• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Ottawa Inclusionary Housing Presentation
 

Ottawa Inclusionary Housing Presentation

on

  • 556 views

Presentation on Inclusionary Housing made to public forum in Ottawa

Presentation on Inclusionary Housing made to public forum in Ottawa

Statistics

Views

Total Views
556
Views on SlideShare
555
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • The handout is a collection of short documents. It starts with a copy of the PowerPoint. The handout also includes short 2 or 3 page backgrounders on 4 topics covered in the PowerPoint: What IH is Why IH is being considered Suggestions for changes to Provincial laws Potential measures for Ottawa under current laws Much of this material may eventually be included in the Report to Council.
  • There is a separate report on the city’s recommendations to the Province. Inclusionary Housing suggestions to the province are one small part of the report for the Provincial Consultation.
  • OPTIONAL TO SAY: 2005 Provincial Policy Statement uses a different definition of affordability: Ownership: 30% of income based on an income at or below the 60 %ile OR 10% below average price of resale unit, whichever is lower Rental: 30% of income based on an income at or below the 60 %ile for renter households OR at or below average market rent, whichever is lower
  • The Inclusionary Housing Report will not make recommendations about all of these options. It will only explore some of the possibilities. The details would be worked out at a later stage if Council decides they want to develop a local strategy. There would be consultation at that stage to work out the details.
  • THIS SLIDE AND THE NEXT FEW go into the reasons why Council requested a report on Inclusionary Housing. Affordability should vary by household size to make sense. A $200,000 bachelor condo may meet the simple OP definition but singles or couples are less likely to have the income required and a bachelor is obviously not suitable to a family with children. Market housing varies by the number of bedrooms and in most Inclusionary Housing, the price of the inclusionary housing also varies by the number of bedrooms. This makes sense and makes the affordability more genuine.
  • These incomes are examples. All but the carpenter are based on the middle of standard full time pay scale for those positions. Average Salaries for some other workers are: Cashiers: $9,000 Retail salesperson: $20,000 Elementary School and Kindergarten teachers: $47,000. These average salaries are what people reported as actual earnings in the Census, adjusted upward for inflation.
  • Inclusionary Housing generally creates housing affordable to moderate income households. Best practice for some Inclusionary Housing to go to non-profits or co-ops who can use government subsidies so the housing is affordable to lower income households. Government subsidies can complement Inclusionary Housing to reach lower income households. Inclusionary Housing cannot solve the housing affordability problem by itself but it can be one of several tools used to solve the problem.
  • Many have argued that Inclusionary Housing cannot be done under current laws. And that is true in the sense that it cannot apply to all new housing. But there are limited situations where Inclusionary Housing can be done under existing laws. The legal authority comes from S 37. Toronto has demonstrated it can be done.
  • We hired a consultant to conduct a local study to examine the economic feasibility of inclusionary housing in Ottawa.
  • There are 3 kinds of limited situations where Ottawa could consider adopting IH type practices.
  • Ottawa has lost more rental housing than any other city in Ontario in the last decade. From 1997 to 2007 the Ottawa CMA (Census Metropolitan Area) had a net loss of 3,454 units of purpose built rental housing. This was the largest loss of any city in Ontario and represents 40% of the total loss of rental housing in Ontario cities during that period. Toronto has lost far fewer rental units in the same period according to Where’s Home – published annually by ONPHA and CHF. Toronto lost only a net 536 units or 0.2% of its purpose built rental housing stock while Ottawa lost 5% . Purpose built new rental housing has only constituted 6% of new homes built in Ottawa from 2005-2008, one third of which has been subsidized non-profit and co-operative housing. There are 2 mechanisms Toronto has used to achieve this. The first is through Demolition control – read slide. This is similar to IH, except it’s about preservation rather than adding new units. The old city of Ottawa has a demolition control by-law and it is being reviewed to harmonize what applies to the whole city. Toronto’s success demonstrates what’s poss. The 2 nd step is not about IH – it’s only here to illustrate what is possible.
  • One of the handouts goes into a little more detail about the kinds of changes to provincial law that would allow cities to adopt stronger local Inclusionary Housing practices. On the list in the handout, the items marked with (Bill 198) are included in that bill.
  • Leadership and Broad support are equally important.
  • Future consultations will include one in French Oct 22 and one with the Greater Ottawa Home Builders because of the central role they play.

