I first heard of 'A Place to Call Home' one morning recently on CBCs Early Edition when Rick Kluff interviewed Judi Whyte, a realtor and co-chair of 'APTCH'. It is a society dedicated to creating affordable housing stock on the North Shore. Its mission is a community for all. According to Whyte there are 5,000 people on the North Shore who are in the precarious position of being 'a paycheck away from homelessness'.
More than one quarter of the people who work on the North Shore come back and forth regularly-not all in cars of course but, many because they can not afford to live here. Even the rental housing that does exist tends to be of the 'unaffordable' variety.
Donna Stewart, also chair of APTCH provided me with the following stats which came from some related work the Community Housing Action Committee did with SFU in 2009;
North Shore (including Lions Bay and Bowen island)has a
labour force of 81,450,
11,945 work at home
43,865 work on the North Shore
25,640 work in fixed workplaces somewhere else.
But, the North Shore has 64,040 jobs in a fixed workplace
and only 55,810 are filled by local people, so
8,230 come from somewhere else according to their Community Profile which is based on the 2006 Census.
The SFU/Community Housing Action Committee study in 2009 identified the fact that the commuters to the North Shore are just the people we would like to have here permanently...25-39 years old. Many teachers, nurses, police, and fire dept. personnel that serve our community can not afford to live here. 'Workforce' housing is needed for these families and our young people who can not afford to live on the North Shore. Families who suffer marriage break downs find it difficult or impossible to stay on the North Shore as well.
APTCH recently had one donation of $100,000 from one private source. There are people on the North Shore who have surplus income, including securities, second properties, and even no heirs to whom to leave their primary residence.
Charity is a drop in the bucket, but the recipients of the drop
will benefit.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
"A Place to Call Home' in North Vancouver
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 opinions/comments:
Again I emphasize that DNV and the other municipalities need a clearer definition of what 'working at home' means. Under the current definition it includes contractors who have home offices to do billing but actually perform their work on the customer's site which could be most anywhere in the Lower Mainland.
Beyond this it would be interesting to know the breakdown between those who are working at home on a full time basis vs. part-time employment. (Some of these folks have other employment, others don't)
I do think initiatives of this sort are worthwhile - I look at my employees who I've hired in the last 3-4 years (before that someone else in our company made the hiring decision) and see that the majority of them are NOT North Shore residents and wonder how many of them would live 'on this side of the water' if they had the chance.
My guess is about half.
What I don't understand John is why, as your post would suggest, anyone is entitled as a God-given right to live in North Vancouver?
I think the 'suggestion' is not about "God-given" right. It's more about those already living here who could lose that and for those who work here and might like to live here. Don't you think it's better to live where you work if you'd like to if for nothing more than the sustainability aspect?
I feel very fortunate to live in North Vancouver (Lynn Valley). I grew up in the 'Cap flats' and have lived in NV for 35 years. When I purchased my home in 2002 I had a decent down payment and the pre-purchase price was hard to resist. Now in 2010 I would not be able to afford to buy my home.
Of those who work on the NS but live elsewhere, how many do so by choice? Because their housing dollars go further elsewhere, allowing for more disposable income? I'm thinking of parents who want to raise their children in sfh rather than mfh or who need money for childcare because both work.
We need to drill down more to understand what these stats mean.
Anon 9:55 AM,
APTCH is a 'donation based' society.
To elaborate further on the "5,000 one paycheck away from being without a home", you have to validate the number of people who are paying way more than 30%* for housing; so they lack savings. A layoff, an accident, a "surprise" baby....a lot of things can mess the budget up for people living close to the line. According to Stewart 6,865 North Shore renters alone are in that category. There are owners too, but, presumably they have options, though not always; seniors in WV, for instance. The higher the household income, the less meaningful the "affordable" 30 per cent* of pre-tax fraction becomes. Still, Stewart has met people who are paying over 75 per cent of their income for shelter.
CMHA's Homeless Outreach Program has experienced a 48% increase in referrals in the last year. More alarming is the new fact that their typical clients are now single moms at imminent risk of homelessness.
* The international benchmark, sanctioned by CMHC and CNV Affordable Housing Policy, BC Housing, etc. It's part of the calculations used by banks to determine if you qualify for a mortgage, for example.
John,
You might not remember, or perhaps you were not there at coffee meetings at the White Spot with Ernie Crist.
He stated that people like Donna Stewart DID NOT accomplish anything regarding homelessness and affordable housing on the North Shore. She goes to meetings and writes letters...that is all!
There has been nothing done regarding "affordable housing" on the North Shore since the 1960s when the co-ops were introduced.
Period.
