Quote:
Originally Posted by LFRENCH
I agree with you on lots, however I think you need to define what your calling "rock bottom" of the rental market. When a one bedroom trends for $1000k (plus uts) a month that encapsulates a lot of the market don't you think? I get that there are rip roaring drunks and such, however there are lots of quiet service workers who fall into this category.
I'm not disputing the legality or illegality of secondary suites, more about how we need to examine the housing market all along the continuum. There are lots of individuals who make less than $40k a year in our city.
|
You've just touched on the biggest problem with secondary suites as a solution for affordable housing. Secondary suites, at least the affordable ones, are not generally illegal simply as a matter of zoning. They are illegal for a host of reasons. Some of which start with a lack of fire separation and combined heating systems with one zone for the entire house, then carry on to uninspected and improperly installed electrical and plumbing additions. I've seen an illegal suite being torn out. There were over a dozen hidden electrical junctions. The plumbing didn't drain properly because it was back grading and unvented. The bath fan exhausted into the joist space where mould began to grow. It was dangerous.
If anything, Calgary rezoning the entire city to allow secondary suites would add a handful of legal units. None of them would be affordable. Rent would easily approach what apartments cost. If it coincided with a crackdown on improperly built and unsafe existing suites it would probably clear up all of Policy Wonk's concerns. The demographic he speaks of would simply transition into undivided houses. As it currently stands there are already times when five or more adults in their early twenties rent a whole house.
Basically, secondary suites are only currently cheap because of how substandard they are. Letting people build tin shacks in parks would provide affordable housing too but it doesn't mean that it would be a good idea.
I think the only solution for housing affordability is through government action. One approach would be a much more robust social housing program. Something with the mass to actually affect market rental rates would be needed. The stock could be paid for by the government directly or built up through inclusionary zoning. Another approach would involve a broad spectrum of changes to everything from monetary policy (to promote wage growth as opposed to asset inflation) at the federal level to development policy at the municipal level. Unlike Policy Wonk, I don't see dirty money as the primary driver of rising housing prices. I just don't think that it is a coincidence that housing and education are essentially the only common expenses to have significantly increased in cost over the last thirty years while the population has been aging and the typical voter is ever more likely to already be a property owner a generation removed from even being in a position to worry about their own children's education.
Threaded Mode