CCPA Why Protecting Public Housing is Important - Canadian Centre ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
CCPA
CANADIAN CENTRE FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES
MANITOBA
Why Protecting
Public Housing
is Important
By Sarah Cooper
JANUARY
2018Why Protecting Public Housing is Important About the Author:
isbn 978-1-77125-383-3 Sarah Cooper is a CCPA-MB research associate. She
is currently completing her PhD in Urban Planning
january 2018 and Policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
This report is available free of charge from the CCPA Acknowledgements
website at www.policyalternatives.ca. Printed
copies may be ordered through the Manitoba Office Thank you to Christina Maes Nino, Kirsten Bernas,
for a $10 fee. and the Right to Housing coalition for the question
that started this research paper. Thanks also to
Christina Maes Nino, Josh Brandon, and the two
Help us continue to offer our publications free online.
anonymous reviewers for their insightful and helpful
We make most of our publications available free comments. I acknowledge the contribution of the
on our website. Making a donation or taking out a Manitoba Research Alliance in supporting this
membership will help us continue to provide people research.
with access to our ideas and research free of charge.
You can make a donation or become a member The generous support of the Social Sciences and
on-line at www.policyalternatives.ca. Or you can Humanities Research Council of Canada through the
contact the Manitoba office at 204-927-3200 for Manitoba Research Alliance grant: Partnering for
more information. Suggested donation for this Change – Community based solutions for Aboriginal
publication: $10 or what you can afford. and inner-city poverty (Grant Nº 895-2011-1027,
project Nº 790), is gratefully acknowledged.
Unit 205 – 765 Main St., Winnipeg, MB R2W 3N5
tel 204-927-3200 fa x 204-927-3201
em ail ccpamb@policyalternatives.caIntroduction
Public housing plays an essential role in Manito- Manitoba recommends moving away from pub-
ba’s housing system. It provides a specific form of licly-provided housing to a mix of housing vouch-
housing: decommodified housing that is afford- ers for the private market and housing provided
able to low-income households. This means that by private and nonprofit organizations through
it has been removed from the market by focusing a contract with the province. At the same time,
on its use as a home, rather than on its poten- the Province of Manitoba is negotiating the sale
tial for financial gain, and has low rents. Across of two public housing complexes in Winnipeg to
Canada, public housing has provided good qual- nonprofit organizations. But what are the impli-
ity, affordable housing for decades (Silver ). cations for current and prospective tenants liv-
In many places across Canada and beyond, ing in public housing?
however, public housing is threatened by rede- This paper argues that decommodified, low-
velopment, sale, or transfer to nongovernment cost public housing must be protected, even — per-
organizations. The loss of public housing units haps especially — in a context where privatiza-
is part of two broader trends: seeing housing as tion seems inevitable. The first part of Manitoba
a private investment, rather than as a place to Housing’s mandate is to “enhance the affordabil-
live (Rolnik ), and locating responsibility for ity of, and accessibility to, adequate housing for
social welfare in the market rather than in gov- Manitobans, particularly those of low to mod-
ernment (Bezanson ). These trends affect erate incomes or those with specialized needs”
both current and prospective tenants, making (Manitoba Housing n.d.). This paper consid-
access to housing more difficult for low-income ers the potential implications of a loss of pub-
households and households with particular lic housing for current and prospective tenants
housing needs. in the context of this mandate, and offers some
Manitoba is not exempt: it, too, faces the po- policy recommendations to ensure that housing
tential loss of public housing units. The recent continues to be affordable to low-income house-
report () produced for the Province of holds into the future.
why protec ting public housing is important 1Decommodifying Housing
Most households in Canada, whether renters or toba there are , units (Manitoba Housing
owners, access housing through the market. They and Community Development ).
pay for housing based on what is available in the In Manitoba, public housing is about percent
market, and most have their needs met in this rent-geared-to-income (), where the housing
way. However, for about . million households, cost is based on what a tenant can afford to pay
the market price of adequate and suitable hous- (Cooper ). Some nonprofits and co-operatives
ing is more than percent of their household also provide only housing. In other nonprof-
income, which is the generally accepted thresh- it and co-operative organizations, the housing is
old for housing affordability ( ). These mixed — it may be a blend of affordable housing
households are said to be in core housing need. and rent-geared-to-income () housing. This
Social housing is one way to ensure that all is the case for much new nonprofit development,
households have access to housing. Historically, which is often a blend of market housing, afford-
federal and provincial social housing programs able housing and/or housing. Even with this
decommodified housing in order to make it ac- many units of social housing, about , house-
cessible to low-income households. First with holds in Manitoba (just over percent) still live
public housing in the s and ’s, and later in core housing need ( ).
with nonprofit and co-operative housing in the Manitoba defines any housing, whether pro-
s and ’s, federal and provincial govern- vided by private, nonprofit/co-operative, or public
ments provided funding through long-term organizations, which is at or below median market
agreements with housing providers to enable rents as ‘affordable’ housing. While these ‘afford-
the development and management of hundreds able’ rents are certainly lower rents, their afford-
of thousands of units of nonmarket, low-cost ability is not related to household income — it is
housing across Canada. Across Canada, there affordable in comparison to the rest of the market.
are , of units of social housing; in Mani- For this reason, the Province sets income limits
1 Housing is adequate when it is in good condition and does not require major repairs. It is suitable when it is an appropri-
ate size for the household, following the National Occupancy Standard requirements ( ).
