Recently, Wellesley Institute published a series examining how mayoral candidates can show leadership and deliver Toronto the Bold. We called for a city that takes wellness, health, and equity seriously to build a better future for every Torontonian, and a city takes the lead on doing so.
Leading into election day we are providing analyses of the information available to us from leading candidates on how they would address the health equity issues we raised.
We first examined housing and encouraged candidates to take first steps towards Wellesley’s vision for a Toronto. Our vision is that we end chronic homelessness within 10 years and that individuals and families pay no more than 30 per cent of their income for a healthy, adequate home that meets their needs.
To do that, mayoral candidates needed to demonstrate how they would reduce the net total of persons experiencing homelessness in Toronto by at least one third by 2033. We recommended they do that by ensuring enough new deeply affordable units to house everyone in need, delivering at least 6 000 municipal supportive housing units, repairing all currently affordable units, and reducing evictions each year until there are no evictions due to unaffordability or unfair, preventable causes.
Unfortunately, the statements we have seen from candidates do not indicate the commitment to housing we were hoping for. No candidate is committed to Toronto reducing our homeless population by one third within ten years through municipal action. They have not committed to clear public targets to achieve that goal equitably. No campaign has provided a final accounting of how many currently unhoused individuals they believe their proposals would house.
We note that several candidates have commitments to generally speed up construction, but we were unable to assess how these might affect those most in need. Several also focussed on “purpose-built rental”, which we have included, but we are unsure at this time how, if it all, it would positively impact homelessness.
Ana Bailao did not appear to propose any policies that would directly provide affordable units to those in deepest need, nor to create or promote the creation of generally labelled “affordable” units. She promises a target of 67 000 market constructed “purpose built rental” buildings.
She suggests she would see 1 000 supportive units over 10 years, but we understand these would not be City-funded, and therefore are merely an ask of another level of government, not an action.
She did not appear to address repair.
She proposes $5 million for rental assistance for those fleeing gender-based violence which might help reduce evictions depending on program design.
Overall, she is very focussed on market solutions, but does appear to make some moves in the right direction in some areas. She does not include any targets aimed at ending homelessness. It is unfortunate that she does not appear to envision a City role in supportive housing funding that could ensure what is needed.
Brad Bradford did not appear to propose any policies that would directly provide affordable units to those in deepest need, nor to create or promote the promotion of generally labelled “affordable” units. He does commit to having 33% of new privately constructed units on City land be affordable He did not address purpose built rental buildings.
He did not appear to address supportive housing.
He did not appear to address repair.
He did not appear to propose anything to prevent evictions.
Overall, he is very focussed on market solutions for higher-income individuals, but lacked clear policies to help those most in need. Without stronger policies to better address this issue his platform would lead to a city in which homelessness is increased due to increased housing costs and population growth.
Olivia Chow pledges 2 500 “rent geared to income” units would be developed by the City, which, depending on details, could represent significant gains if delivered to those experiencing chronic homelessness. She promises 5 000 “affordable” units, along with details of average market rent. She also includes important supports for currently homeless individuals that we hope she would envision winding down over time by providing them necessary housing.
She did not appear to address supportive housing.
She includes repair as one purpose of a new $100 million fund to address renters needs.
She proposes 1 000 new rent supplements (we believe annually) which would presumably be targeted at eviction prevention, but also might go to some individuals experiencing homelessness. She would “nearly triple” Toronto’s Eviction Prevention In the Community program, and double funding for Toronto’s Rent Bank. She would “scale up” the Tenant Support Program.
Overall, her housing platform includes spending increases that would be helpful in various areas, but does not currently propose to track how many it lifts out of chronic homelessness. It is unfortunate that supportive housing does not appear to be included.
Anthony Furey did not appear to propose any policies that would reduce homelessness.
He did not appear to address supportive housing.
He did not appear to address repair.
He did not appear to address eviction prevention, but proposes to eliminate Rent Safe TO which would be likely to make rental units in the city less healthy.
Overall, without policies to better address this issue his platform would lead to a city in which homelessness is increased due to increased housing costs and population growth.
