AFFORDALBLE HOUSING POLICY

Affordable Housing 1

Running head: AFFORDALBLE HOUSING POLICY

Affordable Housing Policy

Leya Eguchi

SOWK 572A

Dr. Richard Sullivan

December 8, 2010


Introduction

Housing is central to achieving family life and positive

child outcomes. It affects all aspects of child and family well-

being, including physical and emotional health, safety and

security, successful learning and social engagement (Cooper,

2007). Since housing is intimately tied to socioeconomic status,

an effective affordable housing strategy can play a major role in

poverty reduction by it increases the net income available to a

family after paying rent. Stable housing also bolsters a

family’s support network, since it provides a home base for

community participation, caring activities and relationships.

Housing policy plays a key role in housing affordability and

allocation, through rent subsidies, tax incentives, mortgage

insurances and direct provision of subsidized rental housing.

The lack of affordable housing is reaching crisis proportions,

described by some as a national disaster (Porter, 2003). The

fact that housing marginalization is most prevalent among

indigenous populations, ethnic minorities, lone mother families,


seniors and people with disabilities strengthens Porter’s (2005)

argument that it is a human rights crisis.

The purpose of this paper is to identify a policy options

the Canadian government might take address the most urgent and

persistent housing needs of families across Canada. I will first

draw attention to the current affordable housing crisis, and

which population subgroups are most impacted. In order to better

understand the context of this social problem, I will trace the

recent history of Canadian housing policy since its start in 1945

to its gradual demise leading to the present day. Theoretical

considerations relevant to family housing policy will be

explored, including analysis from a developmental, feminist,

ethic of care and human rights perspective. I will then make

policy suggestions, including the development of a national

housing strategy; tax based housing assistance programs and

construction of social housing. I will discuss both the benefits

and limitations of the proposed housing policies. Throughout

this paper, I will continue to emphasize that affordable housing

is fundamental to a family’s quality of life, health and


development. As such, advocating for decent affordable housing

is an important component of social work practice.

The Current State of Affordable Housing

There has been much debate about affordable housing in

academic, political and popular media circuits, but there is no

real consensus on the meaning of affordable or adequate housing.

What determines affordability, adequacy or suitability of

housing? The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (2010)

considers a home affordable if the household spends less than 30

per cent of their before-tax income on housing. This includes

rent or mortgage; all utilities such as electricity, water and

heating; maintenance and repair costs; property taxes and

municipal services. Adequate housing is assessed by the self

report of residents that their home does not need any major

repairs. Suitable housing means that there are enough bedrooms

for the size and make-up of the household according to the

following National Occupancy Standard (NOS) requirements:

One bedroom for each cohabiting adult couple; unattached

household member 18 years of age and over; same-sex pair of


children under age 18; and additional boy or girl in the

family, unless there are two opposite sex children under 5

years of age, in which case they are expected to share a

bedroom. (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2010)

Core housing need is defined as failing to meet

affordability standards and either one or both of the adequacy

and suitability criterion. Based on this definition, the

incidence rate of core housing need is approximately 12.4% of the

Canadian population, or 12.7 million households (CMHC, 2010). In

order to account for people with an adequate income that choose

to live in expensive and undersized housing, it is important to

consider household income when determining actual need.

Households in the lowest-income quintile (below $30,250) with a

median income of $18,734 made up 80% of households in core

housing need, with an average shelter to income ratio of 37.2%.

In BC, approximately 46,250 families with children who rent fall

into this category (Klein & Copas, 2010). According to First

Call (2010), the living wage, or the income needed for a

household to meet its basic needs, is approximately $33,069


annually for Metro Vancouver (based on a two parent family with

two children). This means that the bulk of the families

designated as being in core housing need are at significant risk

of poverty. This risk was significantly higher for lower income

and fixed income Canadians as well as female lone-parent

families, seniors, immigrants and Aboriginal households (Canada

Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2009; Canadian Index of

Wellbeing, 2009). These numbers indicate that our target group

in most need of a better housing assistance program is about 10%

of Canadian households with an income below $30,000 and living in

inadequate housing conditions.

While there are several programs in place at various levels

of government, the system is mired with shortfalls and gaps in

both accessibility and funding level. Currently, each province

operates their own financial assistance programs aimed at helping

low-income households. These schemes vary widely from province

to province, with different funding levels and bureaucratic

procedures. Many programs use means testing with complicated

application procedures, and may not be available for some groups


or geographic locations. These programs are not always well

advertised or accessible, limiting participation of those in most

need. There may also be poor coordination between different

programs, and claw-backs from other income supplement programs

such as social assistance, child tax benefit or the federal

childcare supplement. For example, BC’s Rental Assistance

Program (RAP) is not available to families on social assistance.

The shelter allowance is lower than market rent in most of BC

($700 for family of four), forcing many families to spend a

significant amount of the non-shelter portion to pay for housing.