2 c anadian centre for polic y alternatives — m anitobafor households living in affordable nonprofit and In contrast, many nonprofit and co-opera-
co-operative housing units, to make sure that tive housing providers base their rents on the
those units go to moderate income households operating cost of housing, which is usually less
(Brandon ). Still, many low-income house- than market rents. These housing units are partly
holds need additional subsidies that bridge the decommodified because there is no profit mo-
gap between what they can afford to pay and the tive; the rents merely cover the cost of provid-
cost of providing the housing: they need rents ing the housing. As long as the nonprofits and
that are geared to their incomes (). co-operatives are governed through agreements
Rent Assist, a rent supplement program provided with governments, there are limits on how the
by the Province of Manitoba, is often promoted as equity can be used: the property cannot be
a way to make housing affordable to low-income mortgaged, for example, to reduce the risk of
households. While it provides a subsidy that bridges speculation and foreclosure. These agreements
the gap between percent of household income also provide subsidies to lower the cost of de-
and percent of market rent, it does so within, livering the housing, such as a capital grant to
rather than outside, the market. When the rental assist with development of a property, or on-
market is very tight (as it has been in Manitoba in going subsidies to cover mortgage payments,
the last few years), rent supplements don’t make to reduce the operating cost significantly and
finding housing easier; likewise, for households help to keep rents low.
that have difficulty finding housing in the private With stability and security provided by pro-
market, rent supplements are unlikely to be of use. tections on property and limits on the use of eq-
Rent Assist works with the existing price system uity, and rents that are based on a household’s
of the private housing market: it does not reduce ability to pay, rather than on what the market
speculation or housing cost increases. As rents in- can command, social housing is intentionally
crease, the cost of supplements also increase, and removed from the market. It is no longer a com-
operate essentially as a public subsidy to private modity to be bought and sold to the highest bid-
landlords — a subsidy where there are few checks der. Instead, it offers a way for households to ac-
on the condition of the housing, and little account- cess housing without spending a huge proportion
ability for how the money is used. of their income on housing.
why protec ting public housing is important 3Public vs. Private Provision of Housing
The social housing programs of the s, ’s, vide government funding for social housing
’s and ’s are part of a broad social safety net. have been expiring. Without the agreements,
Along with universal healthcare, unemployment housing providers are free to speculate with the
insurance, the Canadian Pension Plan, and other property by mortgaging or selling it, and they no
programs, the social safety net recognizes that longer receive subsidies from the government.
poverty is not an individual responsibility, and Providers can also change the tenant mix and
that society has a collective responsibility to take rent structure, and essentially can operate like
care of all of its members. Money to support social private housing providers, depending on their
housing programs (and other parts of the social individual mandates and values.
safety net) is gathered through taxes, from society The expiry of the social housing operating
as a whole. The government has a public mandate agreements is a process of privatization. Privat-
to maintain the social safety net, to ensure that ization is “the practice of delegating public du-
society is as healthy and as well-housed as possible. ties to private organizations” (Donahue , ,
Today, however, financial deregulation and italics in original). This might include selling a
government policies that emphasise homeown- public utility to a business entity, outsourcing a
ership instead of rental or social housing frame government task, or contracting with a private
housing as a commodity, instead of as a home. company to provide a service previously pro-
At a local level, housing is affected by globaliza- vided through government. It may also mean
tion as investors look for desirable places to invest simply cancelling a service, which will then be
their money. Housing becomes a private invest- provided by family or individuals.
ment, one that is difficult or impossible for low- Privatization can take place through financ-
income households to access. Social housing is ing (whether something is paid for individually
increasingly important in this context, and yet or collectively) and/or performance (whether
increasingly threatened by processes that move something is provided through a government
it closer and closer to the market. agency or a non-government organization) (Do-
In recent years, the social housing operat- nahue ). In the nonprofit and co-operative
ing agreements that limit speculation and pro- housing programs of the s, for example,
4 c anadian centre for polic y alternatives — m anitobasocial housing continued to be paid for collec- sideration of the benefits and potential pitfalls
tively through the operating agreements, thus of privatization are necessary, as is mitigation of
maintaining the public duty of providing de- any issues that might arise.
commodified low-cost housing, even as it was As social housing operating agreements ex-
performed by non-government organizations. In pire, a key difference between public and non-
this sense, social housing began to be privatized profit/co-operative housing becomes apparent:
as it was no longer a direct government service, without the operating agreements in place, non-
but the operating agreements provided funding profit and co-operative housing providers must
and a framework that clearly laid out the public make choices to ensure the stability of the or-
policy goal of ensuring decommodified low-cost ganization over the long term, which may mean
housing availability. reducing or eliminating or low-cost units.
