's something that we would respect."
The trouble is, the power of the protocol is protected only by goodwill, not by law.
Advocates have long called for a legal solution in the form of an "inclusionary zoning" bylaw, which would allow the city and other municipalities to designate a portion of each new development for affordable housing. Under such policies, cities typically designate between five and 20 per cent of a new development for affordable housing. Cities encourage developers to participate by fast-tracking approvals for developments with affordable housing components, for example, or they allow developers to pay a fee instead of building affordable housing.
Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver have all implemented some form of inclusionary zoning. The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp. has studied the policy in Canada and the United States, concluding it has been effective in creating affordable housing. The corporation reports, for example, that between 1974 and 1995, California's inclusionary housing programs "produced more than 24,400 new affordable housing units without direct costs to the taxpayer." Opponents of such policies include developers, who say such changes would place an unfair burden on their industry.
"The development industry is very supportive of affordable housing," said Ray Watkins, president of the Urban Development Institute of Alberta. "We think that affordable housing, though, is an issue that is the responsibility of society, and society as a whole, not just one industry."
The city would have to pass a bylaw for such policies to come into effect. City administrators say they can't, because the Municipal Government Act only allows cities to control what buildings look like and what they are used for -- not who lives there.
As a result, advocates -- including the government's own Affordable Housing Task Force -- have called for the act to be changed so cities have the power to implement inclusionary zoning policies.
The province, however, insists a change isn't necessary.
"Changes to the MGA are not necessary, as municipalities can already establish zoning to encourage affordable housing development," Municipal Affairs spokesman Jerry Ward said.
"In its literal sense, inclusionary zoning means the ability to zone land for a variety of housing types to serve different types of households. The MGA allows municipalities to adopt this type of inclusionary zoning."
Lawyer and U of A law professor emeritus Fred Laux is author of the leading textbook on planning law in Alberta. He said the MGA is clearly open to interpretation and any bylaw passed by the city could land before the courts. "It certainly seems to me that it is a live issue in the law."
The housing minister said the province will reopen the act next year, but he refused to take a position on inclusionary zoning.
"It doesn't relate to my ministry at all," Denis said. "I'm not going to comment on something that is clearly under the purview of another minister."
In Edmonton, Trocenko is focused on the protocol. If it passes, it has the potential to begin to change the way Edmonton builds subsidized housing, moving the city toward healthier, more inclusive neighbourhoods.
kkleiss@edmontonjournal.com
- - -
SPECIAL REPORT
The province has poured more than $1 billion into subsidized housing since 2007, when Premier Ed Stelmach promised to build 11,000 new affordable housing units. Where did the money go? Journal reporter Karen Kleiss and database editor Lucas Timmons followed the cash -- right into Edmonton's most beleaguered communities. With the municipal election days away, some Edmontonians are wondering: Is this the way we want to build our city?
- - Monday: Why did five of every 10 subsidized housing dollars go to building more units in the city's 13 most distressed communities?
- - Today: The city has a plan to ease the concentration of subsidized housing in Edmonton, but can it work in the long term?
Walter Trocenko's idea was to hold off on more subsidized housing in 13 inner-city communities, where poverty is already high, quality of life is low, and residents complain of crime, drug dealing, prostitution and cleaning up human feces in their yards.
In the future, he said, the city should only fund more subsidized housing in those neighbourhoods if the communities support the idea, or if it meets one of the city's goals, such as revitalization or ending homelessness.
Meanwhile, city policies should encourage developers to build subsidized housing units in the dozens of neighbourhoods that have very few, or none at all. He called it a "flexible cap" protocol.
"If we are using taxpayer money to provide more subsidized housing, then we need to understand how those investments affect the communities they're going into," Trocenko said recently. "That's what this protocol is about."
If it is adopted, it will be the first such plan in North America, and the city's first attempt to influence the location of subsidized housing since the 1970s.
"This is about reinventing the way we've done things for decades," Trocenko said. "In the future, an instrument like this protocol will significantly influence the redistribution of subsidized housing in a way that is really sensitive to community needs."
Neighbourhoods should get behind the protocol, he said. "It does what they want. It invests in the right projects for the communities, which have the right balance."
At the debate that followed his presentation, however, communities did not get behind the protocol. It raged on for six hours, as frustrated inner-city residents stepped up to the microphone one after another to say their neighbourhoods are on the verge of social collapse.
They said a flexible cap wasn't enough, they want a hard cap and no more low-income housing, full stop. One man, a preacher, said his neighbourhood has become a ghetto.
Concentrating poverty has negative consequences for a city and its residents, whether they live in the core or in the suburbs. But not everyone agrees low-income housing causes the concentration of poverty.
"There is a relationship between subsidized housing and poverty; the question is whether it is a positive or negative relationship," Trocenko said. "On the one hand, when you cross a threshold and you put too much subsidized housing in a specific area, in some cases it has a significant impact. On the flip side, what's wrong with providing a decent, respectful place for someone who is homeless to live in our community? The answer is: nothing."
David Berger is deputy director of Boyle Street Community Services, which announced its first inner-city housing development this year. Like many advocates in Edmonton, he believes well-run subsidized housing makes a positive contribution to inner-city communities because it gets people off the streets and into homes, where they can receive services.
"The next subsidized housing development shouldn't have to pay the price for past failures," he said. "There is prejudice. People equate subsidized housing with social disruption. That is not necessarily the case. One can run a very good housing project, with a mix of people with a variety of needs and backgrounds. It's incumbent on operators and developers to work closely with their neighbours and make sure their projects are a boon to the neighbourhood, not a detriment."
