Editor: When most people consider the term “affordable housing,” they’re thinking about housing that they can afford.
In Chatham-Kent and other municipalities, however, that’s not what the administrations mean by “affordable housing.”
Under the Development Charges By-law 149-2022 and in accordance with the More Homes Built Faster Act, passed last year, “affordable housing” means housing accommodations and incidental facilities primarily for persons of low and moderate income that “meet the requirements of any program for such purpose as administered by any agency of the federal or provincial government or the Municipality of Chatham-Kent”.
Basically “means tested” housing rather than homes for anyone who needs it.
The 2023 C-K development fees for single and semi-detached homes are $13,852.80, regardless of the size.
For multiple units it’s $10,176.80 and $11,422.40 for 2 bedroom apartments and $5874.40 for 1 bedroom apartments.
“Affordable housing” units are exempt.
Last year, council approved an $8 million funding application that would provide 40 affordable housing units, as well as four new housing projects in Chatham and Wallaceburg that had some affordable housing units.
This is all well and good, but there is an underlying problem that we need to address.
Larger houses bring in more tax revenue.
Development fees that are the same for large and small houses disincentivize the building of smaller homes.
I can understand that there is a need for more tax revenue to deliver a greater demand for future services, but what we need right now are more houses that people can afford to buy without bureaucracy.
Presently, development fees don’t indicate the size of the units being built.
So, although the provincial government has created a mechanism through which municipalities can raise funds through development, they have also created an artificial hindrance to the building of small homes for those who may fail a government means test.
I would like to use the term “affordable” but that word has been so narrowed in scope as to be meaningless beyond its administrative utility.
What we need in Ontario is many small houses that anyone of modest means can afford, without having to qualify for a government program.
A simple solution to this would be to have a scaled fee schedule for each class of residential units based on their square footage.
To conserve the income that the municipality normally receives from development fees, the largest houses would have the largest fees and the smallest would have the smallest fees.
This could easily be scaled so that the total municipal income from development fees remains constant and building of smaller homes would not be disincentivized by a proportionally larger development fee.
To me, this seems a common-sense solution that will help many find cosy homes that cost less to buy, maintain and have lower yearly taxes.
Ken Bell
Shrewsbury
