However, in 2001, federal government once again entered the housing field with the announcement of funding for Affordable Housing Program (AHP) to be administered by the province, and soon, in 2002, signed an agreement with Ontario under the Canada/Ontario AHP for 5 years, with a condition that the province would match the federal funds for the program (ONPHA, n.d.). However, in its agreement with the federal government, Ontario passed a huge portion of matching funds to its municipalities (ONPHA, n.d). Later, in 2007, Homeless Partnering Strategy , a federal homeless funding, initially meant only to prevent and reduce homelessness in the country, became one of the main sources for the City to employ for building new housing (ONPHA, n.d.). …show more content…
Additionally, in recent years, through other programs such as Social Housing and Retrofit Program, Investment in Affordable Housing, and CMHC's Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, senior governments have helped Toronto build new and repair old affordable housing units as well as other services such as accommodating secondary self-contained units and providing social assistance to those who are most vulnerable to homelessness (Evans, 2007).
Although senior level governments have started to invest in affordable housing in the City, however, their role has been limited and unpredictable (Mah, 2009). It is also well-known that most of the financial burden for housing production have been transferred on to the local governments (Mah, 2009; Evans 2009). Also, local governments are facing many different challenges, from social and cultural issues to environmental and transportation issues (Evans, …show more content…
2007). Therefore, the City has been facing increasing pressure in the production of affordable housing units (Wellesley Institute, 2014). The City has responded to the issues through programs such as Housing First (in 1999), Municipal Housing Facilities By-law (in 2002), Home Ownership Assistance Program (HOAP) (in 2010). Moreover, the City established targets of 1,000 new affordable rental homes and 200 new affordable ownership homes annually through 2010-2020 Housing Opportunities Toronto (HOT) Action Plan, majorly in the downtown core (City of Toronto, 2009).. However, substituting the role of upper-level governments in the production of affordable housing has not been possible of local government. "Based on current plans and commitments to 2020 using existing resources from the federal and provincial governments, it is projected that the City will continue to be challenged in meeting [its affordable housing] targets. Without a renewed and enhanced effort from all governments and private- and non-profit housing stakeholders, the overall 10-year shortfall will rise to some 6,000 affordable rental homes and almost 600 affordable ownership homes by 2020" (City of Toronto, 2015b, pg 9). 6. Appropriateness of Density Bonusing In conditions previously discussed, Density Bonusing regulated through S37 agreements seems fair and equitable; to both municipalities and developers.
Through Density Bonusing, municipalities grant additional height or density to the major residential development in exchange for the provision of "facilities, services or matters" widely known as community benefits. These policies are widely used by municipalities because most of the needed public services could be provided at no direct costs to the government. Private developer and investors are attracted to this mechanism because they can make more profits from a single development. The developers can maximize their profits by developing additional units gained by contributing a certain percentage of those additional units to in- or off-site affordable housing or supporting other community
benefits. 6.1 General Benefit Analysis To analyze this section, let's take an example where a private developer seeks to develop a high-rise building on a vacant land that is normally zoned for a maximum of 100 units. He/she intends to develop the building with an additional height that is not permitted under current zoning ordinance. He/she applies for the bonus with his planning justifications. The City, by means of the City's planners' study and reports, may permit for height increase but as the consequence of the additional developments may impose a requirement of 20% of the additional units as affordable housing. Density Bonusing here may also be seen as an incentive for or compensation of decreased revenues due to the introduction as affordable housing to the developer (Fox & Davis, 1976; McFarlane, 2009). Therefore, the developer ends in building 120 units building where 116 units are legally allowed to be sold or rented at existing market rate and 4 units that are secured for affordable housing. Because additional units are constructed on land which is serviced for the original development of 100 units, they add relatively few costs for extra services and infrastructure to the developer (McFarlane, 2009). As a result, the developer gains more returns on his investments than a normal 100 units project, the City gets some affordable housing units without any direct financial burden, and average income households get homes at a below-the-market price. 6.2 Benefits to the Municipal Government Density Bonusing brings in more benefits to the municipal government at no cost of their own. These benefits can be in forms of property tax collections that increase municipal revenue, and savings in municipal expenditures. 6.2.1 Property Tax Collections The price of housing is associated with two components - the price of land and the cost of building a development.