If privatization occurs (and before deciding As such, the end of the operating agreement re-
to go down the path of privatization), it is impor- flects the end of the public mandate and policy
tant to ensure that the public policy goals of the framework governing non-profit and co-opera-
program or service continue to be maintained tive housing provision; it is up to individual or-
after privatization (Martin ). This is par- ganizations whether and how they continue to
ticularly important since when public programs provide low-cost housing. On the other hand,
are privatized, what was formerly created as a while public housing must compete with other
collective good — paid for collectively through public policy areas in the Provincial budget, it
taxes, available to all members of society — is no still has access to public funds to fulfil its role
longer managed democratically, through public as a provider of housing. Even when its
processes, but privately within the new, private operating agreements (with the federal gov-
organization (Soron and Laxer ). While ernment) expire, publicly owned and operated
public policy may be debated through demo- housing retains responsibility for the public
cratic processes, private organizations operate policy mandate to ensure that Manitobans are
according to their own priorities. Careful con- well-housed.
why protec ting public housing is important 5From Public to Private in Other Places
Public housing thus plays an important role in Each of these examples identifies the type of
fulfilling the public policy goal of maintain- privatisation taking place. They then highlight
ing units. The current policy debates about different opportunities and challenges for both
whether public housing should be maintained in tenants and housing providers, and offer lessons
Manitoba reflect broader debates about the role in how to approach the questions of whether and
of government in housing more generally. Other how to protect public housing as a form of de-
jurisdictions have experimented with privatis- commodified, low-cost housing.
ing public housing by selling or transferring it to
nonprofit organizations. To understand the po-
tential implications of privatising public housing Atkinson Housing Co-operative, Toronto
in Manitoba, this paper looks at four examples of In , the Alexandra Park public housing com-
public housing transfer. The first is the Atkinson plex in Toronto completed a many-year-long
Housing Co-operative, in Toronto, where ten- process of transforming the complex into the
ants advocated for a decade to have more con- Atkinson Housing Co-operative (Sousa ). It
trol over their housing. The second is the recent was the first of its kind: a tenant-managed pub-
transfer of public housing to nonprofits in British lic housing co-op in Canada. The conversion to
Columbia, which has been criticized by the Au- a co-op occurred after years of organizing and
ditor General for not showing how the transfer advocacy by the complex’s tenants, and negoti-
will benefit social housing tenants. The third is ations with Toronto Community Housing (the
the transfer of council housing to housing as- public housing provider). In essence, it became
sociations in Great Britain, as part of a broad- a hybrid model, operating as a co-operative but
er process of reducing government support for with subsidies and capital expenditures support-
social housing. Finally, in the United States, the ed by Toronto Community Housing.
Rental Assistance Demonstration () pro-
ject is transferring public housing units out of Type of Privatisation
the public housing portfolio to make it easier to The Atkinson Housing Co-operative is partially
address the backlog of repairs. privatized. It is subsidized by Toronto Commu-
6 c anadian centre for polic y alternatives — m anitobanity Housing, but is managed independently by • Government support and funding is
the tenants. necessary to support the conversion
process.
Opportunities • Subsidies continue to be necessary to
The Atkinson Housing Co-op is a good exam- enable the percent tenancy ratio in
ple of tenant leadership in public housing. The the complex, and for capital needs after the
year conversion process represents a signifi- conversion.
cant investment of time and energy on the part
of the members to build a co-op identity and
negotiate an independent existence. As a co- Non-profit Asset Transfer Program, British
op, the members have more responsibility and Columbia
ownership of the complex and the challenges it In , British Columbia launched the Non-profit
faces. They are able to address these challenges Asset Transfer () program to sell provin-
in ways that address the specific needs of the cially-owned social housing land and buildings to
community (Sousa ). nonprofit housing providers. This includes both
land owned by the province but leased by a non-
Challenges profit, and public housing complexes owned and
In the years since the conversion took place, many operated by the Province. About million
community leaders have moved away or reduced will accrue to the Province through the sales of
their leadership contribution. It has been diffi- land and buildings, which will be reinvested in
cult to recruit new leaders; training and capac- the social housing sector. As housing providers
ity-building is of ongoing importance. As well, will take on mortgages to enable them to pur-
many of the challenges that Atkinson faced before chase the properties, the Province will create
its conversion were a result of systemic poverty a subsidy of million per year to cover the
and marginalization, which could not be fixed mortgage payments, adding up to an estimated
simply by a change in governance style. These billion over years. More than percent
issues require capacity building and resources of social housing in BC is provided by the non-
to address, which require funding that is, as al- profit sector, and the British Columbia Nonprofit
ways, difficult to access (Sousa ). Housing Association “strongly supports the pro-
gram as a key capacity building endeavor for our
Lessons sector, and as a way to help preserve affordable
• Community control of housing was a housing stock” ( ).
key goal for residents, achieved through
conversion to a co-op. Type of Privatisation
• Co-operative housing requires a significant Public properties, including public housing com-
volunteer commitment by residents, which plexes, are sold to nonprofit housing providers.
can be difficult to maintain.