Well perhaps there was no APTCH Society two years ago. I had never heard of it before now. It seems like this group is directing some energy to the issue. No one else is? The Feds and the Province cut all programs. What are we to do, just forget about it? The main point is to keep the issue alive and this seems to be the only group that is. You may have your differences with Ms. Stewart but, she seems to know her stuff. It's a total uphill battle trying to get anything done on this front. Affordable housing is an issue that I know you have always been behind.
John,
We must align in 2011. I am hoping you will come back. I have a few old friends of Ernies onboard.
We must be elected to DNV Council to get rid of the people who are ruining our life.
Have you checked out the fact that your services are going down and your taxes are going up??
As a long-time North Shore resident, I enjoy my lifestyle here. I am also cognizant of the fact that many who bought 25 years ago could not manage it now. Do we want to become an elitist society over here, or do we want to make it possible for people to live here who might otherwise not be able to afford it - the kids of my neighbours, for instance.
I have argued for some time that the District is the largest land owner here (of course) and could, if it had the political will, make some of it available for decent (read non-ghetto-ized) housing and the answer I get is that it's too expensive. Well, expensive to whom? If we provide housing that is suitable for younger families at something more affordable than market housing, we will keep our schools filled, and communities vibrant.
I'm no socialist, but I do think that governments have to take the lead at some point, and this is one area where I feel it is their responsibility.
and the school district has money, money, money in North Vancouver...................
"Last week, I wrote about a new logo for North Vancouver school district. I asked the district about the cost of the rebranding exercise and received the following email Friday from communications manager Victoria Miles.
'In response to your inquiry as to budget for design and implementation of the new visual identity for the North Vancouver School District, please note that our costs on this project were well below market value, thanks to the willingness of the contractor to supply considerable pro bono time to the work. In accordance with the publicly-tendered Request for Proposals, fees paid to the design team to produce were approximately $20,000 and a further $15,000 was reserved to cover implementation costs.
"The NVSD committed to a low cost approach to implementation by replacing materials on an at-need basis, wherever possible, so stationery and other supply orders were planned with this in mind. As well, the decalling of more than 20 vehicles in our fleet was coordinated to coincide with vehicle maintenance. Cost savings in producing all brand-related materials will continue to accrue over the long term thanks to considerations of versatility and economy built into its professional design. A more coordinated approach to spending and consistent use of the new brand through the communications templates developed as an integral part of the identity guidelines also allow us to achieve cost savings.
"A project of this kind for a comparably-sized agency requiring the same level of experience is estimated at costing approximately $45,000 for design alone. The School District’s budget was less than half that amount, and the six-month consultative process benefitted from the pro bono work provided by the Vancouver-based design firm of Ion Design. One of the two partners in the firm is a parent in the school district, and made a personal commitment to an affordable project of extremely high quality and broad scope, by donating almost half the time required to research and create the brand to the NVSD.
"The design budget for the project was:
$12,000 for researching the brand strategy, style guide, creative approach, design and production of press ready graphic materials and templates and
$8,000 for the website design
"Additional costs for implementation were offset by a no-waste approach (use up pre-existing materials first and reduced print production for the 2009/10 school year and producing one community report, rather than two per year (a solution proposed by stakeholders).
"The School District actually reduced its marketing budget for the 2009/2010 year as a cost-saving measure. For this reason, it is imperative that we do more with less, and that the visual presentation of our identity be optimized for impact and effectiveness.
"It is important to note that none of the budget was drawn from educational and student services, though the results will be realized, over time, to benefit all stakeholders. Early indications are we are on track--the success of the NVSD in recording higher than projected enrollments for the 2009/10 school year is, in part, related to its commitment to improved communications and marketing efforts."
You think that $20,000 is significant in the School Board budget??
Didn't you run for School Board?
Were the one who called for school uniforms and the strap?
While I do feel sorry for those 5000 people on the precipice of homelessness on the North Shore, that kind of reality is happening in cities and towns all over the world, not just on the North Shore. It could happen to anyone under the right set of bad circumstances.
The fact is as long as families keep buying up homes on the North Shore at present market prices, with very high land value assessments to boot, APTCH is going to have an uphill battle trying to create "affordable housing" here.
With DNV also looking to cut some services, I find it interesting to note how a couple very expensive places to live -- NYC and Dubai -- are now broke, and Dubai is looking at filing for bankruptcy.
What does this all mean in context?
One statistic I found interesting was that West Vancouver had NO police, firefighters or paramedics living in West Vancouver.
I'd be curious about similar statistics in North Vancouver - I personally know at least one police sergeant who lives here (he and his wife have won District Heritage awards for their house) but I know all kinds of public employees who don't live here including senior managers at District Hall.
It isn't economic in all cases but it IS economic in enough cases for all of us to be concerned.
1000 units could be built in North Vancouver and it would not change things because of supply and demand. The demand is too high.
It is not just the kids next door but all the kids of the Lower Mainland, BC, the rest of the provinces and countries of the world that will compete for that unit.
