Affordable Housing News

After strong and sustained opposition from housing experts, tenants and four former mayors, Toronto City Council’s Executive Committee hastily pulled the proposal for the sell-off of 740 affordable homes in 675 buildings from its January meeting. The scheme is back on the agenda for the Feb. 13 Exec meeting with virtually no change. The Wellesley Institute’s formal submission to Exec calls for Toronto to establish a special task force with a variety of expertise, including tenants, that would chart the course to a sustainable future for Toronto’s affordable housing company. More background information on the proposed sell-off, including letters from the former mayors and the links between housing and health, is posted here. The report to Exec committee from city staff on the proposed sell-off is posted here.

The Calgary Homeless Foundation is reporting an 11.4 percent drop from 2008 in the number of homeless people in its latest count. This is the first decrease in homelessness in Calgary in two decades. The foundation is a multi-sectoral collaboration linking community, the private sector and government. Calgary was the first Canadian city to adopt a rigorous 10-year plan to end homelessness. Now housing experts across the country are looking for lessons from Calgary to apply to their home communities.

The Wellesley Institute set out its Blueprint to End Homelessness in Toronto in 2006 and submitted it to the City of Toronto as the plan to end homelessness. Unfortunately it wasn’t fully adopted. Today, Toronto still does not have a comprehensive plan to prevent and end homelessness, despite Toronto City Council adopting an affordable housing strategy called Housing Opportunities Toronto (HOT) in 2008. The HOT plan was much less comprehensive than Wellesely Institute’s Blueprint. Worse yet, the fiscal 2012/13 Toronto budget includes cuts to the Affordable Housing Office which means Toronto will fall short of its HOT targets in the coming years, making a bad situation worse.

Research by the Wellesley Institute and others demonstrates that a good home is vital to individual and population health. The Street Health Report 2007 provides a comprehensive overview of the health status of homeless people. The Wellesley Institute’s Precarious Housing in Canada 2010 includes a review of recent research on housing and health, and includes data on housing issues across the country. Research tells us that investing in affordable housing programs decreases the pressure on other parts of the social system, and is better for the overall health and well-being of everyone.

With Calgary leading the way, it’s time we re-visit and re-invest in Toronto’s commitment to ending homelessness.

Toronto City Council’s Executive Committee has voted to delay consideration of the proposal to sell-off of 675 single-family homes from the Toronto Community Housing Corporation stock until February 13th. Media reports suggest that Mayor Rob Ford was worried he would lose the vote on this matter at City Council due to strong and principled opposition. More info will be posted as the news develops.

Read Wellesley Institute’s submissions to the Executive committee here and recommendations, here.

The Wellesley Institute, in its formal submission to Toronto City Council’s Executive Committee on Jan. 24, 2012, commends the City of Toronto as it considers the allocation of $108 million in federal and provincial affordable housing dollars. The Wellesley Institute supports the overall approach proposed by city staff, which is to divide the housing funds among four of the major priorities set out in the City of Toronto’s long-term affordable housing plan, Housing Opportunities Toronto. However, we recommend adjusting the percentages to ensure that more funding goes into long-term and permanent affordable rental housing, and proportionately less into housing allowances paid to tenants who then hand the money over to private landlords.

Read it here: Housing Investment Allocations

UPDATE: http://www.wellesleyinstitute.com/news/tchc-update-executive-committee-has-voted-to-delay-sell-off-of-affordable-homes/

People who suffer from mental illness, poverty and precarious housing face a terrible burden of increased illness and early death. Forty Is Too Young to Die documents the health challenges and sets out four practical measures for health and housing authorities. The report has been prepared by Mainstay Housing, a Toronto non-profit agency that provides housing for 867 mental health consumer-survivors, which makes it the largest supportive housing provider in Ontario.

The Wellesley Institute’s Precarious Housing In Canada documents the links between housing and health, sets out current issues and offers practical suggestions for a new national housing plan for Canada.

Five things you need to know about the ‘camping’ ban in the proposed Streets By-law

[Download the Camping Ban Streets By-law Backgrounder PDF.]

Toronto may be headed for a costly constitutional legal challenge of its proposed Streets By-law because of an amendment that seeks to criminalize a biological activity associated with people who are homeless. The draft Streets By-law was supposed to be a simple harmonization of similar by-laws that were in force in the former municipalities that were amalgamated to create the City of Toronto. But a last-minute amendment to the draft by-law, introduced by Councillor Shiner after — and in spite of — public consultation and against the recommendation of city staff, seeks to make it illegal to “camp,” “dwell,” and “lodge” on city streets and sidewalks. “Anti-camping” provisions have been used by a number of municipalities in Canada and the United States to target people who are homeless.

People who are homeless face serious health challenges. The Street Health report, funded by the Wellesley Institute, notes that people who are homeless don’t face different illnesses than those who are properly housed — but people who are homeless face a greater burden from a wide range of physical and mental health concerns. A significant amount of research notes that people who are homeless experience a high rate of mental health issues, including chronic depression. Many of these health issues are triggered by, or made worse by, sleep deprivation and lack of even the most basic form of shelter.

“Housing first” is emerging in Toronto and throughout North America as the most effective way to end homelessness. Sometimes called “rapid re-housing,” the housing first model depends on a trusting relationship between the person who is homeless and the community worker. Punitive laws that criminalize activities associated with homelessness make it harder to reach and engage people who are homeless, and harder to assist them in making the transition to appropriate housing. No one would argue that makeshift shelters on city streets is an acceptable form of housing for people who are homeless, but harsh municipal by-laws targeting the homeless will make it harder to prevent and end homelessness.

