A lack of affordable housing is plaguing Greater Victoria, and municipal politicians are right to look for solutions. But not every problem can be fixed by regulations.
This week, three Victoria councillors said the city should put a moratorium for perhaps six months on the demolition of apartment buildings while councillors develop rental-housing policies. Councillors Pam Madoff, Ben Isitt and Jeremy Loveday have their hearts in the right place, looking for answers for people who are being priced out of a place to live.
However, slapping a stop sign on demolition projects is too drastic a step.
The councillors’ initiative came in response to plans by Analogue Projects to tear down a 34-unit, 1970s-era apartment at 505 Quadra St. called Beacon Arms. It’s owned by Surfside Holdings Ltd., a local company.
The idea is to demolish the apartment and three adjacent single-family homes to make way for 83 units of new market rental housing and four rental townhomes, said Stuart Kerr of Analogue, whose family owns Surfside Holdings.
Madoff and the other councillors are concerned that it’s another case of affordable rental units being replaced by new, potentially less affordable ones. With vacancy rates about 0.5 per cent and rents rising out of reach for many people, their concerns are justified.
So, however, are the concerns of Kerr and his company. Like many rental buildings that were built in the 1960s and 1970s, Beacon Arms is at the end of its useful life. It costs too much money to maintain something that is coming apart at the seams.
“The structure is actually failing. Our foundation is failing and sagging. As well, we’re starting to see, as a result, the windows in the building are starting to buckle and push, [and] we’re getting parts of the exterior starting to release from the structure. And then, of course, we’re chasing pinhole leaks in the plumbing,” Kerr said.
The company has tried to be a responsible corporate citizen, warning residents in February about its plans and offering them first refusal on any units that come vacant in other buildings owned by Surfside.
While Kerr is sympathetic to the councillors’ position, he pointed out that many rental buildings in the city are of a similar age, and have passed their best-before dates. City regulations aren’t going to make those structural problems go away.
People of modest incomes need affordable places to live, but building owners also have to know that they can make decisions about the best use of their properties. Government tinkering in the market almost always has unintended consequences, even in the unlikely event it achieves its original goal.
Isitt said the policies the city should consider include incentives to retain rental units. Incentives are one type of intervention that has been effective.
According to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. figures, 76 per cent of Canada’s purpose-built rental stock was constructed before 1981. Much of that was built under various federal incentive programs after the Second World War.
When those incentives ended in the early 1980s, the construction numbers fell off a cliff. Just five per cent of rental stock in Canada was built between 2001 and 2011.
All those older buildings are running out of time. Repairing them is becoming too expensive, so replacement makes the most financial sense.
The city should certainly review its policies and look at protection for displaced tenants, regulations on building maintenance and incentives for owners. But handcuffing building owners for six months, which could easily stretch longer, is not an answer to a complex problem.
