There is a group whose housing needs are not addressed, and it is no less than one-third of all households in Gibsons
(by Margot Grant)
According to the 2016 census, there were 4,215 households making less than $35,000 a year on the Sunshine Coast. In Gibsons, 705 households fell into that category — about 1,400 people in desperate need of low-income housing. Yet this group is strangely absent from every discussion about affordable housing.
The Town of Gibsons is planning a 40-unit affordable-housing project on three acres in the Charman Creek lands at the end of Shaw Road. The one-, two- and three-bedroom units are aimed, the Town says, at “the middle segment of the housing market.” They are “workforce rentals” for “households that cannot afford market rental rates or home ownership without paying more than 30 per cent of their income toward housing costs, but who earn too much to receive any form of government subsidy or support”.
To keep the $9-million project feasible, only eight of the units will have an ‘affordable’ rent of $900-$1,138. Twenty units will rent for $1,100 – $1,500 (still below market), and twelve will have market rentals rates of $1,300 – $1,850.
According to the Town’s Facebook page, one would need an income of between $35,000 and $45,000 per year to afford one of the lower-priced units. But with 705 households earning less than $35,000, this project, however admirable, does nothing to quell the real need.
The two laneway projects on Franklin Road are supposed to rent at 75 per cent of market value — unreachable with an income below $35,000. The garden-suite information page on the Town of Gibsons’ website is defunct. The plans for the former RCMP site are for a transition site for the homeless.
Low-income housing is what is needed, but no one wants to talk about it. Literally nothing is being done for more than 700 households — one-third of the households in the Town —who are in desperate need of such housing.
Practical solutions are needed. Some ideas we have recently heard:
- Utilize the more than 10 acres of empty land behind Elphinstone Secondary, belonging to School District 46
- Utilize the 4.17 acres on Shaw Road next to Christensen Village. The Town owns the land and the covenant says it can be used for public housing
- Lobby the provincial government to release Crown land. (There is no Crown land in Gibsons proper)
Pamela Robertson builds beautiful, high-end tiny houses behind the former Sears building on Shaw Road. The base rate for a movable 270 square-feet house is $74,000, which climbs to $85,000 for a home with a washer and dryer, hot water on demand, a kitchen with a double sink and a four-burner gas cooktop, and a bathroom with a full-size, free-standing soaker tub.
Houses of 350 to 400 square feet cost about $150,000, but the price can be lower if they have fewer features or if many units are built at the same time. The homes are practically maintenance-free and cost pennies to heat.
Robertson points out that housing could be built for even less. Richie Brothers regularly auctions camp housing units in good shape. “If the structure is there, complete with plumbing and electricity, I have something to work with,” Robertson says. “It would be fun. I’d love to participate.”
Camp units from Richie Brothers have been used to create several great-looking one-bedroom homes in Gibsons with a kitchen and bathroom. The Coast Clarion has seen them, but the owner wants no publicity.
Other ideas are co-op housing, cob houses, or an environmentally-friendly mobile home park. More suggestions are welcomes, and we need them. It’s good for the economy, too; we can’t do without workers.
There are various ways to finance such projects, but first, we need to recognize the problem and start the discussion about low-income housing.
The real world costs for land and building require large subsidies to compensate for low income households contributions to rent that is set at 30% of income. For example a single senior surviving on government pensions only (CPP,OAS & GIS combined) will earn about $17854 per year or $1,487 month allowing a monthly rent of $446. The monthly costs of a new, small rental unit on “free” land are quite likely to be around $1000 per month for taxes, insurance, mortgage, and maintenance requiring a subsidy of nearly $554 per month. Local government can’t provide this level of subsidy eve after donating land to a project. Only the Province or Federal government can help. They are not providing enough funds to subsidize more units to these levels.
So what is the solution?
One solution is to do something about the housing crisis. Under $35,000/year would not put someone in the category of “low income” if housing prices were sane. As a senior, my income is well below $35,000 but, because I own my home and have money in investments, I do not consider myself poor. I’d be in real trouble without my inheritance from my mother.
For people on welfare the annual income is ‘way, ‘way below $35,000–that includes families and people on Disability. It is scandalous that people with disabilities are homeless or forced to endure inadequate shelter. If someone is on Disability they should get at least the same as seniors do–but even seniors are not getting enough to ensure adequate shelter these days. The previous provincial government allowed this situation to develop. It is now up to the current government to offer more than Bandaid solutions such as the $400 yearly rebate for renters or the $100 increase to people on Welfare. What’s that supposed to do? (The $100 increase ups the monthly total–including shelter allowance–to about $700/month for a single employable–a whopping $8,400 a year–and “employable” includes many people who have been unable to prove to the powers-that-be that they are disabled).
I agree with Lee Ann that municipal governments are limited in what they can do about all this. We all need to nag the provincial and federal governments to deal with the situation.
We need to be making big noise about local conditions with the Province and the Feds! We are “the boonies” in the eyes of senior governments. Our local government must yell really loud to get attention. We must use all the media we can muster to get attention to our housing reality because we are otherwise easy to dismiss when compared to Lower mainland IMO!
The whole seawatch thing was a quick public calculation of costs and an emergency debate. Strange how this is ‘not’ an emergency debate of equal vigor and calculation for a tax increase to save peoples lives.
We objectify people and humanize objects. Houses of misfortune outweigh houses of help.
All the seniors and low income people should ‘enmass’ commit a crime (take a loaf of bread, or a carton of milk, or squat in an area where not allowed and have to be removed by the law, etc.) when they have to support a half million of disabled, elderly, or low income folks at $60,000 a year each in an institution and provide basic medical or make arrangements to be moved into other facilities, maybe those purse strings will open up. We can’t build housing fast enough to solve the problem. A basic survival income must be paid to all individuals that meet market demands to put a roof over their heads and provide meals each day. Only way to deal with it today !