Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Economic and social impacts of subsidized rental starts in the greater Vancouver area, 1975-1985 Kamenz, Marvin Alan 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A8_2 K35.pdf [ 15.75MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097981.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097981-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097981-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097981-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097981-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097981-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097981-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097981-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097981.ris

Full Text

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF SUBSIDIZED RENTAL STARTS IN THE GREATER VANCOUVER AREA, 1975 - 1985 By MARVIN ALAN KAMENZ B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1985 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1989 ©Marvin Alan Kamenz, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Graduate Studies The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada D a t e 3 October 1989 DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT During the e a r l y 1970's t o mid 1980's, the F e d e r a l Government i n t r o d u c e d seven programs aimed a t s t i m u l a t i n g r e n t a l housing c o n s t r u c t i o n . Three of the programs c h a r a c t e r i z e d a market-w e l f a r e approach t o housing s t i m u l a t i o n (the M u l t i p l e U n i t R e s i d e n t i a l B u i l d i n g Program, the A s s i s t e d R e n t a l Supply P l a n and the Canada R e n t a l Supply P l a n ) . The remaining f o u r c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s o c i a l - w e l f a r e approach t o housing s t i m u l a t i o n (the S e c t i o n 15.1 N o n - P r o f i t Program, the S e c t i o n 34.18 Co-op Program and the S e c t i o n 56.1 N o n - P r o f i t and Co-operative Housing Program). T h i s t h e s i s i n v e s t i g a t e s some of the economic and s o c i a l impacts of these market- and s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs i n the Greater Vancouver Area between 1975 t o 1985. Four c a t e g o r i e s of economic impacts are analyzed: r e n t a l s t o c k growth, economic displacement, m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t and employment g e n e r a t i o n . In terms of s o c i a l impacts, two c a t e g o r i e s of l o c a l community impacts are examined: those a t t r i b u t a b l e t o the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of households occupying program housing and those a t t r i b u t a b l e t o program housing l o c a t i o n ( i . e . s i n g l e f a m i l y areas, medium t o high d e n s i t y areas and areas of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n ) . T h i s does not mean t h a t a l l the economic and s o c i a l impacts of these programs are d i s c u s s e d . Rather, o n l y a sample of each are examined from which suggestions are made as t o the economic and s o c i a l impacts i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y . Furthermore, c a l c u l a t i o n s of the monetary c o s t of each program and between program comparisons of e f f i c i e n c y are not w i t h i n the scope of t h i s r e s e a r c h . While t h i s r e s e a r c h makes e x t e n s i v e use of Greater Vancouver Area e m p i r i c a l data, n a t i o n a l averages and r e s e a r c h based on other areas of North America are a l s o used. I t i s assumed t h a t the r e s u l t i n g e r r o r s are minimal. The t h e s i s r e s e a r c h suggests t h a t i n r e l a t i o n t o the s o c i a l -w e l f a r e programs, the economic and s o c i a l c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the market-welfare programs were extremely h i g h . The market-w e l f a r e programs produced 23,169 u n i t s f o r a d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t of over $600 m i l l i o n and 20,284 man-years of employment. The s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs produced 12,662 u n i t s and 2,653 beds. The u n i t s alone r e s u l t e d i n a d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t of over $550 m i l l i o n and 11,055 man-years of employment. (Due to an o v e r s i g h t , the m u l t i p l i e r v a l u e s are not i n c o n s t a n t d o l l a r s and t h e r e f o r e cannot be compared.j However, u n l i k e the s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs, the economic performance of the market-welfare programs was a f f e c t e d by economic displacement. Taking i n t o account displacement, the market-welfare programs produced o n l y between 15,489 and 17,793 u n i t s , f o r a d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t of between $434 and $484 m i l l i o n and an employment g e n e r a t i o n e f f e c t of between 13,561 and 15,578 man-years. Furthermore, the r e n t a l s t a t u s of the market-welfare u n i t s i s t h r e a t e n e d by condominium c o n v e r s i o n . S o c i a l c o s t s a l s o appear to be l i m i t e d t o the market-welfare programs. In areas of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , the market-welfare programs r e s u l t e d i n household displacement and a f f o r d a b l e housing d e s t r u c t i o n , and t h e r e i s the p o t e n t i a l f o r mass household displacement through the condominium c o n v e r s i o n of market-welfare u n i t s . