Whitehorse Daily Star

YHC defends its affordable shelter plans

The construction of affordable rental units is one piece of the puzzle in addressing housing issues in the territory, say Yukon Housing Corp. officials.

By Stephanie Waddell on May 30, 2014

The construction of affordable rental units is one piece of the puzzle in addressing housing issues in the territory, say Yukon Housing Corp. officials.

Yukon Housing is defending its plan to subsidize up to 50 per cent of the cost of construction of new affordable rental units.

Its justification comes after the Yukon Real Estate Association and Yukon Residential Landlord Association argued this week that rental demand is being met in the city. They suggest the government's plan will create another housing crisis in the territory.

The organizations note the lengthy history of housing in Whitehorse.

They point out that many of the new condo units built in town in recent years are now part of the rental stock.

The government's plan, they said, will flood an already overloaded market with more units.

And that will have a major impact on those who have invested, paying full price for their units in recent years, adding rental stock who may lose tenants to the newer, less expensive units where proponents were only required to pay 50 per cent of the cost.

"You're destroying the marketplace,” Terry Bergen of the real estate association said in an interview Thursday.

He argues a rent subsidy program would better address the issue of affordable housing.

Both he and Sonny Gray of the landlords' association argue there are numerous issues with the subsidized program.

They wonder what will happen at the end of the 10-year period proponents have to keep rent at a rate of 95 per cent of the median market rent.

Bergen pointed to the possibility that the units could be condoized and sold at a profit.

"We would then be onto our next housing crisis thanks to the work of the government today,” the groups note

"All of the Yukoners who were hurt by this initiative will be investing their money elsewhere to avoid being punished by the government for investing in the Yukon.”

The groups have asked the government to halt the plan.

Michael Hale, the housing corporation's vice-president of operations, defended the plan this morning, noting the gap that exists between social housing and higher-end housing.

"We are targeting that middle gap,” he said, recognizing that while there are condos available for rent, they are in the higher price range that the target group is unlikely to afford.

While Yukon Housing has a rent supplement program for those with a lower income, Hale noted this is another way to address housing needs, arguing there is not one solution for all.

Yukon Housing is working with five potential proponents on projects that would see two projects built in communities and three in Whitehorse following an open process that saw more than 70 proposals come in, he said.

The project would see 75 bachelor and one-bedroom units open up in the city and 70 in the communities.

Full details of the proposals can't be released, as Yukon Housing is still in discussions with the proponents, Hale said.

Further details will be forthcoming once the projects have been approved.

"We've been very open,” Hale said.

Funding is coming from the Northern Housing Trust. For several years, $13 million has been available to stimulate the development of affordable rental units.

Hale also pointed out funding will only be provided for the construction of the units themselves.

Proponents are responsible for paying for the land, for example, and any other portions of the development that are not set to be affordable housing.

He noted if, for example, a development has a commercial operation on the ground level with affordable rental units on the upper levels, it would be up to the proponent to pay the entire cost of developing the commercial portion.

Hale also said the 10-year period where rent is based on 95 per cent of the median price takes effect from the time of occupancy.

It could take a couple of years for developments to be built, and that would put the rent restriction in effect until 2026.

The 10-year period is a fairly standard time period on such developments that help make it viable.

Kristina Craig of the Yukon Anti-Poverty Coalition noted today it's impossible to know what the market will be like in 10 years, and that this will provide certainty for the next decade.

"We believe we need that kind of housing stock,” she said, arguing it's well-known that without some investment, the private sector won't build multi-housing rental units.

A couple of years ago, a government effort to encourage developers to build affordable housing on the so-called "Lot 262” at the intersection of Mountainview Drive and Range Road drew no responses.

While there are many condos in town now, they are not meeting the needs of many, Craig said.

She acknowledged that this project alone will also not meet the needs of all renters, "but it's a start,” she said.

Like Hale, Craig believes it's one piece in dealing with the numerous housing issues in the territory.

"This may not be perfect, but it's long overdue,” she said.

See realtors, landlords groups' commentary.

Comments (12)

Up 12 Down 4

north of 60 on Jun 7, 2014 at 9:50 am

More social housing to fill up Whistle Bend, since nobody who has a choice wants to live there.

In a decade it will be "The Projects".

Up 11 Down 5

Atom on Jun 5, 2014 at 7:32 am

I'm a landlord. I don't break even on my rental property.....I'm kinda stuck with it, have a great tenant though.... but I never expected to be given funds to further this enterprise... wicked... who do I call for MY free money.....I'm a landlord.

Yay Yukon! (Of course it's sarcasm).

Up 10 Down 4

pamela holmes on Jun 3, 2014 at 12:15 pm

Many questions from this end. How is the bureaucracy going to keep track of the "affordable" rental rates over the ten years? How much will this bureaucracy cost and how effective will it be? And how does 95% of the current rental rates classify as affordable?

Fifty percent of the cost of building is a huge subsidy. What will be the controls on the charge out rates, expenses etc to ensure the system is not abused?

Is this really a "conservative " government? I thought conservative meant a conservative fiscal policy.

Surely there is a more efficient way to help the working poor find affordable housing, that would also be more responsive to current and changing economic conditions.

From what I have seen in the city, they can't keep track of the parking people pledge to provide ( ie converting parking places to other uses) or even anything as simple as keeping the unsightly dumpsters off the boulevards and edges of the main streets. Keeping affordable rents affordable seems like a much bigger task.

