Globe editorial: "The build-more ethos is (finally) gaining political ground"
From the lead-up to last month's budget
The build-more ethos for housing is (finally) gaining political ground. Globe and Mail editorial board, April 5, 2024.
As an individual blogger, I always appreciate being able to point to more authoritative sources. And what I especially appreciate about Globe editorials on housing is that they often illuminate municipal finances, an underappreciated factor driving the housing shortage.
On cities underfunding infrastructure, resulting in a backlog of work which will need to be paid by younger residents in the future, to keep property taxes low for older homeowners:
One item announced Tuesday is of particular importance: Ottawa put $6-billion into a housing infrastructure fund – think sewers and the like – and will deliver it to cities that agree to key conditions such as increasing density and bolstering building codes.
Cities have spent too little on infrastructure such as sewers for too long. As city councils and planners restricted new housing, they were able to artificially keep taxes too low as they underinvested in new sewers. This went on for years. Consider Vancouver. Three years ago, a Globe feature revealed a lack of sewer capacity forced housing plans to be delayed. “The city under the streets, it’s colossal,” said Vancouver’s head of engineering. And yet Vancouver spent barely half of the minimum required on sewers each year.
Cities like Vancouver failed to plan for growth. Not enough homes, not enough sewers. Planning needs to focus on a future of abundance. As one Vancouver housing activist said: “If we, as a society, can no longer build new sewers as the city grows, then we really are in trouble.”
On cities taxing new housing like a gold mine, raising prices and rents for younger homebuyers and renters, to keep property taxes low for older homeowners:
As cities kept property taxes too low, they overly taxed new housing. Consider Toronto. City development taxes on a new two-bedroom condo, for example, have quintupled over the past decade. One key element of Mr. Trudeau’s infrastructure money is a requirement that cities enact a three-year freeze on development taxes. This space strongly supports a recalibration of how cities pay for new infrastructure. Too much is unfairly forced onto new owners. That mindset must change.
On the fight over jurisdiction:
After Ottawa announced housing money, some provinces were upset, claiming jurisdictional umbrage. Ontario Premier Doug Ford said city councils “know best.” This is flat-out wrong. Cities are at the root of the problem, having wielded local rules to slow new construction. Provinces could have stepped in – British Columbia did with groundbreaking legislation – but most others didn’t.
Given this lack of leadership on housing, Ottawa’s heft is welcome. And if provinces don’t like Mr. Trudeau’s ideas, Pierre Poilievre likewise plans to use Ottawa’s spending power to achieve national aims on a local level.
That last point is particularly important. As Kathryn Davies of More Neighbours Calgary puts it: with both Poilievre and Trudeau pushing for more housing, NIMBYs are now politically homeless at the federal level.
Before Covid, the housing shortage was primarily a problem in Metro Vancouver and the GTA. When Covid hit and we suddenly had a lot more people working from home, needing more space, and willing to move, the housing shortage basically spilled over to the rest of the country. It’s no longer a problem confined to Vancouver and Toronto: it’s a national problem.