Who would say this? Besides the developer and the people
wanting to buy the houses. No one. At least not the residents
living in the established surrounding neighbourhood.
Anyone who knows me can tell you that I don't believe land
development always means progress. There needs to be a good
reason to destroy a green space. However, a recent development
meeting has shed some new light on the subject of building. Can
an anti-developer change her spots? Let's see.
I live in the Mountford/Hadati area where a five-acre
school-board site is waiting to be sold. This grass-covered
valley, more of a big fuzzy ditch really, is presently home to
shrubs and trees, rabbits and birds, an adjoining park and a
mini-wilderness pathway.
Recently, neighbourhood residents received a notice inviting
us to participate in a public meeting at the Victoria Road
Recreation Centre to hear from a company wanting to develop this
land. I admit that I went prepared to adamantly oppose the
project. Mountford Drive is already very busy. How would another
200 vehicles impact this area? More noise, more fumes and more
parking in front of our homes. Who needs it? Not me.
The meeting was well attended by local folks who were
concerned about their neighbourhood changing. The developer
began by showing us a 12-minute video of other successful
projects built in Kitchener-Waterloo, Collingwood, Montreal and
Toronto. The Options for Homes president and founder were both
present to share their designing dreams and field any questions
the audience might have.
I liked them -- much to my surprise. I found them to be
informative and sincere. Sure, I know that salespeople are
supposed to be charming, that's how they sell their products, so
I was determined to reserve my opinion until the very end of the
meeting.
The Options people claimed their not-for-profit company
provided affordable home ownership to people who might not
otherwise be able to purchase a house. The buildings would be a
combination of stacked townhouses, fourplexes and a small
apartment building totalling 150 units. Construction would be a
"flexible instrument," said Options founder, Mike Labbe.
Community members would have input about the design of the
project. There would be surface parking but with sensitive
frontage that would "be worked out with the neighbourhood,"
proclaimed Jan Ciuciura, president of the company. Evidently,
they want people to be part of the negotiation process not
absent from it. Interesting.
The audience listened respectfully and then hit the
developers with their best shots -- concerns for increased
traffic, parking, water-supply issues, density problems, garbage
removal, property values and more lengthy construction so soon
after the underground upgrading of Mountford Drive's electrical
systems that lasted what seemed like endless months. All great
queries. I was impressed by the energy and thought that my
neighbours put into these legitimate and timely concerns. Many
people have lived here all their lives and are afraid this new
development will change the nature of this small, comfortable
community.
The developers listened with equal respect and explained that
this project, like previous ones, was designed for people who
wanted to own a home, who took pride in their community and who
wanted to live in buildings that complemented the existing
neighbourhood. Apparently, Options employees are on salaries and
no commissions are given for selling, and these communities are
98 per cent owner- occupied, not sold to absentee investors. A
good omen.
The company will need to go through the city's hoops for
rezoning, site approval and density concerns. They will need to
participate in other community meetings.
Too good to be true or a good alternative to big development?
Nearing the end of the session, some residents wondered if
they could stop the development altogether. It was then
mentioned, by a city councillor, that the land was going to be
developed one way or the other, so we might as well have some
say in the direction of that development.
I was gobsmacked. Why wasn't this mentioned at the outset of
the meeting? Which would you rather have on that site -- a
school, a high-rise apartment, a mini-mall or an Options
community aimed at single women, young families and seniors? The
Options option was looking better all the time.
So what happened? I don't recall a Svengali staring into my
eyes repeating the phrase "development -- good; tree-covered
vacant lot -- bad." So have my anti-developing spots changed?
Not really. They're still green and I'm still not a true
believer in development for development's sake. However, I'd
rather have a developed infill project than continue to expand
the city's boundaries. Let's build within our city limits and
keep a watchful eye on developers' methods, making sure they
agree to work within our city's zoning, parking and water
resource bylaws. Keep demanding greater vigilance from our city
council and us. We need to do our research concerning each
project, evaluate past ventures while observing present ones.
Meanwhile, I intend to sprinkle some hay and sunflower seeds
around my property, just in case the rabbits and birds need a
new place to live.
Donna Leigh White is a member of the Mercury's Community
Editorial Board.
No-frills housing choices
Affordability, close-knit communities draw residents back to the
basics
Dec. 31, 2005. 01:00 AM
SHELLY
SANDERS GREER
SPECIAL TO THE STAR
When Reid Rossi moved into his small
one-bedroom condo in the Distillery District, he figured he was
lucky getting into the housing market for such a bargain.