For families exiting social assistance, it is often complicated

to ensure uninterrupted housing assistance. Creating one system

of housing assistance through the tax system will eliminate all

of the complications, redundancies, unequal access and

bureaucratic administration.

Another facet of the housing crisis is the deterioration of

the existing social housing stock. With very little new

independent social housing being created, existing stocks are in

need of repair or rebuilding, putting current occupants in


jeopardy in terms of quality of life, health and potential

displacement (Klein & Copas, 2010).

What factors lead to this current calamity, and how can we

move towards constructive solutions? The next section explores

historical government policies, economic and demographic factors

that created the current problem, which gives us insight into

what worked in the past and what mistakes to avoid in the future.

Historical Context of the Affordable Housing Crisis

The current affordable housing crisis and concentrated urban

poverty is a product of historical shifts in the socio-economic

and political climate which degraded the status of rental housing

within the broader housing system. The neo-liberal restructuring

in housing and social policy over the last two decades has been

particularly detrimental (Bryant, 2003). In order to begin

exploring new policy ideas and strategies for change, it is

important to understand the historical context in which the

current housing situation has developed.

1) Early Housing Policy: 1946-64


The early stages of Canadian housing policy dates back to

1946, when the Canada (then Central) Mortgage and Housing

Corporation was established (CMHC, 2010). CMHC had a specific

mandate to build a housing community, mostly consisting of single

detached owner-occupied housing for middle-income families

(Carroll & Jones, 2000). Between 1949 and 1963, federal funding

was provided to municipalities to deal with key housing and

neighbourhood issues, such as slum clearance, urban redevelopment

and neighbourhood improvement under the National Housing Act

(Hulchanski, 2007). Only 12,000 public housing units were built

during this time, largely regarded as a public relations campaign

to deflect mounting public criticism about the lack of affordable

housing for the poor (Hulchanski, 2007). This attitude mirrors

that of today’s government.

2) Post war social development: 1965-75

The post-war era had the largest impact on Canada’s urban

landscape, as wartime production was quickly replaced by

production of consumer goods, and apartments targeted to single

labourers became integral in attracting a large workforce to


bustling industrial centres. Although homeownership was

encouraged, 42 percent of the population were renters with a

moderate income, many of them single or just starting families

(Bothwell, Drummond & English, 1989). Canadian policy gave

priority to rentals from 1965-75 in order to support industrial

growth and gain support among the rising middle class (Suttor,

2009). In addition to the post war baby boom, immigration also

contributed to the unprecedented population growth, with nearly

one percent of the population immigrating to Canada annually

between 1950−60 and 1965−75 (Suttor, 2009). During this time,

rural to urban migration and new immigrants overloaded large

urban centres, which experienced a 130% rise in population

(Bothwell, Drummond & English, 1989). This era left its mark on

our current built environment in major urban centres: A large

number of older, tall rental apartment buildings geared to

singles and couples without children (Suttor, 2009).

At the same time, Canada was establishing itself as a

welfare state, and there was unparalleled political will to

address the severe housing needs of the poor. There was


significant growth in social housing development, supported by

tax revenues from the booming economy. Canada started building

subsidized rental housing for low-income households in 1963

through a joint initiative involving the federal, provincial and

municipal governments (Hulchanski, 2007). Provincial and

municipal housing corporations such as BC Housing and Metro

Vancouver Housing Corporation were established to manage the

housing, under agreements with the federal government. About

200,000 public housing units were built under this program by the

1970s, accounting for about 2 percent of Canada’s total housing

stock (Hulchanski, 2007). Many researchers look to the proactive

construction of social housing during the latter half of the

1960s as the most successful Canadian model of social housing

(Leone & Carroll, 2010).

3) Recession and financial restraint: 1975-84

But by the mid 1970s, the decline in industry production

resulted in a recession, with major downscaling of renter income.

The emerging service jobs that replaced manufacturing jobs paid

wages that were so low that many families dropped below the


poverty line (Hajnal, 1995). The recession most significantly

affected lower-income renters, since they had no savings or home

equity to draw from in the event of unforeseen circumstances such

as job loss, rent increases or illnesses. Housing starts dropped

rapidly, and Vacancy rates fell below 1-2% in many metropolitan

areas (Hulchanski, 2007). As demand eclipsed supply, affordable

housing became increasingly difficult to access, pushing the

poorer renters to the inner city, often in crowded apartments.

This was particularly devastating to those who were dependent on

a low or fixed income such as seniors, lone mother families and

new immigrants. In particular, many new immigrants were only

able to rent in core areas of the inner city, leading to

concentrated urban poverty and increased residential segregation

based on race and socioeconomic status (Hajnal, 1995). This was

the beginning of the rental housing crisis still evident in many

of Canada’s large urban centres.

