Another reason I flail away with "just build social housing by government" is that it's a very simple statement, and this column's topic is head-spinningly complicated. As housing is, I'm not saying its artificial complexity.
But perhaps that does speak to government's best move. If a move is complex, might actually backfire, it's risky. "Just Build it" is not, and it's hard to see how just adding square footage to any market - given Russil's "ladder" view of it - won't help all the housing markets somewhat.
As an FYI, a good article in the Sun this morning about those "Community Housing Trusts" that have done a lot of good in Toronto.
Thanks for the feedback, Roy. I'm aiming for clarity and persuasiveness, so it's helpful to hear that the discussion of cost increases is still too complicated.
Howard Chai’s piece shines a light on Metro Vancouver’s Development Cost Charge (DCC) debacle, but it’s the subtext that screams loudest: Vancouver’s public institutions are trapped in silos, stumbling over each other with no semblance of collaboration. This isn’t just a housing story—it’s a damning indictment of how Metro Vancouver, the Vancouver School Board (VSB), and higher levels of government fail to align on the most basic shared goal: building a city that works for its people.
The federal government’s $250 million offer from the Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund is a rare flicker of intergovernmental intent—tie funding to a DCC freeze and nudge Metro Vancouver toward housing relief. It’s the kind of carrot-and-stick I’ve called for in my thesis to force accountability. But Metro Vancouver’s response—extending in-stream protection to 24 months instead of rethinking DCCs— reeks of the same shortsightedness I’ve flagged in the VSB’s land leases and school closures. They’re haggling over $220 million in revenue while ignoring the cascading costs: higher rents, fewer homes, and a city pricing out families. Sound familiar? It’s the VSB leasing Fleming Elementary land for $7,000 a month, blind to the future need for classrooms as density explodes.
Where’s the collaboration? Metro Vancouver’s finance committee obsesses over property tax revenue, oblivious to how DCC hikes strangle housing supply—and, by extension, school enrollment stability. The VSB, meanwhile, sits in its own bubble, underestimating demand in growth zones like Oakridge and Broadway because it can’t—or won’t—sync with municipal planning. The article’s right: DCCs are a “leaky bucket,” inflating rents and existing home prices. But no one’s asking the obvious question: how does that hit schools? Overcrowded portables, strained budgets, and families fleeing Vancouver because they can’t afford to stay. The VSB’s silence here is deafening—why aren’t they at the table, demanding a piece of that $250 million to fund classrooms alongside sewers?
The provincial government’s absence is just as galling. British Columbia could mandate School Site Acquisition Charges (SSAC) for Vancouver, as other districts use, to tie housing growth to school funding. Instead, they let Metro Vancouver and the VSB flail independently, with no mechanism to bridge the gap. Look at Richmond—$32 million in developer fees built transit infrastructure at Capstan SkyTrain. Why isn’t that model applied here, with a Developers for Schools Program linking DCC relief to education needs? The feds offer cash, Metro Van clutches its fees, the province shrugs, and the VSB pretends growth doesn’t exist. It’s a masterclass in siloed dysfunction.
Chai’s analysis hints at this—renter impacts ignored, revenue projections unchallenged—but it doesn’t go far enough. This isn’t just about Metro Vancouver missing a federal lifeline; it’s about a city where no one talks across the table. My thesis calls for transparent, data-driven planning that marries urban growth to public infrastructure. Metro Vancouver should take the $250 million, slash DCCs, and demand provincial legislation to fund schools from development gains. The VSB should be fighting for that too, not hiding behind bad enrollment forecasts. Without collaboration, we’re left with a city that builds towers but not communities—housing stalled, schools packed, and families squeezed out.
Wake up, Vancouver. Silos don’t build futures—they bury them.
Another reason I flail away with "just build social housing by government" is that it's a very simple statement, and this column's topic is head-spinningly complicated. As housing is, I'm not saying its artificial complexity.
But perhaps that does speak to government's best move. If a move is complex, might actually backfire, it's risky. "Just Build it" is not, and it's hard to see how just adding square footage to any market - given Russil's "ladder" view of it - won't help all the housing markets somewhat.
As an FYI, a good article in the Sun this morning about those "Community Housing Trusts" that have done a lot of good in Toronto.
Thanks for the feedback, Roy. I'm aiming for clarity and persuasiveness, so it's helpful to hear that the discussion of cost increases is still too complicated.
Howard Chai’s piece shines a light on Metro Vancouver’s Development Cost Charge (DCC) debacle, but it’s the subtext that screams loudest: Vancouver’s public institutions are trapped in silos, stumbling over each other with no semblance of collaboration. This isn’t just a housing story—it’s a damning indictment of how Metro Vancouver, the Vancouver School Board (VSB), and higher levels of government fail to align on the most basic shared goal: building a city that works for its people.
The federal government’s $250 million offer from the Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund is a rare flicker of intergovernmental intent—tie funding to a DCC freeze and nudge Metro Vancouver toward housing relief. It’s the kind of carrot-and-stick I’ve called for in my thesis to force accountability. But Metro Vancouver’s response—extending in-stream protection to 24 months instead of rethinking DCCs— reeks of the same shortsightedness I’ve flagged in the VSB’s land leases and school closures. They’re haggling over $220 million in revenue while ignoring the cascading costs: higher rents, fewer homes, and a city pricing out families. Sound familiar? It’s the VSB leasing Fleming Elementary land for $7,000 a month, blind to the future need for classrooms as density explodes.
Where’s the collaboration? Metro Vancouver’s finance committee obsesses over property tax revenue, oblivious to how DCC hikes strangle housing supply—and, by extension, school enrollment stability. The VSB, meanwhile, sits in its own bubble, underestimating demand in growth zones like Oakridge and Broadway because it can’t—or won’t—sync with municipal planning. The article’s right: DCCs are a “leaky bucket,” inflating rents and existing home prices. But no one’s asking the obvious question: how does that hit schools? Overcrowded portables, strained budgets, and families fleeing Vancouver because they can’t afford to stay. The VSB’s silence here is deafening—why aren’t they at the table, demanding a piece of that $250 million to fund classrooms alongside sewers?
The provincial government’s absence is just as galling. British Columbia could mandate School Site Acquisition Charges (SSAC) for Vancouver, as other districts use, to tie housing growth to school funding. Instead, they let Metro Vancouver and the VSB flail independently, with no mechanism to bridge the gap. Look at Richmond—$32 million in developer fees built transit infrastructure at Capstan SkyTrain. Why isn’t that model applied here, with a Developers for Schools Program linking DCC relief to education needs? The feds offer cash, Metro Van clutches its fees, the province shrugs, and the VSB pretends growth doesn’t exist. It’s a masterclass in siloed dysfunction.
Chai’s analysis hints at this—renter impacts ignored, revenue projections unchallenged—but it doesn’t go far enough. This isn’t just about Metro Vancouver missing a federal lifeline; it’s about a city where no one talks across the table. My thesis calls for transparent, data-driven planning that marries urban growth to public infrastructure. Metro Vancouver should take the $250 million, slash DCCs, and demand provincial legislation to fund schools from development gains. The VSB should be fighting for that too, not hiding behind bad enrollment forecasts. Without collaboration, we’re left with a city that builds towers but not communities—housing stalled, schools packed, and families squeezed out.
Wake up, Vancouver. Silos don’t build futures—they bury them.