FIVE THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW

Here are five important observations that Toronto City Council, and all Torontonians, should consider as they review the proposal to add a controversial new anti-camping provision to the city’s harmonized Streets By-law:

ONE 

The anti-camping rule will almost certainly expose the City of Toronto to a costly and time-consuming legal challenge that it is likely to lose.

In 2009, the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that a similar by-law in Victoria was unconstitutional and a violation of the right to life, liberty and the security of the person as guaranteed by section 7 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal made a similar ruling in 2006, striking down a municipal ordinance in Los Angeles. In both cases, the legal judgment was similar: The courts ruled that a municipality cannot ban an activity that is biologically necessary (sleeping with at least some modest form of shelter from the elements) if the number of people who are homeless exceeds the number of spaces in municipal homeless shelters. There is no reason to believe that Toronto will escape from a costly legal challenge to the anti-camping rule.

TWO

Harsh measures that criminalize activities associated with homelessness make it more difficult for street outreach professionals to assist people who are homeless.

Toronto has a capable group of outreach professionals who work for community agencies and also for the city. Their job is to connect with people who are homeless and assist them in making the transition to shelters and long-term housing. Trust is a key component in creating a successful relationship, and coercive laws make it harder to build and maintain trust. The people who are most vulnerable — those experiencing mental health issues or flee

ing domestic violence — may decide that in order to avoid legal prosecution, they must become less visible and therefore become harder to reach. They dig deeper into the urban infrastructure and outreach workers report that they are more difficult to find and to serve.

THREE 

The anti-camping amendment violates the spirit of the harmonized by-law. The Streets By-law is part of a long-term process to harmonize the by-laws of all the former municipalities that were amalgamated to create the City of Toronto. There was no anti-camping rule in any of the former municipalities. Therefore, adding it under the guise of a harmonization of existing by-laws violates the spirit and practice of the harmonization process.

FOUR 

The proposed anti-camping amendment runs counter to the public consultation process and the staff recommendation.

During the public consultation process, the City of Toronto received a number of informed submissions from experts who work with people who are homeless, and those who are knowledgeable about legal and practical issues regarding homelessness. Public input was unanimous in opposition to any anti-camping rule. In addition, city staff — including those who administer the city’s homeless programs — recommended against the addition of an anti-camping rule in the streets by-law. Adding in an anti-camping rule against the expressed views in the public consultation process and against the advice of staff shows disrespect for the value and importance of the public consultation process, good governance, and informed decision-making.

FIVE 

The City of Toronto already has a wide range of powers under existing provincial and municipal laws and protocols to address homelessness, and a new prohibition on camping is not required.

Police and medical authorities already have the power, under the Mental Health Act, to detain a person who is homeless who may be an immediate danger to themselves or others. Other provincial and municipal laws, plus the Criminal Code, deal with threatening behaviour, obstruction of streets and a variety of nuisances. The City of Toronto has developed a protocol for its Streets to Homes program to work with people who are homeless in assisting them to move into shelters and appropriate housing. Additional criminal powers are not required, and, as already noted, may invite costly legal challenges and may also make it more difficult to help people who are homeless to become properly housed.

The Ontario and federal governments announced a combined investment of $481 million in affordable housing funding on November 8. This is not a new investment, but the re-announcement of funding that was first promised in September of 2008. Here are some background notes from the Wellesley Institute to help you understand the latest housing news.

Tuesday’s media release is a re-announcement of the same funding that was first announced in September of 2008. Back then, the federal government announced a five year extension (with no increase in funding, despite inflation, population increase and an increase in housing need across the country) for the Federal Low-Income Housing Repair Program (RRAP), the Affordable Housing Initiative (AHI) and Homelessness Partnering Strategy. Back then, they said that the funding would flow to provinces / municipalities / community entities for the first two years in the same way that it had been administered previously, and that they would “review” the programs before determining the final three years of spending.

Last year, the federal government re-announced the homelessness funding for the final three years.

In July, the federal government, provinces and territories re-announced the final three years of the AHI and RRAP funding – saying that an extension of the federal-provincial-territorial affordable housing framework agreement would be the mechanism for flowing the dollars for the final three years. But, as before, a bilateral housing deal would be required between the federal government and each province / territory to start the flow of funding.

Ontario and the federal government signed the bilateral housing deal sometime soon after the July framework agreement was announced, but the feds decided not to publicly announce the funding agreement. Several senior officials in the Ontario government confidentially told the Wellesley Institute that the federal Conservatives were reluctant to make any announcement that might gain any political credit for the provincial Liberals in the lead-up to the recent provincial election campaign. So, partisan politics appears to have delayed the re-announcement of the bilateral deal.

Under the July agreement, RRAP has ended and provinces / territories have the “flexibility” to determine how the funding dollars will flow. This raises concerns for housing advocates about whether all the federal housing funds are, in fact, being dedicated to housing initiatives.

In 2009, the Ontario Auditor General conducted an audit of provincial social housing spending – most of which originates with the federal government and flows through the province to municipal service managers. The Auditor General noted that the province could not properly account for hundreds of millions of federal housing dollars that were allocated to the provincial government for affordable housing purposes. The Auditor General noted that some of those funds were designated by the province for “constraint” – whatever that is. The relative lack of transparency as federal housing dollars flow through the provinces to municipalities raises concerns about whether all the funds are actually flowing to affordable housing, as intended in the agreements.

Multiple re-announcements of the same funding has been a common practice by governments of various political stripes. Expect even more press releases as the federal dollars are allocated to a particular local project. While it may have the effect of seeming to inflate the actual dollars on offer, in fact the meagre funding that was originally announced in 2008 has simply been re-announced time and again.

The “good news” in this announcement is that the federal government – which has cut $1.2 billion from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation housing spending this fiscal year as part of the “scheduled termination” of certain federal housing initiatives - have apparently not cut the funding first promised in 2008 and re-announced several times since then.