Meanwhile, the homeownership sector enjoyed relative

stability, often consisting of families with more than one earner

in their peak earning years (Carroll & Jones, 2000). Those who


can afford to buy a house, largely consisting of white, middle

class families, moved to the suburbs (Hajnal, 1995). During

this time, the effects of policies favouring white, middle class

families became increasingly evident in a growing gap between the

rich and the poor (Clayton, 2010; Hulchanski, 2007).

4) Neoliberal restructuring: 1985-present

CMHC continued to fund the development of social housing

through the 1970 and 80s, until the 1984 election of the

conservative government. This year, several cuts were made to

the social housing program, and a report was released criticizing

the high cost and the inefficiencies of the existing social

housing programs (Hulchanski, 2004). Growing government deficits

shifted the political culture towards financial restraint, and

the affordable housing program became increasingly targeted and

restrictive (Carroll & Jones, 2000). Social housing programs

were progressively scaled back through the 1980s, until 1993 when

the government underwent a complete neo-liberal restructuring

(Klein & Copas, 2010). This was the year in which CMHC froze

expenditures and discontinued the building of new affordable


housing (Wolfe, 1998). This is regarded as a natural political

consequence, since liberal welfare regimes have been consistently

linked to higher rates of homeownership and lower rental rates

among Western societies (Suttor, 2009). This policy shift

further exacerbated the housing crisis, with a steady increase in

poverty in homelessness, especially in inner cities. By the

1990s, it was increasingly evident that widening income

disparities were being magnified by housing status (Hulchanski,

2007).

Preferential policies for home owners

Hulchanski (2004) argues that throughout recent Canadian

history, social housing programs have always been modest compared

to the programs encouraging home ownership. The history of

renting is entwined with its counterpart, homeownership.

Hulchanski asserts that there was never a policy of neutrality to

treat renters and owners equally, and that the main focus of CMHC

has always been to make the market-based housing system work for

the majority of Canadians. Over the years, CMHC has introduced

programs to help Canadian homeowners such as the Registered


Homeownership Savings Plan, Assisted Home Ownership Program, the

Canadian Homeownership Stimulation Plan, and the Mortgage Rate

Protection Program (Hulchanski, 2004). Furthermore, Hulchanski

(2007) asserts that programs such as the first time homebuyer’s

tax credit, GST rebates for new housing, non-taxation of capital

gains on primary residences and the home renovation tax credit

can all be regarded as government subsidies for homeowners. For

example, in the 2010 budget, the federal government allocated

over 2 billion on social housing programs and program to assist

renters in the private market. However, this is eclipsed by the

direct spending and tax exemptions associated with private

homeownership in 2009, which totalled 15.8 billion (Clayton,

2010). This now large and affluent ownership sector has

considerable political clout and has been able to maintain the

status quo by financing political campaigns, lobbying, and

garnering majority votes for sympathetic politicians in our

“first past the post” voting system (Hulchanski, 2007). While

many proponents of the free market may argue that the current

housing situation is a product of natural market activities,


evidence speaks to the contrary. Without decades of federal

government policies favouring homeowners, there will be

significantly less homeowners today (Hulchanski, 2007). This is

not to say that the government should not support homeownership

for families. Rather, there should be equal support for renters

and owners, with extra help for families and vulnerable

individuals experiencing difficulty accessing safe, affordable

housing.

Theoretical Considerations in Family Housing Policy

In Canadian society today, home is regarded as the centre of

family life, fundamental to their health, mental health and

social acceptance. Many families spend a significant amount of

their financial resources on housing, making it a large agenda

item on public policy tables. However, policy considerations

must include the change in housing need throughout the life

course, structural inequalities and the meaning people attribute

to their home and community based on their unique life context.

1) Developmental considerations


Housing is intimately linked with child development, and

development throughout the life course. A person’s housing needs

and resources they are able to allocate to housing changes over

the life course, and in turn housing significantly affects human

development. Recent studies have demonstrated that housing,

neighbourhoods and communities are distinct factors that affect

the healthy development of a child (Cooper, 2007).

A family’s location in society is embedded in their

neighbourhood context. A neighbourhood’s socioeconomic

composition affects residential stability and the development of

social capital, which in turn fosters community resilience, crime

rates and their ability to advocate for themselves (Guest et al.