• The needs of public housing communities Opportunities
may be more complex than those of co- The program will fund about , units
operatives generally. Poverty and its of social housing, and support rental assistance
associated problems cannot be resolved programs including shelter supplements (Office
simply through a change of governance of the Auditor General of British Columbia ).
structure. The program gives nonprofit housing providers
why protec ting public housing is important 7control over their land and buildings, enabling • Before initiating a program to transfer
them to be more strategic in their long-term de- social housing properties away from the
cision-making. It also allows them to access the public sector, the Province must ensure
equity in their properties to address needed up- that it has considered and mitigated
grades and renovations and to build new afford- the associated risks to the long term
able housing ( ). The housing units sustainability of low-cost housing as much
will remain in the mandate-driven nonprofit sec- as possible.
tor, rather than being sold to for-profit develop- • Capacity for long-term strategic decision-
ers, and results in a more localized approach to making is important for long-term social
social housing ( ). housing provision.
• The loss of equity for the Province is an
Challenges
irreversible step with potentially significant
The Auditor General of British Columbia found
consequences.
that the program did not have clear out-
comes, nor was it clear how these outcomes • housing units are at risk unless
would be measured (Office of the Auditor Gen- steps are taken to ensure that nonprofit
eral of British Columbia ). The implica- providers can and will maintain subsidies.
tions for affordability are not clear: as operat- • Funds raised through a transfer of units
ing agreements expire, about percent of units should be used to support new social
will not take in enough income from rents, and housing development.
providers may need to raise rents or sell units,
especially on units, reducing the number
of low-cost units available ( ; Of- The Right to Buy and Housing Associations,
fice of the Auditor General of British Columbia Great Britain
). Funds raised through the will be In the late s, almost a third of housing in
directed to portable rent benefits, rather than to Great Britain was council (public) housing. In
unit-based subsidies, but in a tight rental mar- Thatcher’s “Right to Buy” policy was intro-
ket, subsidies may not help tenants find hous- duced, which allowed council tenants to buy their
ing (Office of the Auditor General of British Co- homes, often for much less than market rates.
lumbia ). Thus far, the funds raised from the A few years later, a program was introduced to
sale of properties to nonprofits have been used allow nonprofit housing associations (formally
to fulfil existing commitments, rather than as known as Registered Social Landlords) to pur-
additional funds ( ). The equity in chase council housing estates (Hodkinson ).
the properties is no longer available to the BC Although currently on hold, there are plans in
government to back debt for its own programs, place to extend the ‘right to buy’ to housing as-
nor will the Province benefit from any increases sociation tenants as well. The result of these
in value to the property. sales is that less public housing is available to
households in need; ironically, about percent
Lessons of council housing units sold under the Right to
• It is important to have clear and Buy program are owned by private landlords,
measureable expected outcomes for any many of whom rent to tenants receiving public
transfers of social housing property, as well subsidies (Manns ).
as criteria for how transfers to nonprofits Today, housing associations develop and
should take place. provide most of the social housing in Britain.
8 c anadian centre for polic y alternatives — m anitobaHousing associations are nonprofit organiza- ing more active in protecting low-cost housing
tions that operate as a hybrid of public and pri- as advocates.
vate, with a social mandate and public funding
but also more freedom to participate in market Challenges
practices (Mullins and Jones ; Hodkinson As housing associations merge and grow, there is
). In government subsidies for new often less local control than there would be with
housing construction by housing associations a council-run housing program. For associations
were cut by percent, and access to the fund- to receive government funding for new construc-
ing required associations to charge ‘affordable’ tion, they must increase their rents. Reliance on
rents of up to percent of market rents. Before, private funding — to banks and systems of capi-
the vast majority of providers charged a ‘social’ tal — forces housing providers to make decisions
rent, about half of market rents — the increased based on obligations to the private market, so
rent gave providers capital to keep building new that the focus is on housing that brings in money
units, but with a significant impact on the rents rather than housing for low-income households.
paid by tenants (Mullins and Jones ). Moreo- This, by necessity, takes precedence over an in-
ver, as housing associations receive less support dividual organization’s mission to provide social
from the government, they rely increasingly on housing, and the public policy goal of ensuring
private sources of funds, including bank loans access to housing.
and long-term agreements with private compa-
nies. As a result, organizations shift to a more Lessons
entrepreneurial and corporate approach to hous- • If the intent is to continue to grow low-
ing provision, adopting market-based approaches cost housing, subsidies for both capital and
that reduce local, collective control of housing operating costs are necessary to ensure
and emphasize investment over social hous- low-cost rents for low-income tenants.
ing provision (Hodkinson , ). At the • Private sources of funding provision — e.g.
same time, some organizations have begun to from a bank rather than from
describe themselves in activist terms as “pro- government — can change how providers
tectors of public value,” acting to provide and fulfil their mission, shifting from a social
protect social housing, rather than being either focus on low-cost housing provision to a
a state contractor or an entrepreneur (Mullins market focus on return on investment.
and Jones , ). • With less reliance on state funding, some
housing associations are feeling freer to
Type of Privatisation advocate for social housing.