Mitzie Hunter proposes 2 108 units at 40% of average market rent along with many others at higher levels which, depending on details, could represent significant gains if delivered to those who currently experience homelessness. She would “unlock City lands” for affordable housing and require majority affordable housing in every City-led development. She also proposes 5 320 city built purpose-built rental buildings. She also includes important supports for currently homeless individuals that we hope she would envision winding down over time by providing them necessary housing.
She had what we believe is the strongest proposal on supportive housing who would see 2 000 new City-funded supportive units.
She would increase the City’s Multi-Unit Residential Acquisition program, which includes renovations, by $50 million.
She would “expand” the Eviction Prevention In the Community program and triple funding for Toronto’s Rent Bank. She commits to rent control on City-owned land.
Overall, she has many ideas and investments in areas that would be helpful, but she does not currently propose to track how many people each initiative would lift of homelessness. It is very promising to see that she envisions a municipal role in funding supportive housing.
Josh Matlow’s “Public Build Toronto” would include 750 “deeply affordable” units which, depending on details, could represent significant gains if delivered to those who currently experience homelessness. He promises a further 6 750 “affordable” units. He proposes significant tax changes to encourage new builds as well as 1 500 city built. He also includes important supports for currently homeless individuals that we hope he would envision winding down over time by providing them necessary housing.
He did not appear to address supportive housing.
He would increase the City’s Multi-Unit Residential Acquisition program, which includes renovations, by $50 million.
He proposes 667 new rent supplements which would presumably be targeted at eviction prevention, but also might go to some individuals experiencing homelessness. He would triple funding for Toronto’s Rent Bank and fund the Tenant Support Program for $51.5 million. He commits to rent control on City-owned land.
Overall, he has clever ideas and investments in areas that would be helpful. He does not currently propose to track how many people each initiative would lift of homelessness, although we hope his proposal to set per-person targets for community services might mean openness to applying the same targets to ending homelessness. It is unfortunate that supportive housing does not appear to be included.
Mark Saunders did not appear to propose any policies that would directly provide affordable units to those in deepest need. He would “explore a model” that would include affordable units as well as removing property taxes from new affordable units. He did not address purpose-built rental.
He did not appear to address supportive housing.
He did not appear to address repair.
He did not appear to address eviction prevention.
Overall, although he at least mentions affordable housing, without policies to better address this issue his platform would lead to a city in which homelessness is increased due to increased housing costs and population growth.
In conclusion, we have unfortunately not seen the progress towards health equity on homelessness we’d hoped for from our mayoral candidates. No candidate is committed to Toronto, through municipal action, reducing our homeless population by one third within ten years. They have therefore also not committed to clear public targets to achieve that goal equitably. No campaign has provided a final accounting of how many currently unhoused individuals they believe their proposals would house. Wellesley Institute and others who are committed to ending homelessness clearly have a great deal of work to push Toronto’s political system towards equity.
Only one candidate proposes municipal action to address supportive housing. As the Supportive Housing Growth Plan notes, Toronto needs 18 000 new units over the next eight years. We once again call on everyone in Toronto, especially policy leaders, to recognize that Toronto has a responsibility to fulfill at least one third of this commitment on its own, rather than pointing the finger at other levels of government.
No candidates had proposals that included results and targets to ensure all affordable units are brought into a state of good repair, nor to end avoidable evictions.
Perhaps in lieu of the necessary action on creating units for those who need them including supportive housing, some candidates commit to increasing funding for Toronto’s shelter system or adding respite services. We urge Toronto’s next mayor to keep in mind that while investments are needed in the short term, their goal should be to provide supportive and deeply affordable housing that ensures the shelter system is “invested out of business” as it is no longer needed for chronic homelessness.
Although some platforms are significantly stronger than others, this election may be a missed opportunity for the sea change Toronto needs in ending homelessness. Many candidates are very focussed on housing affordability for some, but not affordable housing for those who need it most. Allowing poverty and homelessness to continue to plague our streets and shelters means thousands of Torontonians will die far too young. We hope our next mayor will recognize the gravity of Toronto’s current situation and take on the mantle of champion for a vision of Toronto in which homelessness is eliminated because the City of Toronto plays its part.