Up 27 Down 8

Shirley Chua-Tan on Jun 2, 2014 at 5:08 pm

I came from Singapore. 80-90% of Singaporean (4 - 5 million) owns their own property. Every pay check, 20% is deducted and employer matches that amount. The saving is only to allow for a down payment of a home. Maybe YHC can start doing the same thing, $ to $ match (up to a cap) for a responsible citizen. That forced saving is important to teach our young people simple financial 101. If we have RESP and RDSP, why not a Yukon brand RHSP? Register housing saving plan.

By the way, I don't believe in giving away free money to developer/builder. Why are we giving away fishes when they can fish for their own?

Up 14 Down 18

Reality Check on Jun 2, 2014 at 7:54 am

@ Groucho

Have you ever considered that people rent because they could never save for a downpayment? Myself included, I live cheque to cheque. Would I want to save? Yes. Can I? Nope. This stigma against renters makes me sick. Sorry if I wasn't born into a rich family. Sorry that I didn't get a house passed down to me. Sorry if I don't get free education like some do. Sorry if I want to better my position in life because I don't know the right people or have connections. And don't take my comment as poor, poor me. Far from it. I'm just speaking facts. Some people get a free ride in life. Not based on skill or ability, but their skin color, or being born into a rich family. So until housing prices crash, and they will, I have no other choice but to rent. I guess that makes me a loser.

Up 22 Down 4

Always a Yukoner on Jun 2, 2014 at 5:47 am

A bunch of whiners I read. I would do the same thing if I had some extra cash, buy a condo and rent out. Shouldn't trash landlords for working hard to where they are now, you could be one too if you worked hard getting there.

Up 22 Down 7

Groucho d'North on May 31, 2014 at 9:25 am

Unless the price for rental housing comes down, young people in the future will not be buying houses. Consider if you and your partner are making minimum wage, maybe even a bit more and you have to fork over $1700 (check the classified ads) or better each month to rent a condo and perhaps pay utilities too. Saving enough for a down payment will take years and years. Add a kid or two and the finish line of home ownership slips further away.

So why didn't the current landlords not take advantage of the government's offer and submit a proposal of their own so they could expand their position in the local marketplace and serve low, middle and high income tenants? In that kind of business model you can have a tenant you know and trust as they climb the rental ladder as their needs and financial position change.

It sounds like sour grapes to me, I still can't decide if they're arguing the business aspects from their advantage point or they were late to catch on and participate. I think government is doing the right thing for those just starting out, and remember that $13 million was for that express purpose of developing new housing.

But one thing is crystal clear from this: If you are renting – you're paying somebody else's' mortgage, so start saving that down payment.

Up 16 Down 2

Alf Bilton on May 31, 2014 at 8:18 am

Sounds like we are overdue for a ten year moratorium on construction of condo units. The kind of "Yukon" developer who would invest elsewhere instead of building the apartment buildings we have been needing for a couple of decades now, we are better off without. And I've noticed that during past economic downturns, people will walk away from overpriced homes, but seldom from apartments.

Alf Bilton

Up 14 Down 19

Josey Wales on May 30, 2014 at 11:34 pm

Yup...funnel public cash into private slumlords pockets, great moving forward plan.

Renters if you were salmon there would be more concern over your future. The collection of shanties we have here complete with scumbag SLUMLORDS whom own/profit from them? Is absolutely shameful!

I get that some folks are very destructive (often victim industry specialists) but don't rent your sty to them.

The term affordable, like most is a social engineering term, in the last decade there have been many many millions (almost a BILLION) spent on this initiative JUST in the north. Seems the cultural elite have been given the great majority, with the results being stellar (total sarc.)

What I think would be awesome if...we were not taxed to absolute death, redistributing what remains of our wealth by giving it to slumlords - If that were the case, maybe we could buy our own houses to carry on living our lives?

Why, oh why, must some and the government feel they need be entrenched in our lives that their tentacles reach every nook and cranny of them?

Up 46 Down 6

How About some Math June on May 30, 2014 at 10:33 am

So lets say a landlord buys a condo for $300,000. They put 20% down and get a mortgage at 3% so their monthly interest is $600. I won't include the principle payments because they go into equity.

They charge $1500 a month and take $900 profit.

Where do I sign-up

Oh Wait what about

Property Tax - $167

Water Sewer - $70

Insurance - $50

Maintenance - $200

Still that leaves - $413 not bad

But most Condos have condo fees lets say $100

So now you have $313 a month

Still pretty good but it is taxable and seeing as you are a rich fat cat your rate is 30% or $93

Now you have $220 left for the month or $2640 a year

That's assuming that your condo is never empty, a tenant never does any damage.

Yes they are greedy and should be squashed

Up 18 Down 6

Subsidies on May 30, 2014 at 9:24 am

Provide portable rental subsidies and the private sector will build ... YHC should stick to social housing and support/stimulate the private sector.

Up 19 Down 32

June Jackson on May 30, 2014 at 8:26 am

I am against giving landlords money to build "affordable housing". A Landlords idea of affordable housing and the tenants idea of affordable housing have nothing, none, zippo, zilch, nada in common.

Yukon Housing is just pouring money into landlord pockets. Just ask ANY tenant in Whitehorse. The trailer parks, which house the poor and the pensioners, (after all..if they had anything they wouldn't be in a trailer) have been hard hit AGAIN. Forcing many of these people to start pestering government for housing. They don't have a choice..our homeless numbers are increasing. Conversely, Bergen and Grey argue that there are a lot of properties to rent on the market.. only too true. The point of reference here is AFFORDABLE.

To the landlord 1,500-1,800 a month is really reasonable.. after all its going to cost him $200 a month in maintenance, (if that) and a guy's got to have a little profit.

Do any one these folks care if folks are on the street? Have enough to eat? Buy a little something for the grandkid? Highly doubtful. Greed only cares about one thing.. more.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.