Under the Right to Buy program, tenants may
purchase their house. It is then no longer part of
the council housing portfolio. Council housing is Rental Assistance Demonstration Program,
also sold or transferred to housing associations. United States
Across the United States, public housing has been
Opportunities underfunded for years, and currently needs
Housing associations have become successful billion in renovations (Smetak ; Schwartz
developers and providers of affordable housing, ). To address this issue, in the De-
and house a large proportion of Great Britain’s partment of Housing and Urban Development
renter households. As housing providers become launched the Rental Assistance Demonstra-
less reliant on state funding, some are becom- tion () program. Under this pilot program,
why protec ting public housing is important 9, units of public housing across the coun- tial for foreclosure and loss of units, protections
try will be transferred to the Section housing against foreclosure have been put in place (Sme-
program; the hope is to expand the program to tak ). These include encouraging pro-
all public housing. jects to take out mortgage insurance that would
Under the Section program, public housing return ownership to the federal government in
is no longer public, and can be owned and main- case of foreclosure, and use agreements limit-
tained by the public housing authority, or may be ing the amount that can be charged for rents
transferred to a nonprofit organization (or poten- (Schwartz ). The program includes
tially, though unlikely, a for-profit, organization) some protections for tenants, and is a way of
(Smetak ; Schwartz ).The Section pro- protecting long-term, low cost housing provi-
gram will provide subsidies tied directly to the sion, which plays an important role for house-
units, based on year contracts, which must holds with special needs; especially in areas
be renewed (Balashov ; Schwartz ). The where market rents are rising, ‘affordable’ rents
program allows the housing provider to use (based on average market rents) may not long
the property as collateral to borrow money for be affordable to low-income households, and
needed repairs (which is not allowed for public preservation is more cost-effective than build-
housing), reversing decades of policy that kept ing new stock (Smetak ).
public housing well away from private markets
(Smetak ). The number of low-cost hous- Challenges
ing units must remain the same under the Public housing regulations are transparent and
program, and tenants will continue to have the readily available to any interested party. Even
rights to their unit that they had under public though they may be frequently critiqued, they
housing, such as not being rescreened for their are clear (Balashov ); when housing is owned
tenancy and having the right to return to their or operated by a nonprofit, the regulations gov-
unit in case of renovations (Schwartz ). erning decision-making (and how transparent
they are) are up to the individual organization.
Type of Privatisation Because the federal government will ultimately
Public housing is transferred to the Section have to pay the debts for the mortgages (through
program, which loosens the restrictions on who its funding to the public housing authorities), the
owns the housing and how it is to be managed. cost of private financing is likely more expensive
This may result in a transfer away from public than direct government spending — but direct
ownership; it also enables the involvement of government spending is less likely to occur (Sme-
private financial institutions. tak ). Although some tenant protections are
in place, screening criteria for new tenants will
Opportunities change, and may make it more difficult for cer-
The program is a way to access funding for tain current or future tenants — those with com-
badly needed repairs and renovations, which plicated lives, or poor or no rental histories — to
could preserve the housing into the future. Over access and retain housing (M. Gebhardt, person-
the long term, this may save money, compared al communication, Oct. , ). Finally, not all
with making small piecemeal repairs that do properties may be able to achieve rehabilitation
not address underlying issues (Smetak ). through access to private capital, as properties
Because of advocate concerns about the poten- in less desirable areas or in worse condition will
2 The Section program also provides vouchers to tenants to use in the private market.
10 c anadian centre for polic y alternatives — m anitobabe more difficult to address through a program acquiring formerly public housing properties. As
that relies on the market (Schwartz ). a result, nonprofit housing providers are freer
to manage their properties as they prefer, and
Lessons to create new ways of generating and deliver-
• The need for renovations is not an ing low-cost housing. For tenants, the increased
incidental problem, but one created through flexibility for housing providers should increase
a decades-long lack of adequate funding. the universe of low-cost housing units. In cases
• When private finance is involved, where public housing has been underfunded to
protections against foreclosure and rent the point where it needs significant investment,
increases are necessary. the transition to nonprofit housing could enable
renovations and better quality housing.
