More Social Housing

C A R N E G I E    C O M M U N I T Y    A C T I O N    P R O J E C T

April 22, 2008

Dear City Councillors and friends,

The Carnegie Community Action Project is extremely concerned about a motion council will deal with next week. It is proposed by Councilor Ladner and is titled: “Downtown Eastside Oppenheimer District economic development” (see below). It proposes that “the Director of Planning report back as soon as possible on zoning amendments that would allow existing industrial and commercial developments in the DEOD to expand these uses to over 1 FSR without providing the 20% social housing…”

The first huge problem with this motion is that Councilor Ladner is imposing his view of what the area should be without consulting low income residents who make up approximately 75% of the overall population of the DTES and nearly all of the residents in the DEOD.

As you know, CCAP is in the process of visioning with residents about what should be in their neighbourhood. In addition, the Planning Department has not begun community consultation for the DEOD rezoning. To pre-empt these processes by taking a political position before planning and by instructing the Director of Planning to report back “as soon as possible” is simply wrong, would not be tolerated in richer communities and will not be tolerated in the DTES.

The second huge problem with the motion is that one of the “whereas” clauses states inaccurately that “the city’s goal of 1:1 replacement of social housing units in the DTES can be met while still allowing flexibility for industrial and commercial expansion”. This goal is not being met right now, with only 557 new social housing units predicted for the DTES between 2005 and 2010 (stats from the City’s Housing Centre). CCAP’s recent hotel survey found that nearly half of privately owned SRO rooms (over 1300) are already inaccessible to local low income renters because rents are too high, owners are renting to students only, or they have been closed or are in grave danger of being closed. These units need to be replaced fast or more people will become homeless. Why would one assume that allowing industry to escape the social housing provision when they expand would not have an impact on social housing?

According to the DTES Housing Plan, the Oppenheimer District of the DTES is supposed to be the site of more than 1 for 1 SRO replacement housing because some of the other areas, like Gastown and Victory Square are not required to absorb their fair share of social housing.

While CCAP is on record as disagreeing with this policy (we think new SRO replacement housing should be distributed evenly throughout the DTES), it would not be prudent to start reducing social housing requirements in the DEOD before the needed SRO replacements are built.

If council insists that the motion go ahead, an amendment should be added requiring all new development in non industrial areas in the entire DTES, including the DEOD and historic areas, to build social housing (affordable by people with welfare level incomes) on at least 50% of all new floor space added.

We urge you to defeat Councilor Ladner’s motion.

Sincerely,
Wendy Pedersen
CCAP
604-839-0379

---

The number of social housing starts we are experiencing now isn’t as grand as Sullivan and Coleman would have us thinking. The City’s figures are here

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/nmi_wac/nmi.exe/CurrentProj?pcSort=year

Vancouver City Non-Market Housing Units Funded By Year
(by year of approval)

2008: 110 (+ the studio apartments?)
2007: 693 (only 36 new units)
2006: 0 ???
2005: 157
2004: 270
2003: 202 (only 99 new units)
2002: 20
2001: 12
2000: 251
1999: 987
1998: 258
1997: 606
1996: 20
1995: 330
1994: 479
1993: 415
1992: 542 (435 new units)
1991: 344
1990: 472 (432 new)
1989: 539
1988: 567
1987: 478
1986: 877
1985: 1126
1984: 906
1983: 849
1982: 995
1981: 293
1980: 1045
1979: 352
1978: 684
1977: 446
1976: 504
1975: 917
1974: 330
1972: 610
1971: 342
1970: 302
1969: 185
1968: 207
1967: 809
1966: 132
1965: 42
1964: 597
1963: 159
1962: 290
1961: 237
1960: 21
1958: 24
1957: 169
1952: 224

1983–1993: 6,968 units of new housing
147 units of renovated
Total: 7,115

1994—2004: 3,435 units of new housing

1997–2007: 2,799 units of new housing minus however many original
units of housing in Mole Hill
657 units of renovated (+ original units of Mole Hill)
Total: 3,456

1986—1996: 4,916 units of new housing
147 renovated
Total: 5,063

---

BC Budget 2008 is devastating news for homeless people and those at risk

BC Budget 2008 delivers devastating news for 10,000 homeless people in BC: “With only $39 million allocated for reducing homelessness, the government might as well proclaim to the world that homelessness will be here to stay through the Olympics and beyond,” said Carnegie Organizer Wendy Pedersen.