2006). There is considerable research linking low neighbourhood

socioeconomic status and poor housing conditions with poor mental

and physical health; reports of abuse and neglect; and the number

of children placed in temporary care (Cohen-Schlanger, 1995;

Hetherington, 1975; Duncan, Brooks-Gunn & Klebanov, 1994; McLoyd,

1998). For example, in their study of the effects of economic

deprivation on child development, Duncan and colleagues (1994)


found that the child’s home environment accounted for about one-

third of the effect of family income on a child’s IQ. They also

found evidence that regardless of the family’s socioeconomic

status, childhood IQ was higher if they lived in more affluent

neighbourhoods. In addition, lower income neighbourhoods were

associated with a higher prevalence of externalizing behaviour

problems. Although the correlation is relatively weak, there is

some evidence that when a child moves from to a lower poverty

neighbourhood, it results in improvements in their mental health

(Currie, 2009). This suggests that while family socioeconomic

status and intra-family dynamics play a large role in child

development, housing and neighbourhood qualities have a

considerable impact. This effect will likely fluctuate depending

on neighbourhood demographic composition, child friendly

neighbourhood amenities, qualities of schools, access to

transportation and the friendliness of neighbours. Many of

these factors have developmental implications across one’s life

course, so they are important to consider for housing targeted to

adults and seniors as well. This has implications for housing


policy: Social capital and neighbourhood resilience can be

cultivated by introducing policies to ensure tenure stability,

good transportation and schools, access to age appropriate

amenities. Since poverty is most strongly related to poor

developmental outcomes, affordable housing is a powerful avenue

to address this problem since it increases the family’s net

income after rent.

2) A feminist analysis: the social construction of home

What are the structural influences that have determined the

course of policy? In order to avoid perpetuating existing

structural inequalities, we must understand the ideology in which

these inequalities are rooted in. Why has social policy

consistently favoured homeowners over renters? While neoliberal

political ideology is often cited as the catch-all explanation,

our present day structural inequality is rooted in male dominated

Western cultural values, which have been exacerbated by the

industrial revolution.

In pre-industrialized societies, economic and domestic

activities often took place in the same sphere, with close ties


to the community (Valentine, 2001). The development of large-

scale industries resulted in the separation of the home work

life, with corresponding shifts in ideas about men and women’s

roles (McDowell, 1983). The home is not just a structure or

shelter, but is also the hub of social connections and has a

wider cultural and symbolic meaning (Valentine, 2001). In

Western traditions, the workplace has been constructed as public

space, and the home a private space, which is safe, loving and

nurturing (Valentine, 2001). Women’s care activities and

housekeeping became associated with the private space of the

home, while the men worked outside to support the family and

improve their social status. This privatization of family life

is embodied in the post-war suburban, single detached housing in

North America and Europe (England, 1991). This conservative

ideal of a two parent family with a father working in the city

and a nurturing at-home mother engaged in childcare and domestic

chores has been reinforced through decades of social policy

favouring nuclear families (Valentine, 2001). These patriarchal

social policies with assumptions about household roles served to


marginalize anyone who did not fit this ideal, including lone

parents, seniors, non-heterosexual couples, people with

disabilities, and new immigrant families. In particular, women

continue to face significant barriers to obtain well paid work

due to the lack of affordable childcare, poor public

transportation (especially in suburbs), lower wages and the

demands of balancing care-giving activities with work life

(England, 1991).

Housing policy must therefore include a careful

consideration of the social construction of gendered division of

work and care activities (Smith, 2005).

3) Ethic of Care

The ethic of care is an ethical framework developed in the

feminist tradition to challenge the dominant liberal justice

paradigm (Hankivsky, 2004). The ethic of care emphasizes the

importance of relationships, human interdependence and the need

to give special attention to people who are marginalized or

particularly vulnerable due to power differentials. The

principle of contextual sensitivity is central to the ethic of


care, as it takes into account people’s values,

interconnectedness and history, allowing us to meet people where

they are at (Hankivsky, 2004) An ethic of care encourages policy

makers to be responsive to the voices and values of marginalized

people. In the realm of housing, an ethic of care argues that

the liberal justice ethic of the current right-to-housing

campaign is still largely a one size fits all model, and does not

take into account the diverse experiences of different groups

(Reitz-Pustejovsky, 2002).

While policymakers often assume that the home is a positive

place, epitomized by the expression “there is no place like

home,” people’s actual experiences of home do not always fit this

ideal. The meaning people attribute to their home depends on

their individual circumstances, and changes over the life course

(Valentine, 2001). While some may regard the home as a space of

safety and nurturing, it can also be a site of conflict,

oppression or violence for others. For some women, a home may

represent constraints to domestic chores. For those experiencing

oppression in the outside world, the home may come to symbolize


protection and solidarity, a safe haven where they can be free of

stigma and discrimination (Hooks, 1991). The home may be a place

of additional pressure or rejection for non-heterosexual youth if

their family is not accepting. A young adult may pass through

several precarious rental arrangements without experiencing

attachment to any single dwelling. Research indicates that the

importance attributed to the home increases with age, with

seniors displaying the greatest degree of emotional attachment to

their homes (Cuba & Hummon, 1993). The developmental and

contextual meaning people attribute to their home has significant

policy implications. For example, even if social policy creates

beautiful supported housing for seniors, it may be met by great

resistance to institutional care, fear of loss of their sense of

roots, identity and control. Similarly, a homeless person may

refuse to enter a shelter or live in supported housing if they

associate it with fear of violence, theft, social isolation,

conflict, loneliness, pests or past failure. Housing policy

that assumes that the women can readily stay home and take on the

bulk of the care work also places significant constraints on


women’s life choices. Housing policy must therefore include

considerations about

4) Human rights perspective

In their 2009 Report on Adequate Housing, the United Nations

expressed concerns about the number of people in inadequate

housing and living conditions, rising housing prices, and the

decrease in public housing in Canada. Canada is a signatory to

several international human rights conventions affirming the

right to adequate housing, including the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights; International Covenant on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights; and International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights. These instruments imply the obligation of the

