Thread by @amoralorealis

Don’t care about for-profit rentals in Shaughnessy? I thought so too, at first! Who cares about developer profits? Not me. Well, let me share some tidbits I’ve learned from nonprofit/social housing developers.

1)zoning bylaws prevent everything but mansions in places like Shaughnessy. That means even social housing can’t be built “by right,” only mansions are allowed by default. To be able to build denser housing, you need to ask for a special exception to the bylaws - a “rezoning.”

You go through a looooong process (the townhome proposal in Shaughnessy went through 2 years) with city hall for this rezoning, which ends in a public hearing and a council vote. This is both costly and risky.

Banks will only finance this significant risk if there’s decent likelihood of a return. The more “groundbreaking” your proposal (e.g. the first rentals in Shaughnessy), the higher the risk. Thus, nonprofits avoid being the first ones in.

Nonprofits will try to “follow” in the footsteps of for-profit condos and rentals, to minimize risk. Also, the low-income folks that live in nonprofit units tend to face a lot of class discrimination if thrown into hyper rich areas like Shaughnessy.

Plus, it’s hard for low-income folks to live in a place with fewer cheaper shops nearby. There’s no No Frills in Shaughnessy like in Hastings Sunrise. Thus it’s better for those folks to put their social housing in middle/mixed income neighborhoods.

So it’s very important to mix in upper-middle and middle income people (and the amenities that follow) into a neighbourhood like Shaughnessy before nonprofit housing. This would still be a significant de-gentrifying step.

$1900-$3500 rentals are an order of magnitude more “affordable” than the status quo mansions of Shaughnessy, which are $20k+ A MONTH (after a million in down payment.)

TL;DR - if you want social housing, first support middle income housing in the hypergentrified areas like Shaughnessy and West Point Grey. They’re already the emptiest and least likely to displace vulnerable people because they are so exclusive to the 1%.

I’m not entirely sure they’d want to be tagged, so I might delete this, but big thanks to @kwardvancouver @BuiltJustice and the folks at BCNPHA for all that you’ve done to teach me about this.

P.S. I totally understand that it just FEELS wrong to support for-profit development, especially if you're a leftie like me. However, there's a proposal tonight for rentals under the MIRHPP program at 711 W Broadway, 5-8 PM. Pls read my article on it here: straight.com/news/1236246/j…

I'll be there and would be ecstatic to meet anyone and tell you how I got involved with @ahvancouver (it was the Temporary Modular Housing battle). Let's support guaranteed-affordable-rental-units in the west side together, tonight!

Ugh, so yeah. When council says no to a rental project that went above and beyond to answer all policy concerns, what happens? The property owners will just take the easy way out and build the only thing that's allowed by default, the 12,000 sq ft mansion. vancourier.com/real-estate/pr…

Thanks Mayor Kennedy and Councillors Boyle, De Genova, Dominato for trying to prevent the mansion status quo of Shaughnessy.
No thanks to Councillors Fry, Carr, Wiebe, Hardwick, Bligh, Kirby-Yung, and Swanson. You have literally ensured preservation of the mansion statuys quo.