• Protections are necessary to ensure that
At the same time, however, these examples
current tenants do not lose their housing.
present risks for tenants. Without government
• If the regulatory framework and
funding, the capacity of nonprofits to provide
management of the housing changes, so
deep subsidies is limited. Use of equity and pri-
might the criteria for tenant selection,
vate financing may enable renovations and new
making it more difficult for some
development, but they risk the loss of the prop-
households to access housing.
erty to foreclosure. The housing provider may
• Preservation is more cost-effective than have more restrictive screening criteria for ten-
building new stock. ants, or may change how it operates in response
• The transparency of public housing to its obligations to a private lender (such as less
regulations is lost when the housing is no flexibility around rent payment). These chang-
longer public. es may make it more difficult for tenants who
are very low-income, or with complicated lives
• The location of the housing will affect how
or poor rental histories, to access housing. The
likely private investment will be, and less
transition to the private market also hides low-
desirable properties — which may need
cost housing from public scrutiny, making it
the most assistance — will likely have the
more difficult to address systemic housing is-
hardest time accessing finance.
sues. These risks are not insignificant.
Moreover, many of the problems that priva-
Analysis tisation is trying to fix are created through dec-
Each of these examples illustrate different aspects ades of underfunding. The need for renovations
of a shift from public provision of housing to pri- and development of new housing units reflects a
vate. They show that there are both opportunities prolonged and deep lack of funding and support
and challenges occurring for low-cost housing to maintain and expand public housing programs.
provision, but also that privatization is not the The challenges for individuals and communities
only way to address opportunities and challenges. that are created by poverty will not be resolved
The opportunities for the new owners of simply through a change in governance. Rather
public housing in each example are significant. than shifting responsibility away from public
Restrictions on what nonprofits can do are loos- housing, an alternative would be to fund pub-
ened, including limits on how the equity in the lic housing at the level needed to provide good
properties can be used and criteria for tenant se- quality housing, and to support individual and
lection. Providers have the opportunity to grow, community development initiatives to address
whether by using their equity to expand or by the effects of poverty.
why protec ting public housing is important 11Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
When no longer publicly owned and operated, Rent Assist (a rent supplement program), some
and without long-term subsidies and policies in providers create minimum rents that operate in
place to maintain the non-market nature of so- a similar way to subsidies. These rents are
cial housing units, public housing will have been often only possible with a mix of tenant incomes,
privatised. The sale or transfer of public housing as higher rents — which may be affordable or
units risks the long-term affordability and secu- market rents — are also needed to ensure enough
rity of low-cost housing. For over years, the income to operate the property. In this case, the
Governments of Canada and Manitoba have built affordable and market rents are subsidizing the
and managed public housing. Manitoba Hous- rents. Thus, rather than having all members
ing’s lands and buildings represent a resource for of society contributing to the provision of low-
the whole province, and offer a source of equity cost housing through their taxes, the burden of
and value for Manitoba Housing projects. Once providing subsidies now rests on a much smaller
they have been transferred or sold, they are gone. group of people. And, since renters tend to have
There are two additional important ways in lower incomes than homeowners, this puts the
which social housing provision changes when burden of subsidizing very low-income house-
governments are not involved: first, where the holds on a much smaller group of people who
subsidy money comes from; and second, where are more likely to be low-income themselves.
the responsibility for housing low-income house- The Province of Manitoba has a responsi-
holds rests. bility to ensure that all Manitobans have access
When no government subsidies are available, to good quality, affordable housing. Manitoba
many housing providers in Manitoba have found Housing’s mandate is to:
ways to support their tenants through internal . Enhance the affordability of, and
subsidies. Using Provincial programs such as accessibility to, adequate housing for
3 For households living in housing where subsidies are no longer available, rents may no longer be affordable. Rent As-
sist has a maximum benefit of percent of the Median Market Rent, but if the rent is higher than that the tenant must
pay the difference. This may be difficult or impossible for many low-income households.
12 c anadian centre for polic y alternatives — m anitobaManitobans, particularly those of low able to low-income households. As it currently
to moderate incomes or those with stands, the public policy goal of maintaining
specialized needs; decommodified, low-cost, units cannot be
. Maintain and improve the condition of guaranteed under a different ownership mod-
existing housing stock; el. Without long-term subsidies and policies in
place to maintain the non-market nature of so-
. Ensure there is an adequate supply of
cial housing units, a transfer of public housing
housing stock in Manitoba; and
to nonprofit organizations risks the long-term
. Stimulate the activities of the housing affordability and security of low-cost housing.
market to the benefit of Manitobans as a Low-income tenants may find their rents increas-
whole. (Manitoba Housing n.d.) ing and their ability to stay in their units com-
As noted in the introduction, the loss of public promised. It may also be more difficult for pro-
housing for current and prospective tenants is spective low-income tenants, particularly those
very relevant to the first part of the mandate. with complicated lives, to access social housing.