“Homeless people are sleeping under the wharf at Science World with rats and erratic tides. A homeless man died in a fire on West 4th because the shelter he went to was too full. Evictions are happening on Feb 29 at 334 Carrall, with more at other hotels like the Dominion Hotel and more that should sound the alarm to the BC Government.

The community court in the Downtown Eastside is funded with $13 million which will help funnel homeless people into jails or services more quickly. Existing shelters will stay open longer. Rent supplements will help 315 out of 10,000 homeless people in BC.

“It costs the BC Government, $30,000 to $40,000 annually to pay for hospital, jails, shelter and other services for each homeless person. Housing them would cost $22,000 to $28,000 per person depending on supports and eliminate the need for these other costs which would save taxpayers and society much money and grief,” said Pedersen.

“To make matters worse,” said Pedersen, “there is no mention of funding for the 1200 new units of supportive housing promised by Minister Coleman in October 2007.

This budget commits nothing to the Olympic Inner City Inclusivity Agreement, which promised welfare increases, an end to welfare barriers and 3200 additional social housing homes to minimize the impact of the upscaling development as a result of the Olympic games on inner city low income and homeless people.

There is no mention in the budget about last year’s $250 million housing and homelessness endowment fund that could be used to create housing. Instead $2 million of the interest from this fund will help, not homeless people, but burn victims with a new burn unit. This burn unit is important but should not be funded with homelessness money. “Last month, Darrell Mickasko died in a tent fire on West 4th Avenue because it was cold and the shelters were full,” said Pedersen. “A burn unit would not have saved his life but a new home would have.

“Each homeless person we see on the street is a sign that the BC Government, who is responsible for their plight, is not using its massive resources responsibly or respectfully, Pedersen explained. Instead of taking $440 million out of the $4 billion surplus from 2007 to buffer carbon tax increases, the BC government should spend the 2007 surplus to end homelessness and its devastating effects on us all.

---

March 26, 2008 Letter to Mayor and Council

Dear City Councillors,

The Carnegie Community Action Project is requesting an urgent meeting with you to discuss Action Item #12 on the Eco Density plan.

We have been interviewing literally hundreds of Downtown Eastside residents and talking to them at visioning sessions. We have also been talking to independent planning experts, and are extremely concerned that increasing density in the Downtown Eastside, even on so-called “signature sites” only, will have the effect of destroying our community.

Residents are telling us over and over that they want a community where they feel comfortable, where the services they need are convenient, where their friends are, where they can find free food when their pitiful welfare cheque runs out, or when they can’t even get on welfare because so many rules make it too hard. Yes, they also say they need better housing. So far, on our questionnaires over 95% of residents have said they would like to continue living in the DTES if they had adequate housing here. When we ask what would happen to them if they lose their housing in the DTES, we get answers like “suicide,” “Georgia Viaduct,” “6 feet under,” “the street,” and “homeless.”

We have already seen the tsunami impact of the Woodwards development, with skyrocketing land prices, massive speculation, rent increases, and slow conversions of hotels to higher rent apartments, backpackers, and tourist hotels. At a recent town hall meeting at Carnegie your Director of Planning said that condo towers potentially increase the “assumed value of the land. We’re seeing that already.”

Low income people in the Downtown Eastside have wanted and needed a grocery store for decades, but upscale Nestors coming to Woodwards is a slap in the face to poor residents. Your Director of Planning acknowledged that it is possible that overwhelming our neighbourhood with condo’s could gradually create “an environment and culture to push out residents.” At a recent open house about the proposed supportive housing development at 1005 Station St. we saw condo owners doing exactly what we are afraid will happen to the Downtown Eastside if the low income character of the neighbourhood is not maintained:

poor bashing potential new residents. Already the price of community space at Woodwards is driving out potential social service uses.

Never has the threat to our historic community been so great.

According to Housing Centre numbers, market housing, mostly condos, are already tripling social housing units in the DTES over the 2005-2010 period–and that’s without any increased density! This is contrary to your own policy that each closed sro should be replaced one for one by a new unit of good social housing.

Our independent planner advisors tell us that low income neighbourhoods need to be insulated from increased density in order to prevent speculation and displacement of low income residents.

Recent pro forma sessions we have had with Michael Mortensen have been showing us and planning staff that condo towers can’t solve the low income housing problem without overwhelming our neighbourhood with condos, contrary to city policy which states that the neighbourhood should be mostly for low and moderate income people.

What happens in the DTES will have a ripple effect on other neighbourhoods in the city as people who are displaced have to find somewhere to be.

Please give us a call to arrange a meeting as soon as possible:
Wendy (604 839-0379) or Jean (604 729-2380)

Sincerely,

Wendy Pedersen