state to ensure access to adequate housing for all Canadians

(United Nations, 2009). For example, the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights Article 25 (1) states that:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for

the health and well-being of himself and of his family,

including food, clothing, housing and medical care and

necessary social services, and the right to security in the


event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old

age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his

control. (United Nations, 1948)

Domestic courts, however, cannot directly enforce any of these

International human rights treaties signed by Canada unless they

have been incorporated into Canadian domestic law through federal

or provincial legislatures (Porter, 2004). While section 7 and

15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms uphold the

right to “life, liberty and security,” it does not explicitly

establish the right to housing. Porter (2005) argues that

section 7 and 15 cannot be upheld without adequate housing, and

should be grounds for court decisions when dealing with

violations of the right to adequate housing.

The historical context, geographical and built environment

and the theoretical perspectives discussed in this section are

all important factors have all informed the following policy

recommendations.


Policy Recommendations

1) A national housing strategy and legal recognition of right to

housing

First and foremost, the development of a national housing

strategy is imperative in addressing a national scale housing

crisis. This national housing strategy must be developed in

collaboration not only with provincial and municipal governments,

but also representatives from the community including

marginalized groups.

The shortage of affordable housing is a national problem,

since it affects almost every major city in Canada, and is a

direct result of structural forces that are national in scale.

Leone and Carroll (2010) argue that much of the breakdown of

housing policy has been attributed to the devolution of housing

policy to provinces, municipalities and third parties through the

1980 s and 90s. While it is unrealistic to expect the federal

government to exercise the power and control it once had, it can

still play a leadership role and help negotiate a coordinated

strategy that works for the unique needs of provinces,


municipalities and citizen groups. This is exactly the policy

direction suggested by Bill C304, a Private Members’ Bill

currently in its third reading in the national Parliament.

(House of Commons of Canada, 2010). This bill advocates for a

collaborative national housing strategy and the explicit

inclusion of the right to housing in domestic law. During recent

years, the federal government is demonstrating increased interest

in getting involved in the development of affordable housing, so

the political timing is right. A national housing strategy will

lay the foundation for the implementation of the following

recommendations. Furthermore, a right to housing legislation in

domestic law will open up legal avenues for experiencing severe

housing marginalization. Care must be taken when crafting the

wording of the law to ensure that adequate housing and

unacceptable living conditions are well defined and legal aid is

available to ensure protection of the most vulnerable citizens

without massively overloading government resources.

2) Federal housing assistance program


In order to provide immediate assistance to struggling

families and streamline the various housing assistance, I propose

a federally administered program for housing assistance

administered through the tax system. This program will be aimed

at low income renters and homeowners alike.

This can be modeled after the child tax benefit, with a

funding formula that takes into account family income, family

composition, people with disabilities or special care needs, and

market rent levels. Most of this information is already

collected through the tax system, so it will require minimum

additional information on the tax form. Cutting many of the

current tax breaks for homeowners and applying a system that

gives everyone income based assistance will likely not result in

extra spending. However, if there are significant budget

constraints, the housing assistance can be in the form of a tax

credit, which is only paid out in monthly instalments if the

credits exceed the tax payable.

The downside is that the housing subsidy may end up

functioning as an indirect subsidy to private landlords,


reinforcing some of the exploitation and power differentials that

exist in the current market-based system. While the subsidy

will help provide a stable source of rent money, it may not

guarantee tenure stability or adequate living conditions, since

it does nothing to protect renters from poor maintenance, rent

increases or evictions. While policy changes such as better

mechanisms to ensure proper up-keeping of rental properties,

protect tenants from eviction and rent control are recommended as

part of the solution, it is not an adequate long-term solution.

The only way to secure a stable, affordable housing stock is to

build more social housing.