Trocenko's flexible cap protocol is a compromise: it leaves the door open to developments that will benefit distressed communities and closes the door on everything else. It is a part of a solution to developing healthy, inclusive communities. City council's executive committee asked him to start work on the protocol and he expects to present it in the spring of 2011. Council approval, though, would only be the beginning. The protocol will only be binding on money the city controls, not on the tens of millions of dollars the province has poured into subsidized housing since 2007.
A Journal analysis shows $5 of every $10 of the $113 million the province has spent to build more subsidized housing in Edmonton went into four of the city's most blighted communities. In all, $57 million was spent to build more than 500 units in McCauley, Boyle, Central McDougall and Garneau.
Trocenko said the city and province have a strong, collaborative relationship that will make it easier to apply the protocol principles to provincially funded projects. "The protocol is built on trust and a good working relationship -- without that, it will not work," he said.
Housing Minister Jonathan Denis said the province will continue to consult with the city.
"As long as I have been the minister, we've always respected the wishes of the municipality with respect to zoning. If we receive very strong opposition from the municipality not to place a project in a given area, that's something that we would respect."
The trouble is, the power of the protocol is protected only by goodwill, not by law.
Advocates have long called for a legal solution in the form of an "inclusionary zoning" bylaw, which would allow the city and other municipalities to designate a portion of each new development for affordable housing. Under such policies, cities typically designate between five and 20 per cent of a new development for affordable housing. Cities encourage developers to participate by fast-tracking approvals for developments with affordable housing components, for example, or they allow developers to pay a fee instead of building affordable housing.
Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver have all implemented some form of inclusionary zoning. The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp. has studied the policy in Canada and the United States, concluding it has been effective in creating affordable housing. The corporation reports, for example, that between 1974 and 1995, California's inclusionary housing programs "produced more than 24,400 new affordable housing units without direct costs to the taxpayer." Opponents of such policies include developers, who say such changes would place an unfair burden on their industry.
"The development industry is very supportive of affordable housing," said Ray Watkins, president of the Urban Development Institute of Alberta. "We think that affordable housing, though, is an issue that is the responsibility of society, and society as a whole, not just one industry."
The city would have to pass a bylaw for such policies to come into effect. City administrators say they can't, because the Municipal Government Act only allows cities to control what buildings look like and what they are used for -- not who lives there.
As a result, advocates -- including the government's own Affordable Housing Task Force -- have called for the act to be changed so cities have the power to implement inclusionary zoning policies.
The province, however, insists a change isn't necessary.
"Changes to the MGA are not necessary, as municipalities can already establish zoning to encourage affordable housing development," Municipal Affairs spokesman Jerry Ward said.
"In its literal sense, inclusionary zoning means the ability to zone land for a variety of housing types to serve different types of households. The MGA allows municipalities to adopt this type of inclusionary zoning."
Lawyer and U of A law professor emeritus Fred Laux is author of the leading textbook on planning law in Alberta. He said the MGA is clearly open to interpretation and any bylaw passed by the city could land before the courts. "It certainly seems to me that it is a live issue in the law."
The housing minister said the province will reopen the act next year, but he refused to take a position on inclusionary zoning.
"It doesn't relate to my ministry at all," Denis said. "I'm not going to comment on something that is clearly under the purview of another minister."
In Edmonton, Trocenko is focused on the protocol. If it passes, it has the potential to begin to change the way Edmonton builds subsidized housing, moving the city toward healthier, more inclusive neighbourhoods.
kkleiss@edmontonjournal.com
- - -
SPECIAL REPORT
The province has poured more than $1 billion into subsidized housing since 2007, when Premier Ed Stelmach promised to build 11,000 new affordable housing units. Where did the money go? Journal reporter Karen Kleiss and database editor Lucas Timmons followed the cash -- right into Edmonton's most beleaguered communities. With the municipal election days away, some Edmontonians are wondering: Is this the way we want to build our city?
- - Monday: Why did five of every 10 subsidized housing dollars go to building more units in the city's 13 most distressed communities?
- - Today: The city has a plan to ease the concentration of subsidized housing in Edmonton, but can it work in the long term?
© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal
Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Housing+plan+overturns+decades+practice/3656457/story.html#ixzz129xibK7i
I just wanted to mention that Vancouver had no choice but to include an inclusionary clause as it has very strict boundaries-mountains and an ocean. I have asked about this for years now and have been told can't be done. I asked why not and I am not given a coherent answer. I was at the above mentioned hearing on affordable housing and the frustration was not so much on the affordable housing but a lack of respect on council's part. When you have someone that is calling a constituent "discriminatory" because they are asking for a break to let the community heal that is just wrong. There was clear lack of respect to the communities and the people that reside in the communities that have to deal with the ghettoization of the community.
I see if everyday as I walk along 95 St and 118 Ave. Don't get me wrong I think revitalization has worked to a point but the community is feeling fatigued as they work hard to turn around a community That has worked hard only to see council continually undermine the work that is being done through approving more affordable housing that really isn't geared towards families. By building big recreation centres instead of supporting the community leagues, approving "big box" which takes away from the mom and pop stores.
The city is pushing "Live Local" yet the development that is being built means getting into a car to get there. I would say using transit however that isn't the case. It is very hard to get to different places unless you own a vehicle or drive.
Cora
No comments:
Post a Comment
If you have any questions or concerns please direct them to craftygal1965{at}gmail.com. Any other comments please leave here. Please no external links, thank you.
Thank you
Cora Shaw (formerly Levesque)