Ottawa Inclusionary Housing Presentation Ottawa Inclusionary Housing Presentation Presentation Transcript

  • Inclusionary Housing October 8 2009 Consultation Social Housing & Shelter Management Branch, City of Ottawa
  • Why? Council Resolutions
    • November 2007
      • City Housing Strategy approved
      • Motion requesting an Inclusionary Housing report
    • June 2004
      • Affordable Housing Amendments to Official Plan approved
      • Motion requesting staff to seek changes to provincial law to enable municipal action to implement inclusionary housing
  • Why? Provincial Consultation
    • Province preparing a Long Term Affordable Housing Strategy
    • Supports Poverty Reduction strategy
    • Consultation began June 2009
    • Deadline for recommendations: December 31, 2009
    • Mentions innovative ideas like inclusionary planning
  • What is affordable?
    • Official Plan Definition
    • Pay 30% of income
    • Ownership:
      • Affordable to households at the 40 th income percentile
      • 2008 income: $60,700
      • 2009 House price: $203,800
    • Rental:
      • Affordable to households at the 30 th income percentile
      • 2008 income: $47,100
      • 2009 rent: $1,180/month
  • What is Inclusionary Housing?
    • Requires a developer to include a percent of affordable housing in new developments
    • Many options:
      • What percent?
      • What price/rent?
      • What new developments?
      • Cost offsets?
      • Affordability term?
      • Unit mix?
      • Rental vs. ownership?
  • Why? OP Target Missed
    • OP Target for affordable housing: 25% of new housing
    • 2005-2008 average: 11.5%
    • 2008: 7.25%
    • Adjusted for household size, percent is lower
  • Why? Economic Development
    • Workforce housing – for retail, hospitality industry, call centres, some industries
    • Some workers earning less than the 30 th Income Percentile ($47,000) :
        • Carpenters on average earn $30,000
        • Superstore Food Service Worker earns $38,000
      • Some workers earning less than the 40 th Income Percentile ($60,700):
        • City Child Care Teacher earns $45,000
        • City Registered Practical Nurse earns $50,000
  • Why? Other Objectives
    • Community building
      • Adult children can afford to stay
      • Inclusive mixed income communities
    • Growth management
      • Intensification more successful with housing for mixed incomes
      • Over 25% of workforce in neighbouring areas work in Ottawa-Gatineau
    • Supportive and low income housing
      • 9000+ on waiting list
      • Complements govt subsidies
  • Legal feasibility
    • S 37 of Planning Act implementation
      • The first priority among community benefits when increased height or density requested
    • Toronto precedent
      • Large Sites: 20% of increased development potential must be affordable on large sites
  • Economic feasibility
    • Consultant, staff, non profit and private developers
    • CRG Report
      • 12-15% of new development in exchange for 25% increase in height and density + some fee waivers
    • Lower % would improve econ benefit
      • E.g. -Toronto Big Site policy = 20% of 25% increase = 5%
  • Potential Ottawa Measures under current Provincial Law
    • Big Sites
      • Similar to Toronto precedent
    • High Density small sites
      • When seeking additional floors
      • Affordable housing as a priority community benefit?
  • Potential Ottawa Measures cont’d
    • Preserving Affordable Rental Housing
      • An Inclusionary Housing measure and a complementary measure
      • Demolition Control – replace or maintain existing affordable units when redevelopment or development
      • Condominium Conversion – not inclusionary housing but is a complementary method for preservation
  • Provincial law changes
    • Amend the Provincial Policy Statement and various sections of the Planning Act
      • To clarify that municipalities are expected to use their land use regulatory powers to help achieve minimum affordable housing targets
      • To clarify that provision of affordable housing can be a condition of zoning and of subdivision approval
      • To add a specific section dealing with inclusionary housing provisions
    • Create an effective legal mechanism to protect affordability of ownership units
    • Bill 198 now under consideration
      • Private member’s bill
      • Received 2 nd reading Sept 24
  • Keys to Success
    • Cost offsets to ensure housing development remains profitable
    • Clear consistent standards
    • Broad support
  • Next Steps
    • Consultations
      • Written comment by: October 30
      • To: Brian Gifford, Social Housing and Shelter Management Branch, 8E -100 Constellation Cres., Ottawa, ON K2G 6J8
    • Council Committees
    • Council