3) Investment in building social housing

As a long term solution, provision of subsidised housing is

the most desirable model, as it provides a stable supply of

housing for low income families. Publically owned housing is

often better maintained and of better quality, and its planning

can include considerations for the neighbourhood context,

ensuring the suitability of the environment and availability of

amenities for the target residents. There is less financial


stress for tenants, less crowding, and more secure tenancy,

allowing for the development of neighbourhood support networks

(CMHC 2010). However, the current system of subsidized housing

is mired with long wait lists, limited choice and mobility, the

clustering of low-income renters in one location, and cookie-

cutter designs that cry out social housing. Many of the current

social housing stock are not well maintained, and the amenities

are shabby compared to surrounding market homes in the

neighborhood. To address these potential shortcomings requires a

major overhaul of the system. The Calgary Homeless Foundation

suggests an investment of $2.5 billion in addition to current

funding levels to create 30,000 to 50,000 units of affordable

housing over the next two years. In addition, the federal

housing rehabilitation programs need to be significantly expanded

to maintain and retrofit existing substandard homes. This

includes collaboration with other ministries and local

organizations to ensure adequate neighbourhood amenities such as

childcare and senior’s centers, community centers, medical

facilities and parks to support the developmental needs of all


residents. Attention should be given to good building design as

well, to reduce stigmatization and foster neighborhood pride and

self esteem.

Since building new social housing is time consuming, it will

not provide an immediate fix to the current massive affordable

housing shortage. This model alone will not have the flexibly in

the future to increase supply upon demand. While CMHC is the

logical office to administer funding, set standards and provide

expertise for social housing, there should be more municipal

involvement in the actual building of social housing. Since

social housing may be subject to community resistance (known as

NIMBY, an acronym for the phrase not in my back yard), there is a

large role for municipalities to do develop support for

affordable housing initiatives (Oakley, 2002). Furthermore, it

will be important to maintain dialogue and collaborative

relationships with existing non-profit housing providers to

encourage creative solutions to increase affordable housing

options.

Limitations of Housing Policy


Even if the government did introduce regulations and assumed

a larger role in housing policy, there are significant

limitations, since 95% of the housing stock is situated in the

private market. In a liberal capitalist free market, one’s

position in the housing market is intimately linked with the

distribution of wealth, the exercise of power, and maintenance of

the status quo (Hulchanski, 2007). Housing is only one facet of

the multiple, overlapping inequalities perpetuated by our social,

economic and political system. There is only so much housing

policy can do to address these greater forces of social

inequalities.

It is also difficult for laws to regulate housing

discrimination. This can be in the form of neighbourhood

opposition to social housing, or discrimination of landlords

towards certain tenants they deem undesirable. There are some

federal, provincial and territorial human rights legislation is

in place to address overt discrimination, but there is not much

recourse for generalized intolerance and prejudice. These laws

are designed to prevent landlords from treating a person unfairly


or refusing tenancy based on race, colour, ethnic origin,

religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, family status, a

disability (mental or physical) or receipt of public assistance.

However, it is difficult to enforce these legislations, and there

are very little options available if one’s discriminated against,

due the complicated and costly legal process and ongoing cutbacks

to legal aid (Brewin & Govender, 2010).

There are also budgetary constraints, as it is difficult to

gauge the magnitude of cost to the government if our domestic law

endorses positive housing rights. The need for affordable

housing can greatly increase during unforeseen events such a

recession, natural disaster or war. Since it implies direct

government responsibility to provide housing, it can open the

door to many interest groups to make demands for the government

to provide funding for various specialized housing, asserting

their right to culturally or spiritually appropriate housing.

If too many people sue the government to settle their housing

problems, it can clog up the legal system and cost the government

a large amount of legal dollars that could have been spent on


actual housing. Designing contextually sensitive housing and

communities that address family care needs is also much more

costly than cookie cutter approaches. But for the long run,

care-oriented communities with strong social ties will

significantly increase the quality of life for Canadians.

Financially, this will translate into considerable savings to the

healthcare and criminal justice system.

Conclusion

The lack of affordable housing is a complex social issue

requiring a combination of policy instruments and public

education to move towards a solution. While policy instruments

can provide an overall framework to address social problems, the

bulk of the responsibility is placed on government,

underemphasizing the responsibility and obligations of

communities and the private sector as being part of the solution

(Ife & Fiske, 2006). It is clear that market forces will not

supply the affordable rental housing that is so desperately

needed, and Canada needs to catch up to other Western nations

that have a much larger social housing sector, and a much smaller


housing problem (Hulchanski, 2002). A focus on the human right

to adequate housing for all Canadians, which was the basis of

housing policy from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s, is essential

to promote sustainable urban development, human development and

social cohesion (Hulchanski, 2002). The policy suggestions in

this paper are only part of the solution. As long as

discriminatory attitudes and Western libertarian ideology of

personal responsibility prevails in our society, we will fail to

gain public support and continue to lose the social justice

battle.

Social workers are well positioned to promote social justice

and caring communities through community development, public

education and advocacy (Meda, 2009). At the micro level, we are

involved in actively listening to the stories of our clients

experiencing housing challenges. This gives us a rich

understanding of personal and contextual factors, which we can

bring to higher level government and social service agencies

developing housing policy. At the mezzo level, we can organize

community awareness campaigns and encourage citizens to take a


proactive role in increasing affordable housing in their

neighbourhood. We can also advocate for affordable housing at

the municipal, provincial and federal level by participating in

political action, supporting politicians that are aligned with

social work values, writing letters, and campaigning through our

professional associations.