In the Late nineteenth century the population was growing at a rapid pace. The country had people flooding the biggest cities in the country such as New York City and Chicago. These populations were gaining more and more people every single year and the country has to do something to make places for these people to live. The government would go on to create urban housing programs. These programs were created to make homes for these people to live in. At the time it provided a place for people to live but as the populations grew it became a more cramped and rundown area because of the large populations in one place. These reforms eventually led to these areas becoming dangerous, they were rundown, and it created a hole that was difficult for people to get out of.
... motivation for wealthy individuals to return to the inner-city core but it also provides impetus for commercial and retail mixed-use to follow, increasing local revenue for cities (Duany, 2001). Proponents of gentrification profess that this increase in municipal revenue from sales and property taxes allows for the funding of city improvements, in the form of job opportunities, improved schools and parks, retail markets and increased sense of security and safety ((Davidson (2009), Ellen & O’Reagan (2007), Formoso et. al (2010)). Due to the increase in housing and private rental prices and the general decrease of the affordable housing stock in gentrifying areas, financially-precarious communities such as the elderly, female-headed households, and blue-collar workers can no longer afford to live in newly developed spaces ((Schill & Nathan (1983), Atkinson, (2000)).
Downs has sought to dispel myths surrounding housing policy. The first myth he debunks is the myth that all government-sponsored urban policies have failed. Downs believes that although they had resulted in greater hardships for poorer neighborhoods, the policies have given great benefits to a majority of urban American families. While he does not consider these policies to be a complete success, he refuses to call them failures due to the fact that they did indeed improve the standard of living for most of urban America. Downs also calls to our attention the effect of housing policies on the number of housing units. Starting in 1950, housing policies were aimed at ending the housing shortage until focus was shifted to low income households in the midst of the Vietnam War. To Downs, ending the shortage was important because it was affecting the American way of life. Couples were delaying marriage, extended families were living in one home, and overcrowded housing led to overcrowded local facilities, such as schools. Downs also argues that this overcrowding led to an inescapable cycle of “substandard”
This housing affordability crisis is stripping away it’s diversity at increasing rates and I feel that not enough is being done to restore it. Liz Pfeffer article “Is the Bay Area in a Housing Bubble or a Crisis?” describes the situation as, “San Francisco’s chronic problem is a lack of housing for middle and lower-income people. It’s not that they can’t afford it, it’s that it doesn’t exist”. Officials should collaborate on creating solutions to the root causes and offer alternatives that would release some of the pressure. I would suggest promoting micro-homes or smaller scaled homes, limiting foreign investors’s purchases of single-family homes, or expanding campuses of employers to areas that are not heavily populated. It is not too late to restore the balance but it will take collaboration and team work. I am urging these officials and activists to try and save the beloved culture of this area and help retain it as a place where social justice is recognized and
The Housing Act of 1949 expanded the federal role in mortgage insurance and the construction of public housing. The act gave city officials the money to carry out their ambitions of reviving the American city. Title I, authorized on...
the cost of living in Toronto has come to a record high, we need to start doing something about it now before no one can afford to live at all. There are more than 30,000 women, men and children in the city's homeless shelters annually. Many of thousands more sleep on the streets or considered the “hidden homeless”. About 70,000 households are on Toronto’s social housing waiting list and on the brink of becoming homeless because of the skyrocketing prices of owning a home in Toronto. The Federal Government and the province have begun a slow reinvestment in housing in past years, the number of affordable housing being built now doesn’t even compare near the levels of the early 1980’s. Habitat for Humanity has been building houses for low income
Therefore, the supply of housing that is affordable and accessible to low income people should be increased. Plus assistance that allows people to reach adequate stability should be regarded as a good investment in a productive society, in order to attain our objective. First we could start by introducing more productive assistance programs that actually focus on helping those in need of housing assistance. These programs will analyze how long people are homeless, what are their needs, the causes of homelessness, and in all how many are currently without a home. Subsequently, the City of Austin would begin building affordable housing according to the amount necessary.