I live on $50,000 a year and pay $1400 a month for rent, a good top floor corner unit in the core of the North Van City. By the left wing formula I am a poor person in need of government dollars as I should be paying only $1000 a month in North Van.
All you lefties start sending you $400 a month, the steak dinner and scotch I had last night cost me a lot, the bill was over $100. I can only afford that a few times a week.
Typo
All you lefties start sending your $400 a month, the steak dinner
I will say it again. There is no shortage of market housing on the North Shore. The demand is high for so-called market housing and it is readily available.
If you build it they will come.
The co-op housing model should be re-introduced. There is no downside other than developers not making $$$.
The catch with co-op housing (which I generally think is a good idea) is availability of land.
50 years ago DNV was selling service lots for between $1500-3000 per lot. That's where most of the growth in the 50s and 60s came from. (My parents bought and built in Blueridge rather than Delbrook because they could afford a $1500 lot but not a $2500 lot back in 1957-58)
One of the objections I have to the Metro Vancouver 2040 plan is that it commits DNV to virtually eliminate new land sales.
Obviously any new land sales wouldn't be at 1958 prices but as a community we could scrounge for suitable lands for co-op type housing.
I am NOT in favor of the North Shore and DNV in particular being a rich man's playground but 10 more years of the status quo will accomplish just that.
We can, we must do better than we have done in the last 20 years in housing - one look at the demographic curve (which features prominently in most of the DNV Official Community Plan documents) makes the necessity all too clear.
One less person living on the North Shore = watch how fast this story is covered up.
"A 39-year-old North Vancouver man shot by a Mountie on Saturday has died after having surgery.
The B.C. Coroner’s Service will be conducting an autopsy to determine the exact cause of death of Matthew John Wilcox, who died late Sunday.
Wilcox was shot in the chest outside his vehicle after he was stopped by a North Vancouver RCMP officer at the intersection of Deep Cove Drive and Strathcona Road at around 2:30 p.m. Saturday.
“The sole occupant got out of the vehicle and refused to comply with the officer’s commands,” said Const. Lindsey Houghton of the Vancouver Police, which is investigating the police-involved shooting.
“The officer made the decision to fire his service weapon,” he said. “The man was shot in the torso and was taken into custody.”
Police are not saying whether the man was armed, whether he advanced on the officer, or what kind of threat he posed to warrant the use of force.
“That’s the primary question our detectives will be trying to answer,” said Houghton. “Clearly the officer saw the need and made the decision to draw his service pistol and … fire his service pistol.”
The investigation is currently underway, with Vancouver police members searching the area Sunday for evidence and interviewing witnesses.
Police say Wilcox is known to police and that the man’s vehicle was suspected to have been involved in a criminal offence in the area of Mount Seymour Parkway.
Witnesses in the area had reported the victim was driving erratically and struck some parked cars in Deep Cove before he was stopped by the RCMP officer.
The officer has been with the RCMP for four years. He was not carrying a Taser at the time and was uninjured in the incident. '
— With files from Cheryl Chan
"though the results will be realized, over time, to benefit all stakeholders."
Ah, can we define those benefits? Even better, can we monetize them?
Okay, as a taxpayer in NVD, I fail to see the benefit TO ME of a whole lot of unserviced and unbuilt land. I do not own it, the District does. Therefore there is no direct benefit to me. I cannot include it in my statement of net personal worth, so Anon. Monday, January 11, 2010 6:59:00 PM, your comment is non-sense.
What IS a concern to me is schools that are closing, and a population that is getting really grey at the temples. We need young people to keep our society vibrant, and we need them to grow up and graduate into the employees of tomorrow.
Where there's a will, there is a way to provide housing that will encourage young families to stay here.
So, I hereby pledge my share of all unbuilt land in NVD to be dedicated to accommodate 500 affordable (however you define it) housing units reserved especially for couples with at least one child who will attend elementary school in the next five years. You read it here! (And I can't wait to hear the uproar ;-)...)
As I see it we have two options.
Have the powers that be take an active role in creating a community that allows for all socioeconomic levels to live and prosper or simply leave the growth of our community up to market forces.
The latter will pretty much guarantee that the Shore will be the exclusive playground for the wealthy and even force some existing home owners off the shore.
The question you need to ask is what kind of community do you want and can you afford to live in it.
Last night at council, the mayor announced that the province would not be donating money to the maritime museum.
The business plan clearly showed that the revenue projections were unrealistic and it would be a money pit that the City would have to subsidize to operate.
Hurray - they finally got something right.
Hey, Lynn Valley Today.
You do mean the District only? The City and District are two really different situations.
Anonymous said...
Hey, Lynn Valley Today.
You do mean the District only? The City and District are two really different situations...
Sorry Anon, I should have been clearer.
I think the DNV has an opportunity to engineer a diverse socioeconomic community.