His 642-square-foot condo at 39
Parliament St. was just $165,000 in 2001 — and it was in a beautiful
19th century building.
Affordability was a key factor behind
the purchase decision made by Rossi, who at the time was executive
director of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, the
national voice for affordable housing. But once he moved in, Rossi
realized he had received more than square footage at a good price.
He found himself living in a tight-knit community of residents from
all walks of life who worked together to maintain and improve their
home.
Rossi was the second buyer of a unit
within an Options for Homes condominium, a non-profit development
aimed at affordability without frills. The brainchild of
planner/developer Michel Labbe, Options for Homes opens the door to
home ownership to people with annual incomes as low as $16,000.
"You can't go through India and
Thailand without feeling you have to give back for the fortune of
living in Canada," Labbe says. "My debt is to provide affordable
housing."
By skipping traditional items that
push prices up, like expensive advertising campaigns and luxurious
amenities such as pools, hot tubs and fitness centres, Labbe is able
to build quality housing at lower-than-market prices.
The condo owners themselves oversee
the construction and the units are sold at cost. Options for Homes
pays administrative expenses through a 2 per cent fee for every
unit. There is no mark-up and no expensive finishings, which is not
a concern for most residents who can upgrade their suites themselves
and make use of neighbourhood amenities.
"My wife likes the theatre, which we
can walk to," says John Collins, another original resident from 1999
and the current president of the board of directors for 39
Parliament. "I go to the community centre for fitness, which costs
$15 for three months for seniors. My wife and some other women in
the building go to aquafit three times a week."
To date, Options for Homes has built
five communities for 895 people. The average cost per suite is
$40,000 less than market value in Toronto, and $20,000 less in
smaller municipalities.
This low cost is achieved using a
second or "alternative" mortgage which makes up the difference
between the lowest affordable price offered to buyers and the actual
fair market price. Purchasers don't make any payments on this second
mortgage while they live in the building.
When the owners sell, if the suite
has increased in value by 20 per cent, then the alternative mortgage
has increased by the same percentage. So this mortgage is paid back
in full plus 20 per cent, which deters speculators looking to profit
quickly from a rising market. This money is then put back into
Options for Homes to build future projects.
Right from the inception of an
Options for Homes condo, there are four key differences from
traditional condos that, when combined, make up a cost-saving model
that has caught on in other markets including Kitchener-Waterloo,
Collingwood and Montreal.
First of all, Labbe looks for land
that has potential but is not in a "trendy" area. Labbe says that
when he looked at land in the Distillery District, he was told it
would never do well because it was too far from the downtown core.
He got the land for a good price and now has three condos there that
have more than 95 per cent owner occupancy and have appreciated in
value significantly.
"The biggest challenge is finding
patient landowners," he says. "We could be doing twice as many
buildings if we could get more land. Because we're non-profit we
don't have large amounts of money. So we buy residual land."
Next, using inexpensive flyers,
people are invited to a presentation; but interested buyers have to
pay $100 in order to get information about buying a unit.
"By saying we won't talk without $100
saves on sales staff which means lower prices," Labbe explains.
"Generally 10 per cent of the people coming to information sessions
tend to be purchasers. For them, the $100 offers a Power Point
presentation, a copy of a video or DVD with more information and the
legal documents, which they can take home."
A third difference is the fact that
many of the people providing information at a session are themselves
Options for Homes owners who receive a salary for their time and are
not commissioned sales people. Not only does this keep costs down,
it gives potential buyers an accurate picture of life in one of
these buildings.
Once the units in a building have
been sold, the new owners get together for meetings about the design
of the building and rules, in a co-operative fashion. This sets a
neighbourly tone that grows stronger over time.
"The main thing we like is the sense
of community," says Lester Brown, an original purchaser at 39
Parliament in 1999. "My wife and I became members of the co-op and
had several meetings before we moved in. Most of the people who
moved in when we did are still here. We have an active neighbourhood
association and many committees within the building. All the
landscaping is done by people in the building and we have a really
nice roof terrace garden that we take care of."
Options for Homes has mixed
demographics, which appeal to both Rossi and Brown. Labbe says the
breakdown is generally 50 per cent singles, 25 per cent seniors and
25 per cent mixed.
"Other condos we looked at had a
specific type of lifestyle," Brown says. "They were all young people
or all seniors. This has a mix of old, young, families, seniors and
people with disabilities."
When construction begins, Deltera, a
subsidiary of Tridel, gets to work.
