
A series of councillor exchanges reported from Markham, a satellite city of Toronto, add up to nothing much on their surface. The subject is about a set of ‘back-to-back townhouses’ proposed for a site that will be developed some time in the future.
During the debate, sensible notice is made of the fact that the ‘affordable’ townhouses will probably sell for at least $500,000 each. Surprising? Unsurprising? Who knows? The fact has little impact on the outcome.
The distressing thing that affordablehousingaction.org takes from the story? It is not that a half-million dollars is affordable, as much as an overall sense that nobody involved in the discussion has much of a grasp about what ‘affordable’ means. True, there’s a distinct possibility that each councillor has a clear but different understandings. And then there’s the worst case of all (which we’re not betting on): that they all understand perfectly well and just don’t care.
In its original sense, the term ‘affordable’ largely requires an individual interpretation. What is affordable to a millionaire differs from what is affordable to a person on welfare, yet both individuals have a perfectly good understanding of what the term means to them.
But what does affordable mean to a city council acting on behalf of an entire citizenry? A income-linked definition — rent or mortgage payment less than 30% of gross income — has slipped into virtual disuse. The term ‘affordable’ has instead been carved into subcategories running from poverty-stricken on one end, to somewhat below luxury housing at the other. This seems to suit municipal councils as their focus shifts away from the poverty-stricken and towards subcategories that only middle class voters (and up) can afford.
The puzzle when reading remarks made in the Markham debate is which subcategory, or framework of any kind, the councillors are applying in their debate about ‘affordability’.1 Do they know? Are they all over the shop, but that’s okay? It almost seems as if they are willing to accept whatever definition comes in through the door, including, with little comment, ‘affordable’ townhouses selling for half a million dollars.
One of the Councillors indicates his acceptance of this project (and by extension a particular definition of affordability), acknowledging that it represents an opportunity for Markham to gain some much needed affordable housing.
Really? Does scoring nebulous affordable housing brownie points add up to ‘much needed?’ Are brownie points a good reason for a municipal council to approve whatever definition of affordable a developer sets carefully onto council’s agenda.
If so, Markham, and a very great many other municipalities we suspect, have a long hard slog ahead of them to manage the affordability crisis that is engulfing communities everywhere. Read more at YorkRegion.com: Markham Back-To-Back Townhouse Proposal Offers ‘Affordable’ $500,000 Option
Footnotes
- Councillors cannot check the Staff Report for help, as affordability is not mentioned there at all.