More supply won’t stop B.C.'s housing crisis on its own

When Eby was explicitly asked about how the plan would address homelessness, his answer was guided by the logic of filtering. By building homes for more affluent residents to occupy, there will be less demand placed on existing units that might otherwise be occupied by lower-income households, which will supposedly be a win-win for everyone.

But the logic of filtering suffers from both empirical and moral problems.

There is no consistent evidence that adding new supply alleviates burdens on lower-income households as a general principle across housing markets. Reading through the research literature on filtering yields both examples and counter-examples in relation to this principle.

The rational response is to suspend our judgment about filtering rather than to assert that it will necessarily take place. In the context of Metro Vancouver, there are reasons to doubt that filtering will happen either at all or on any time horizon short enough to constitute a meaningful improvement to the housing crisis.

A much more realistic look at the evidence reveals that processes of displacement, such as renovictions and demovictions, are significantly eroding our supply of genuinely affordable rental units.

A popular study by Steve Pomeroy notes that we are losing 15 affordable units in the housing market for every one new affordable unit of housing built. Based on 2021 census data, Pomeroy has updated this study to further confirm that the rate of erosion in this supply will make it impossible to realize the National Housing Strategy’s goals of maintaining or even expanding net affordable rental stock if this loss continues.

If new supply is to be genuinely beneficial, we have to stop the massive loss of these units through stronger tenant protections that prevent displacement and greater limits on investors, such as by restricting the activity of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and other speculative investment funds in the housing market.

A much more realistic look at the evidence reveals that processes of displacement, such as renovictions and demovictions, are significantly eroding our supply of genuinely affordable rental units.

A popular study by Steve Pomeroy notes that we are losing 15 affordable units in the housing market for every one new affordable unit of housing built. Based on 2021 census data, Pomeroy has updated this study to further confirm that the rate of erosion in this supply will make it impossible to realize the National Housing Strategy’s goals of maintaining or even expanding net affordable rental stock if this loss continues.

If new supply is to be genuinely beneficial, we have to stop the massive loss of these units through stronger tenant protections that prevent displacement and greater limits on investors, such as by restricting the activity of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and other speculative investment funds in the housing market.

A truly progressive housing policy will focus first on those who are harmed the most in our housing crisis — those who experience displacement, homelessness, and other forms of housing insecurity.

But to rely primarily on the logic of filtering is ultimately a regressive policy. This logic suggests that the direct benefits to upper- and middle-income households will be of indirect benefit to lower-income households, which is ultimately to prioritize the interests of the former over the latter. It focuses our housing supply on first satisfying the desires of those with wealth and then leaving whatever remains as leftovers for others.

This logic structures the housing supply in such a way that centres the interests of those with wealth and marginalizes the interests of those in poverty — it reproduces the injustices of what the urbanist Jay Pitter refers to as “dominant density” by deepening inequalities in the design of urban space.

Instead, our focus should be on democratizing our housing supply and not merely on building more houses; we should explore how those who have experienced different forms of marginalization can be active co-creators in our housing systems and not just afterthoughts. When it comes to thinking about our housing supply, the questions “for whom” and “by whom” are much more important in many ways than “how much.”

A critic might respond that Eby’s proposals are better than other political alternatives on offer and that they should simply be supported for the sake of political expediency. But this is a failure of the political imagination: We can and should do much more to increase our supply of non-market housing and protect vulnerable renters.

While it is evident that the premier deeply cares about these things amid the human costs of the housing crisis, last week’s announcement was a lost opportunity to lay out a much more progressive housing policy that gives real hope to those experiencing the greatest amount of housing insecurity in our province.

But, fortunately, there is still time for the new legislation forthcoming in the Housing Supply Act, which is designed to increase the province’s housing supply by setting and enforcing targets in municipalities, to chart a better way forward through the large-scale expansion of non-market housing and enhanced protections for households at risk of displacement.