At the same time, social workers may reinforce the status

quo if we are not reflective of our own biases, social location

and world view (Taylor & White, 2000). Our societal values and

understanding of social justice was developed in the context of a

Western liberal ideology and capitalism, which privileges the

private market and shapes our idea of what is reasonable, or even

possible (Ife, 2008). As social work education is now shifting

towards a more relational and context-sensitive ethic of care, we

are in the position to engage our profession in a more bottom-up

and participatory social justice movement.

In his December 2001 budget speech, Paul Martin, the

Minister of Finance at the time, declared that “Housing is a

basic need of every Canadian, seniors and young families alike,


and meeting that need must be the responsibility of us all.”

(Canada, Minister of Finance, 2001) Although the government’s

commitment to this ideal has been haphazard at best, I want to

emphasize that this must continue to be the mandate for Canadian

housing policy. Even if our advocacy and community development

efforts do not yield the desired change in the short run, it is

important to keep affordable housing in the forefront of public

and political attention. The window of opportunity may open any

time, based on economic, political, social and other unforeseen

conditions. There has been a gradual shift towards increased

support for affordable housing, and we need to be ready to seize

the opportunity to move the agenda forward when the window of

opportunity opens up.


References

Badcock, B. (1984). Unfairly Structured Cities. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

BC Housing (2010). Annual Report 2009/10. Retrieved on December

2, 2010 from [http://www.bchousing.org]

BC Housing (2010). BC Housing Service Plan (2006-2011). Retrieved

on November 3, 2010 from [www.bchousing.org]

BC Housing (2010). The Housing Continuum. Retrieved on November

1, 2010 from [www.bchousing.org]

Bothwell, R. Drummond, I. & English, J. (1989). Canada since 1945.

Toronto : University of Toronto Press

Bursik, R. J., and Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and Crime:

The Dimensions of Effective Community Control. New York : Lexington.

Butterwick, S. (2010). Meaningful Training Programs for BC

Welfare Recipients with Multiple Barriers: Help first, not

work first. Retrieved on November 5, 2010 from

[www.policyalternatives.ca]

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2000). Special studies

on 1996 census data: Housing conditions of immigrants.


Retrieved on December 3, 2010 from [https://www03.cmhc-

schl.gc.ca]

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2009). Housing in

Canada On-Line, based on the 2006 Census. Retrieved on

November 3, 2010 from [www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca]

Carroll, B. & Jones, R. (2000). The road to innovation,

convergence or inertia: Devolution in housing policy in

Canada. Canadian Public Policy, 26(3). 277–293.

Cater, J., & Jones, T. (1989). Social Geography: An Introduction to

Contemporary Issues. New York: Edward Arnold.

City of North Vancouver. (2006). Summary of Affordable Housing

Action Forum - May 6, 2006. Retrieved on November 1, 2010

from [www.cnv.org]

Clampet-Lundquist, S. (2010), “Everyone Had Your Back”: Social

Ties, Perceived Safety, and Public Housing Relocation. City &

Community, 9. 87–108.

Clayton, F. A. (2010). Government subsidies to homeowners versus

renters in Ontario and Canada. Canadian Federation of


Apartment Associations. Retrieved on December 2, 2010 from

[www.cfaa-fcapi.org]

CMHC. (2010). 2010 Canadian Housing Observer. Retrieved on

December 7, 2010 from [ http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca]

Coleman, J. S. (1988). “Social Capital in the Creation of Human

Capital,” American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.

Cuba, L. & Hummon, D.M. (1993). A Place to Call Home:

Identification with Dwelling, Community, and Region. The

Sociological Quarterly, 34(1), 111-131.

Currie, J. (2009). Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise: Socioeconomic

Status, Poor Health in Childhood, and Human Capital

Development. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(1), 87–122.

D’Addario, S, Hiebert, D. & Sherrell, K. (2005). “Sleeping on the

Margins: The Role of Social Capital in the Housing Patterns

of Refugee Claimants in the Greater Vancouver Regional

District. Master’s Thesis. Retrieved on November 2, 2010

from [pi.library.yorku.ca].

Department of Finance (2001). The Budget Speech 2001: Securing

progress in an uncertain world. December 10, 2001. The


Honourable Paul Martin P.C., M.P., Minister of Finance.

Retrieved on December 3, 2010 from

[http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca]

Drummond, D. (2003). Affordable Housing in Canada: In Search of a

New Paradigm. TD Economics, Special Report. Retrieved on

November 3, 2010 from [www.td.com/economics]

Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J. & Klebanov, P.K. (1994). Economic

deprivation and early childhood development. Child Development,

65(2), 296-318.

Duncan, G., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, E. (1994). Economic

deprivation and early childhood development. Child Development,

65, 296-318.