Affordable housing refers to housing units that are affordable by that section of society whose income is or below the median household income. For example, affordable housing should address the housing needs of lower or middle income households. And for sustainable communities, it is one that is economically, environmentally, and socially healthy and resilient.. According to the Western Australia Council of Social Services (WACOSS): "Social sustainability occurs when the formal and informal processes; systems; structures; and relationships actively support the capacity of current and future generations to create healthy and livable communities.” As we can tell, all affordable housing, sustainable community, and social sustainability are
In California, the finance structure of local government gives them more incentives to approve commercial (non-residential) housing development. Cities and counties find fiscal benefits come primarily from the commercial development, such as hotels, restaurants, and retail establishments. The tax revenue received from these establishments could often offset the cost for a local government to provide public services. On the contrary, the affordable housing developments cause more local costs than yielding high tax revenues. Therefore, local governments have the motivation to develop commercial establishments by zoning considerable lands for such purposes. Consequently, many cities and counties have approved their land use planning disproportionately towards commercial
New York City is not only a tourist attraction, but considered one of the most expensive cities in the world to fund because of its superb security, overall popularity, and partly its dependence on Wall Street to pay high income taxes to fund social programs, such as those who help homeless individuals and low-income residents. Ever since Bloomberg's re-election in 2005 he warned New Yorker's that because of a gaping budget deficit the city may have to raise property tax and state tax. The only people who struggle the most from increasing taxes are those who are barely able to pay rent and other expenses, such as utilities bills. One of the reasons why increasing taxes affect individuals is because as property taxes rise the property owner has to spend more, which means his/her profits may be affected, thus increasing the rent of tenants (the most current increase was 4% in one-year leases and 7.25% in two-year leases). In the other hand residents that currently live in homeless shelters have fewer chances of finding an affordable apartment even if he/she obtains a job (Most of the jobs homeless shelters refuges receive are low-paying jobs).
Lastly, housing first is an approach that emphasizes stable, permanent housing as a primary strategy for ending homelessness. ( “Housing First”, n.d.) An evaluation of this strategy in San Francisco found that the number of people living on the streets dropped by 41 percent in three years. More than 1,000 units of "permanent supportive housing" were established, and, of those who moved into such units, 95 percent remained housed. (Chamard, 2010)
Throughout my research I found there is a real cry out for action on providing more affordable house not just locally but throughout the country. There needs to be more funding available to build more gear to income or subsidized housing and all levels of government need to take action.
result from the withdrawal of the federal government’s investment in affordable housing. It has been noted that
This paper will be predominantly focusing on public housing within Ontario. Not only will it look at the basics of Ontario but examine more directly on Regent Park within Toronto. It will discuss what public housing is and the explanation for why it exists, the government housing programs that are present with regards to public housing and the results of the government programs. The Purpose of this essay is to argue that the problem of public housing will never
...At its root, homelessness is the result of the inability to afford and maintain housing. Government funding should be put into place that can incorporate an investment in creating affordable housing. This includes supportive housing, which is permanent housing coupled with supportive services. In order to maintain housing, people exiting homelessness must have income. Cash assistance programs are available through federal and state government, and career-based employment services can help formerly homeless people build the skills necessary to increase their income. Mainstream services, including the Workforce Investment Act, should be used for this purpose (Ten Essentials). Lastly, programs must ensure that the homeless have access to these services but are able to attain independence as soon as possible as well. To do this there must be instant access to housing.