With public housing and the operating agree-
ments that govern and fund nonprofit and co-
operative housing, the government — whether Policy Recommendations
federal or provincial — has a clear responsibil- In a context where the commodification of
ity for ensuring that there is a supply of low-cost housing is increasing and the social safety net
housing available. Without an operating agree- is shrinking, access to housing is increasingly
ment, a nonprofit or co-operative housing pro- difficult for many households in Manitoba and
vider no longer has a relationship with the gov- across Canada. Public housing has an important
ernment, and it is up to it whether to continue to role to play as long-term, secure, decommodified
offer low-cost housing, and the extent to which low-cost housing. The Province must invest in
it will be offered. A transfer of the ownership securing and maintaining its portfolio of public
of public housing units to nonprofit organiza- housing. The following policy recommendations
tions thus introduces an element of uncertainty will help to ensure that social housing contin-
to the landscape of low-cost housing provision. ues to meet the needs of those households that
Many nonprofit and co-operative providers are cannot afford good quality, suitable housing in
committed to fulfilling their mandates to con- the market.
tinue to provide low-cost housing, but without
. Long-term government subsidies to
government subsidies cannot provide as many
support and decommodified low-
or as deep subsidies as they have in the past. In
cost housing units must continue to be
this context, transferring public housing units
provided indefinitely.
to nonprofit organizations without ensuring
their capacity to maintain the deep subsi- A significant number of households in Canada
dies that are common in public housing would cannot meet their housing needs through the
be an abandonment of responsibility on the part market. This is unlikely to change in the near
of the Province. future. Decommodified, low-cost housing is es-
The potential implications for both current sential for these households to meet their hous-
and prospective low-income tenants are serious. ing needs with security and stability. When
The purpose of public housing is to present a de- market forces affect housing, housing providers
commodified, low-cost option for housing — that may face new pressures and may need to revamp
is, housing that is outside the market and afford- their policies, including those affecting tenant
why protec ting public housing is important 13tenure and selection. Nonprofit and co-opera- resources are needed to support individuals and
tive housing providers are a key part of the so- communities to access education and training,
cial housing system, but public housing is still better paying jobs, childcare, healthcare, trans-
necessary if nonprofit housing providers cannot portation and other supports (see Bernas ).
offer housing. . Social housing programs must be
The Province, in partnership with all levels transparent and visible, subject to
of government, must own its responsibility for democratic pressure.
low-cost housing provision. The best way to en-
As part of the Province of Manitoba, the poli-
sure that housing is affordable to households that
cies governing public housing are visible and
cannot afford the operating cost of the unit is
transparent. They are also responsive to public
through long-term government subsidies along
pressure. As private organizations, nonprofit and
with agreements that ensure the housing remains
co-operative housing providers are less visible,
outside the market, including public, nonprofit
and less responsive to public pressure. To ensure
or co-operative housing provision. Ensuring that
that social housing continues to be available to
everyone has housing benefits all of society, and
those in need, keeping public housing and so-
so the funds that pay for and other social
cial housing policy in the Province keeps it vis-
housing subsidies should be collectively provid-
ible and accessible.
ed through taxes as part of the social safety net.
. Should the Province move forward
. The Province of Manitoba must
with decisions to transfer or sell public
protect and maintain public housing
housing units, it must ensure that
as an essential asset for low-income
potential risks, including the social
households by investing in both the
costs, are anticipated and mitigated, and
infrastructure and the community.
that measures are established to evaluate
Public housing plays a key role in housing low- the costs and benefits of such a transfer.
income households in Manitoba. In many cas- The transfer of public housing to nonprofit or-
es, public housing communities have complex ganizations entails certain risks. Depending on
needs. These may relate to challenges faced by the terms of the transfer, how a nonprofit or-
individual tenants; they may also be structural, ganization might use its property may differ.
relating to socio-economic factors that create Housing units might be sold; nonprofit and co-
poverty and concentrate poverty in particular operative housing providers may use the equity
ways. These problems are large and complex; in their properties to refinance. The quality and
they will not be solved by a transfer from a public location of the housing will affect the likelihood
housing provider to a nonprofit or co-operative of private investment, and less desirable proper-
housing provider. ties — which may need the most assistance — may
When public housing is well-maintained have the hardest time accessing finance. Risks
and has good supports in place for tenants, it of foreclosure and loss of the asset, or changes
offers a good option for households that cannot to rent structures to accommodate the needs
afford market housing (Silver ). Recent in- of the mortgage would affect current and po-
vestments in public housing in Winnipeg have tential tenants.
greatly improved the quality of housing, and pro- For this reason, protections to ensure the sta-
vided more resources for tenants (Cooper ); bility of the rent structure and to guard against
more investment, including support for tenants’ the loss of the property itself are essential. Ten-
associations, will continue this trend. Additional ants’ rights, particularly for those perceived as
14 c anadian centre for polic y alternatives — m anitobaless desirable tenants, must be protected. Fur- Further Reading
ther, an assessment of the potential impacts of Glynn, S. (Ed.). . Where the Other Half Lives:
the transfer must be conducted before it takes Lower income housing in a neoliberal world.
place, including specific measures and outcomes, London: Pluto Press.
and analysis of how this change will help Mani- Marcuse, P. and D. Madden. . In Defense of
toba Housing to fulfil its mandate to improve af- Housing. Brooklyn: Verso.
fordability and access to housing for low-income
Silver, J. . Good Places to Live: Poverty and
households. These will allow the Province to un-
public housing in Canada. Halifax, NS: Fern-
derstand the impacts for the provision of decom-
wood Publishing.
modified low-cost housing, and whether the
transfer is meeting its intended goals.
why protec ting public housing is important 15References
Balashov, Andrew. . Comments: Private In- (Canada Mortgage and Housing Asso-
vestment: Trojan-horse or Shining Knight for ciation). . What is Core Housing Need?