The CNV on the other hand might have more difficulty accomplishing this because the amount of undeveloped land is limited and under far greater market forces, IMHO.
Because the DNV is not as far along in the spectrum of high end urban development as CNV or West Van are, there is a chance we can still create an community that represents all socioeconomic levels.
It is unlikely we as a community will be able to do this as the almighty dollar reigns supreme in all things urban but perhaps it is something to be discussed and attempted.
Here is a thought...
Perhaps what we should be discussing is how we can ensuring that existing North Shore residents are not forced from their homes because of uncontrolled cost increases to living in the DNV.
This is not to say subsidize residents but find a way to ensure that the cost of maintaining a home in the DNV & CNV does not rise in a manner which forces current residents from their home.
What! No museum?
What are we going to build a massive tower next to?
Hey Anon 12:33,
You misspelled socialist.
Well the proposed Maritime Museum won't be calling North Vancouver Home for a long while...this just in "Latest Announcement - NEW!
The City of North Vancouver has been advised by the Provincial Government that it is regretfully unable to provide the City with the necessary funding required for the delivery of the National Maritime Centre for the Pacific and the Arctic.
Without the Provincial financial contribution to the tri-government partnership, the National Maritime Centre will not move forward as originally envisioned. Funding for the project was structured as a 3-way partnership of local, provincial and federal government resources as well as private sector funding. The Federal government had made an unofficial partial commitment to the initiative subject to a matching commitment from the Province.
The City will spend the next few weeks reviewing options and determining next steps."
Joint public property ownership.
It's catchy, but it doesn't really benefit anybody except to look at a beautifully treed mountainside. I do that every day and I like it, but I like less the fact that NVD is becoming an elitist enclave where only the (perceived) wealthy can live. I guess that's why people ohh and ahh when I tell them where I live. But if in the future only wealthy people can live here, how many of those realized their wealth after their kids grew up? Because that's what's going to happen and we'll have no young workforce to fill all the entry level jobs that employers are soon going to find hard to fill - if we have (m)any left in five or ten years. Ya gotta have balance.
Anonymous said...
Don't you want someone else's dollars/property to help you undertake the social engineering you prefer?...
I would say that regardless of which way a city goes in their planning, it will always be a form of social engineering. The only question is for whom is the city being engineered, the poor, middle class or wealthy.
JMHO
Is Darrell foolish enough to fund this mess by himself? Hopefully the need to pay back CUPE with more city jobs will be prevented by Council.
Sell it off to the private sector and let them make use productive use of this land.
“We are disappointed with this outcome, however, we will move forward,” says Mayor Darrell Mussatto.
We will move forward and determine a strategy for this significant waterfront property keeping in mind
our objective of creating a waterfront that is a highly desirable destination for our residents and visitors.”
My letter will most likely be published in tomorrow's Vancouver Sun:
"I read with interest Coun. Suzanne Anton's editorial. She makes some valid points, however, she too has missed the mark as has Mayor Gregor Robertson and his party.
As the late former Councillor Harry Rankin used to say: "The solution to the housing shortage is to build housing people can afford."
This can only be done if downpayments are low or eliminated altogether.
Payments must be based on income, i.e. co-op housing.
The federal government must bring back a policy to finance construction without forcing tenants or owners to make a huge downpayment and/or payments beyond their ability.
The real issue is that all federal and provincial funding has been cut or eliminated. Municipalities must make land availaable or even act as a banker.
There is no downside.
They will get their investment back with interest after a period of say 40 years or more, and they will retain the land for future generations.
All other so-called solutions are impractical and can only result in inferior social housing."
Balance == Diversity == Heart == Compassion == all necessary in a well-balanced, healthy community. Some posters here haven't "got" that. Lynn Valley Today seems to.
The irony of this whole discussion is, that a taxpayer funded public housing program, will only serve to make the Shore an even MORE expensive to live for existing homeowners. Perhaps even force those on the margins of home ownership into the very Public housing they funded through their property taxes.
Again this is far beyond a simple matter of should's our shouldn'ts. Although I lean toward the should side of things, I am not convinced that it can be or should be done.
So your position is that making land available for non-market, or "off-market" housing costs the rest of us money? I don't think so. There are several co-ops throughout NVD that are completely self-sustaining. They pay taxes and utilities just like the rest of us, they just didn't pay full price for the land.
IF NVD can entertain future developments of a similar nature, it will be a one-time sale of land that was sitting dormant - other than growing trees and we have lots of those. Given that the cost of land is the single biggest budget item of any development, making it available at a discount gives a project viability. I don't foresee hundreds of these things cropping up so I really don't see what the problem is. The District owns most if not all of the houses on the Old Dollarton Highway past Riverside and they are not in the best condition. In fact much of the Maplewood area is in need of a facelift. Why not do something there?
Referendum!
Post a Comment