Dunn, J. R. & Hayes, M.V. (2000). Social inequality, population

health, and housing: a study of two Vancouver

neighbourhoods. Social Science & Medicine, 51, 563-587.

England, K. V. L. (1991). Gender relations and the spatial

structure of the city. Geoforum, 22(2), 135-147.


Guest, A. M., Cover, J. K., Matsueda, R. L., and Kubrin, C. E.

(2006). Neighborhood context and neighboring ties. City &

Community, 5(4), 363–385.

Hajnal, Z. L. (1995). The nature of concentrated urban poverty in

Canada and the United States. The Canadian Journal of Sociology,

20(4), 497-528.

Harris, R., & Pratt, G. (1993). The meaning of home,

homeownership, and public policy. In L. S. Bourne, & D. F.

Ley, The Changing Social Geography of Canadian Cities.

Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's Press.

Harvey, D. (1973). Social Justice and the City. Oxford:

Blackwell.

House of Commons of Canada (2010). BILL C-304, 3rd Session, 40th

Parliament. Retrieved on November 4, 2010 from

[www2.parl.gc.ca]

Howden-Chapman, P. (2002). Housing and inequalities in health.

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 56(9). 645–646.


Hulchanski, J.D. (2002). Housing policy for tomorrow’s cities.

Discussion paper F|27. Canadian Policy Research Networks.

Retrieved on November 27, 2010 from [http://www.cprn.org]

Institute of Wellbeing (2009). Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW).

Retrieved on November 1, 2010 from [www.ciw.ca]

Kasarda, J. D. & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community Attachment in

Mass Society, American Sociological Review, 39(3), 328–339.

Klein, S. & Copas, L. (2010). Unpacking the Housing Numbers: How

much new social housing is BC building? Canada Centre for

Policy Alternatives. Retrieved on November 1, 2010 from


Leone, R. & Carroll, B.W. (2010). Decentralisation and devolution

in Canadian social housing policy. Environment and Planning C:

Government and Policy, 28, 389-404.

Mann, P. H. (1954). The Concept of Neighborliness. American Journal

of Sociology, (60), 163–168.

McDowell, L. (1983). Towards an understanding of the gender

division of urban space. Environment and Planning D: Society and

Space, 1(1), 59-72.


McLoyd, V.C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child

development. American Psychology, 53. 185–204.

Merry, S. E. (1981). Urban Danger: Life in a Neighborhood of Strangers.

Philadelphia : Temple University.

Ministery of Finance (2010). Budget 2010: Leading the way on jobs

and growth. Tabled in the House of Commons by the Honourable

James M. Flaherty, P.C., M.P. Minister of Finance. Retrieved

on December 1, 2010 from [www.fin.gc.ca]

Pomeroy, S. (2001). Toward a Comprehensive Affordable Housing

Strategy for Canada. Caledon Institute for Social Policy.

Retrieved on November 6, 2010 from [caledoninst.org]

Portes, A. (1998). Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications

in Modern Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.

Rainwater, L. (1966). “Fear and the House-as-Haven in the Lower

Class,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 32(1), 23–31.

Renaud, J, Piché, V. and Godin, J.F. (2003). One’s bad and the

other one’s worse: Differences in economic integration

between asylum seekers and refugees selected abroad.’

Canadian Ethnic Studies, 35. 86-99.


Richards, T., Cohen, M & Klein, S. (2010). Working for a living

wage: Making paid work meet basic family needs in Metro

Vancouver. Vancouver: CCPA, First Call Child and Youth

Advocacy Coalition, and the Metro Vancouver Living Wage for

Families Campaign, 2010. Retrieved on November 1, 2010 from


Rose, D. & Ray, B. (2001). The housing situation of refugees in

Montreal three years after arrival. Journal of International

Migration and Integration, 2(4). 493–527

Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods

and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective

Efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924.

Smandych, E. (2010). Applying for Subsidized Housing in BC. Here

to Help: BC Partners for Mental Health and Addictions

Information. Retrieved on November 3, 2010 from

[www.heretohelp.bc.ca]

Steele, M. (1998). Canadian housing allowances inside and outside

the welfare system. Canadian Public Policy, 24(2). 209-232


Suttor, G. (2009). Rental paths from postwar to present: Canada

compared. Cities Centre, University of Toronto. Retrieved on

December 3, 2010 from [http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca]

Taylor, R. (1996). Neighborhood responses to disorder and local

attachments: The systemic model of attachment, social

disorganization, and neighborhood use value. Sociological Forum,

11(1), 41–74.

The Calgary Homeless Foundation. (2010). Facts on Homelessness.

Retrieved on November 10, 2010 from

[http://www.calgaryhomeless.com]

Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Canadian housing policy in the nineties.

Housing Studies, 13, 121–133.

AFFORDALBLE HOUSING POLICY

Documents

Transcript of AFFORDALBLE HOUSING POLICY