America’s Public Housing Stock. University of Available at: www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/hofi-
Baltimore Journal of Land and Development clincl/observer/observer_.cfm
(): Article . Available at: scholarworks.law. . . Housing in Canada Online. .
ubalt.edu/ubjld/vol/iss/ Available at: cmhc.beyond.com
(British Columbia Non-Profit Housing Cooper, Sarah. . It’s Getting Great: Govern-
Association). . BC Housing’s Non-Profit ment Investment in Gilbert Park and Lord Sel-
Asset Transfer Program: Position kirk Park. Winnipeg, MB: Canadian Centre
Paper. Available at: bcnpha.ca/news/bc-hous- for Policy Alternatives-Manitoba. Available
ings-non-profit-asset-transfer-program-bcn- at: www.policyalternatives.ca.
pha-position-paper/
Cooper, Sarah. . A Terrific Loss: The Expir-
Bernas, Kirsten. . The View From Here :
ing Social Housing Operating Agreements in
Manitobans call for a renewed poverty reduc-
Manitoba. Winnipeg: -Manitoba. Avail-
tion plan. Winnipeg, MB: Canadian Centre
able at: www.policyalternatives.ca.
for Policy Alternatives — Manitoba. Available
at: www.policyalternatives.ca Donahue, J.D. . The Privatization Decision:
Public ends, private means. New York: Basic
Bezanson, Kate. . Gender, the State and
Books Inc. Publishers.
Social Reproduction: Household insecurity
in neo-liberal times. Toronto: University of Hodkinson, Stuart. . From Popular Capital-
Toronto Press. ism to Third-Way Modernisation: The Example
of Leeds, England. In S. Glynn (Ed.), Where the
Brandon, Josh. . How Affordable is Afford-
Other Half Lives: Lower income housing in a
able Housing? -MB Social and Economic
neoliberal world. London: Pluto Press. –.
Trends. Winnipeg, MB: Canadian Centre for
Policy Alternatives-Manitoba. Available at . . Manitoba Fiscal Performance Re-
www.policyalternatives.ca view: Phase Report Business Case — So-
16 c anadian centre for polic y alternatives — m anitobacial Housing. Available at: www.gov.mb.ca/ Available at: www.bcauditor.com/sites/de-
asset_library/en/proactive/fpr-phase--.pdf fault/files/publications/reports/_BC_
Manitoba Housing. n.d. About Us. Province of Housing.pdf
Manitoba. Available at: www.gov.mb.ca/hous- Rolnik, Rachel. (). Late Neoliberalism: The
ing/about/about.html Financialization of Homeownership and
Manitoba Housing and Community Develop- Housing Rights. International Journal of Ur-
ment. . Annual Report –. Avail- ban and Regional Research (): –.
able at: www.gov.mb.ca/housing/pubs/hcd- :./-.
annual-report--.pdf Schwartz, Alex. . Future Prospects for Public
Manns, J. , October . The housing crisis Housing in the United States: Lessons From
will only get worse until England scraps right the Rental Assistance Demonstration Pro-
to buy. The Guardian. Available at: www.the- gram. Housing Policy Debate (): –.
guardian.com/housing-network//oct// : ./..
housing-crisis-england-scrap-right-to-buy- Silver, Jim. . Good Places to Live: Poverty
help-to-buy and public housing in Canada. Halifax, NS:
Martin, B. . In the Public Interest? Privati- Fernwood Publishing.
sation and public sector reform. London: Zed Smetak, Anne Marie. . Private Funding, Pub-
Books Ltd. lic Housing: The Devil in the Details. Virginia
Mullins, David and Tricia Jones. . From ‘con- Journal of Social Policy & the Law (): –.
tractors to the state’ to ‘protectors of public Soron, D. and G. Laxer. . Thematic Intro-
value’? Relations between non-profit housing duction: Decommodification, democracy and
hybrids and the state in England. Voluntary the battle for the commons. In Not For Sale:
Sector Review (): –. :./ Decommodifying of public life. Eds. G. Laxer
X and D. Soron.
Office of the Auditor General of British Colum- Sousa, Jorge. . Building a Co-operative Com-
bia. . An Audit of BC Housing’s Non-Profit munity in Public Housing: The Case of the At-
Asset Transfer Program. Victoria, BC: Office kinson Housing Co-operative. Toronto: Uni-
of the Auditor General of British Columbia. versity of Toronto Press.
why protec ting public housing is important 17Unit 205 – 765 Main St., Winnipeg, MB R2W 3N5 tel 204-927-3200 fa x 204-927-3201 em ail ccpamb@policyalternatives.ca website www.policyalternatives.ca
You can also read