"With Options for Homes our role is
quite simply to build what Mike has envisioned," says Jim Ritchie,
senior vice president, sales and marketing for Tridel. "Mike looks
at every possible way to keep costs as low as possible. We're the
largest condo builder in the country so we have good buying power.
Also, the level of finishes is not as high as found in traditional
condos. But there is no sacrifice in the quality of the building."
The long-time residency is a
testament to both the building and the sense of community at Options
for Homes. Rossi loved it so much that 16 months after he moved in,
he bought a large three-bedroom suite in the same building for
$279,000.
"I can tell you that the feeling of
common interest sustains the building," he says. "There is a great
sense of taking care of the building, of pride of ownership. I am
here for the long-term absolutely."
While this model for affordable home
ownership is working well, and Options for Homes has another three
buildings on the go in Toronto, Labbe is surprised it hasn't been
picked up by the rental market, especially given the support
possible from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., or CMHC. Mark
Salerno, GTA district manager for CMHC says that the Partnership
Centre has a number of ways to encourage the creation of affordable
housing.
"There is proposal development
funding, and a no-interest loan, which Options for Homes has used,
which pays for a group to develop working drawings necessary to
access permits," says Salerno. "We also provide consultation
services like a needs study to determine the need for housing in a
particular area."
Recently, the CMHC has also been
providing waivers or reductions in mortgage insurance for affordable
housing, and has been covering the travel and time costs to present
proposals at different venues.
But as far as Labbe is concerned,
more needs to be done to provide housing that people of all incomes
can afford to own, as ownership leads to pride in communities.
"Ownership is cheaper than rental to
build and operate," he says. "We need housing that produces a good
community. If rental were the solution, Toronto wouldn't have a
housing problem."

Innovative affordable housing is finally seeping into Ontario
By JOHN
BARBER
Globe & Mail, Tuesday, November 9, 2004 - Page A13
A bracing
wind of change blew through the East End when a small group of
politicians and would-be developers gathered on Kingston Road
yesterday morning to announce something Torontonians haven't seen
for years: an innovative affordable housing program backed by both
the federal and provincial governments.
Although
the $2-million they gave away was a pittance compared with the
hundreds of millions of dollars the two governments have promised to
invest in affordable housing locally, it was enough to demonstrate a
new determination to make a difference in Toronto.
So far,
Ontario and Toronto have been bystanders to the new national program
that is now supplying affordable housing across the country,
especially in Quebec and British Columbia.
Held up
first by a Tory government that was disinclined to provide matching
funds -- and more recently by a Liberal government that felt it
could not afford to do so -- the new national program is finally
seeping its way into the local political landscape. And the project
announced yesterday indicates that the two governments are prepared
to be creative in how they make it work.
Rather than
concentrating exclusively on affordable rental units, the
governments have teamed up with Home Ownership Alternatives, a
non-profit trust, to develop 382 affordable condominium apartments
in three projects located in Scarborough, Markham and Pickering.
Building on a model pioneered by non-profit developer Mike Labbé,
the program uses creative financing to help working people with
household incomes of no more than $45,000 to own their own homes.
First-time
owners carry their new apartments with payments as low as $600 a
month in some of Mr. Labbé's previous buildings, which were
developed without the help of any government funding. If the model
works as well with subsidies as it does without them, it could
easily grow into a major new force in the underserved low end of the
local housing market.
But even a
delighted Mr. Labbé, who has spent years promoting his innovative
technique of creating affordable home ownership in various
government lobbies, acknowledges that housing policy in Ontario
remains strangely undeveloped.
"It's a very odd situation," he says, noting that the
flow of federal funds has been "horribly delayed" in Ontario. The
previous Tory government's reluctance to get involved is an obvious
reason for that. Another is the fact that little remains of the
institutional structure that once helped build new, affordable
housing in Ontario -- mainly co-ops and other non-profit groups.
Although the money is there, the
programs
need to be rebuilt from scratch.
The federal
program assumed that provinces would match Ottawa's $25,000
subsidies for every new unit that could be rented at below-market
rents. But currently, the only subsidy available to Ontario
developers is a $2,500-a-unit tax break.
Recognizing
the enduring logjam in Ontario, federal Housing Minister Joe Fontana
recently announced his willingness to bend some rules to get things
going.
One option
he is considering is for his government to begin disbursing the
$350-million earmarked for affordable housing in Ontario without the
immediate participation of Queen's Park -- as long as the province
agrees to pay back the loan in the future.
Such a
gesture would be "magnificent," according to one city official. It
would go a long way to ensuring the successful revitalization of
Regent Park, which is scheduled to begin soon but is probably not
viable without substantial aid from senior governments.
Another
option, which makes sense in a city with a rental vacancy rate of
about 4 per cent, is for senior governments to offer rent
supplements to fill up empty apartments with new tenants who
couldn't afford them otherwise.
Both
options will be on the table when federal and provincial housing
ministers meet at the end of this month. In the meantime,
yesterday's announcement on affordable home ownership indicates that
Ontario might finally be ready to join the game.

Program offers low
earners help buying homes
FRANK ETHERINGTON
KITCHENER (Dec 23, 2005)
One of the first affordable-housing projects in Canada to help
individuals and families with incomes as low as $24,500 buy their
own homes is ready to start in Kitchener.
Some low-income homebuyers will also get help putting together down
payments.
As part of the experimental project, a low-income homebuyer who has
difficulty raising a down payment of $4,500 will be asked to find
about $1,500.
The other $3,000 would come in the form of a government loan to be repaid
in line with the increased equity when the home is sold. For
example, if the home increases in value by 20 per cent, the loan
would be repaid at $3,000 plus 20 per cent.
After the condominium development of 64 stacked townhouses are built by
Options for Homes (Waterloo Region), 16 will go to poor homebuyers
who, until now, have only been able to afford rental housing.
The remaining 48 will be sold at cost to working-poor individuals or
families earning $25,000 to $30,000 a year.
The project has been approved to receive $400,000 under Waterloo Region's
ongoing affordable-housing program. It is now waiting for final
approval by federal-provincial housing officials.
The units will be in two, four-level buildings on a 1.2-hectare
(three-acre) site at Strasburg Road and Cedar Hill Crescent in
southwest Kitchener.
Jan Ciuciura, president of the not-for-profit company, said the
development includes 16 one-bedroom homes, 32 units with two
bedrooms and 16 with three bedrooms. Units range in size from 575 to
1,327 square feet.
Some of the houses -- selling for as little as $79,000 -- will require
$4,500 down payments and monthly payments of $692 to cover mortgage,
taxes, utility and condominium fees.
Ciuciura and Rob Horne, regional planning commissioner and former housing
director, said some low-income people in Waterloo Region are paying
more than that in rent.
In past years, Horne has argued that in certain cases the region provides
a subsidy of about $5,000 a year to keep a poor family in a rented
apartment.
A regional study showed some tenants could afford mortgage payments if
they could save enough to cover down payments and other costs
associated with buying homes.
"We're the only developer in Ontario hitting the market where potential
homebuyers have annual incomes of about $25,000 to $40,000,"
Ciuciura said.
"We want to help get working-poor people living in (Waterloo Region)
rental units into places they can own and build some equity."
Rather than paying government subsidies or bonuses to builders to
construct low-cost homes, Ciuciura said the pilot project will have
assistance go directly to low-income buyers.
"We can help someone like a single mother with kids . . . get into one of
these units, and provide her with financial help until her kids grow
up, (and) she's able to get back to the work force," he said.
Housing developments by Options have been successful in Toronto and
Waterloo where the company built and sold 60 units in 2004 at 139
Brighton St. at a former Brighton public school.
Options has also built more than $150 million worth of low-cost housing
in Toronto since the late 1990s.
The company, which exists by charging a consulting fee to condominiums it
builds, uses a form of second mortgage to make units affordable.
The company also keeps prices down because there are no marketing
campaigns or real estate commissions on the no-frills projects.
The company pays market value for land but relies on local councils to
defer development charges and other fees.
Those fees, along with government subsidies paid to companies building
affordable-housing units, help form second mortgages that are paid
off when owners sell units.
Combined savings result in lower prices and prevent speculation on the
homes.
Horne said the Options proposal "sounds solid . . . and very exciting."
He said he supports any move that encourages people renting
affordable-housing units to buy their own homes, build up equity and
escape poverty.
He said the 16 individuals or families who would receive assistance to
buy the most inexpensive Options units are people who have their
names on Waterloo Region's waiting list for low-cost housing.
There are about 4,000 names on the list representing an estimated 10,000
men, women and children.
In the past four years, regional, provincial and federal governments have
spent $31.6 million on affordable-housing to produce 891 low-cost
units.
Horne believes federal and provincial governments are preparing to inject
at least another $13 million into local projects next year that will
help regional housing officials reach a target to build 1,500
low-cost homes by 2008.
Anyone interested in more information can call 519-742-4627.