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF FIGURES i x ACKNOWLEDGEMENT x INTRODUCTION: THE RENTAL SUPPLY PROBLEM 1 THE DECLINE OF THE PRIVATE RENTAL HOUSING MARKET IN WESTERN NATIONS 2 HOW TO CREATE LOW RENTAL UNITS: THE MARKET-WELFARE VERSUS SOCIAL-WELFARE APPROACH 14 THESIS CONTENT 19 A REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL RENTAL SUPPLY PROGRAMS 1975 - 1985 23 FEDERAL RENTAL SUPPLY PROGRAMS 1 9 7 5 - 1 9 8 5 24 TAX EXPENDITURES VERSUS EXPENDITURE SUBSIDIES 29 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE FEDERAL RENTAL SUPPLY PROGRAMS IN THE GREATER VANCOUVER AREA 1975 - 1985 34 RENTAL STOCK GROWTH 36 ECONOMIC DISPLACEMENT 66 MULTIPLIER EFFECT 94 EMPLOYMENT GENERATION 120 CONCLUSION 142 SOCIAL IMPACTS OF THE FEDERAL RENTAL SUPPLY PROGRAMS IN THE GREATER VANCOUVER AREA 1975 - 1985 144 LOCAL COMMUNITY IMPACTS ACCORDING TO HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS 146 LOCAL COMMUNITY IMPACTS ACCORDING TO HOUSING LOCATION 165 CONCLUSION 183 v CONCLUSION 186 ECONOMIC AND LOCAL COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF THE MARKET- AND SOCIAL-WELFARE HOUSING PROGRAMS 188 RESEARCH AREAS WHICH REQUIRE FURTHER INVESTIGATION 195 BIBLIOGRAPHY 196 APPENDIX A: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF FEDERAL RENTAL SUPPLY PROGRAMS 1975-85 209 MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 211 ASSISTED RENTAL PROGRAM 228 CANADA RENTAL SUPPLY PLAN 244 SECTION 15.1 NON-PROFIT AND 34.18 CO-OP PROGRAMS 249 SECTION 56.1 NON-PROFIT AND COOPERATIVE HOUSING PROGRAMS 261 APPENDIX B: TABLE CALCULATION 278 NUMBER OF RENTAL ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT UNITS ACCORDING TO REGISTRATION 279 NUMBER OF DISPLACED UNITS 280 NUMBER OF EXTRA UNITS/BEDS CONSTRUCTED 281 DOLLAR VALUE OF DISPLACEMENT 281 DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF TOTAL SPENDING 284 DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF EXTRA SPENDING 286 TOTAL NUMBER OF MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED 287 NUMBER OF EXTRA MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED 289 APPENDIX C: ACCURACY OF MURB DATA 291 APPENDIX D: COMMUNITY: ITS MEANING 293 APPENDIX E : UNPROCESSED BEDROOM COUNT DATA 297 v i LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 CHANGES IN HOME OWNERSHIP RATES WITHIN AND BETWEEN INCOME QUINTILES 6 TABLE 2 RENTER HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME QUINTILE 7 TABLES 3-11 TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS/BEDS CONSTRUCTED (BY PROGRAM) 38-46 TABLE 12 METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER VACANCY RATES IN PRIVATELY INITIATED RENTAL APARTMENT STRUCTURES OF SIX UNIT AND OVER, 1982-84 (PERCENT) 52 TABLE 13 NUMBER OF RENTAL ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT COMPLETIONS ACCORDING TO INTENDED USE 56-57 TABLE 14 NUMBER OF CONDOMINIUM ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT COMPLETIONS ACCORDING TO INTENDED USE 58-59 TABLE 15 NUMBER OF RENTAL ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT UNITS ACCORDING TO REGISTRATION 60-61 TABLE 16 NUMBER OF CONDOMINIUM ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT UNITS ACCORDING TO REGISTRATION 62-63 TABLES 17-20 NUMBER OF DISPLACED UNITS (BY PROGRAM) 70-73 TABLES 21-31 NUMBER OF EXTRA UNITS/BEDS CONSTRUCTED (BY PROGRAM) 76-86 TABLES 32-35 DOLLAR VALUE OF DISPLACEMENT (BY PROGRAM) 89-92 TABLES 36-42 DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF TOTAL SPENDING (BY PROGRAM) 96-104 TABLES 43-51 DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF EXTRA SPENDING (BY PROGRAM) 108-118 vxi TABLES 52-58 TOTAL NUMBER OF MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED (BY PROGRAM) 122-128 TABLES 59-67 NUMBER OF EXTRA MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED (BY PROGRAM) 132-140 TABLES 68-72 BEDROOM COUNT: UNIT AND PERCENTAGE TOTALS FOR THE GREATER VANCOUVER AREA (BY PROGRAM) 158-160 TABLE 73 EXAMPLE OF A MURB INVESTMENT 222 TABLE 74 ASSISTED RENTAL PROJECTS DISTRIBUTION BY PROJECT SIZE 232 TABLE 75 COMPARISON OF ASSISTED HOME OWNERSHIP MAXIMUM HOUSE PRICES AND LENDING VALUES UNDER THE ASSISTED RENTAL PROGRAM, 1976 233 TABLE 76 ASSISTED RENTAL PROGRAM MAXIMUM UNIT SIZE CRITERIA 234 TABLE 77 CALCULATION OF SECTION 56.1 SUBSIDY ($) 273 TABLES 78-102 BEDROOM COUNT (BY PROGRAM BY YEAR) 298-322 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS CONSTRUCTED 37 FIGURE 2 METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER VACANCY RATES 49 FIGURE 3 MURB AND ARP: UNIT PRODUCTION PER YEAR 50 FIGURE 4 NUMBER OF DISPLACED UNITS 69 FIGURE 5 NUMBER OF "EXTRA" UNITS CONSTRUCTED 75 FIGURE 6 DOLLAR VALUE OF DISPLACEMENT 88 FIGURE 7 MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF TOTAL SPENDING 95 FIGURE 8 MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF "EXTRA" SPENDING 107 FIGURE 9 TOTAL MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED 121 FIGURE 10 EXTRA MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED 131 FIGURE 11 SOCIAL STATUS CHANGE IN VANCOUVER INNER CITY CENSUS TRACTS 179 FIGURE 12 HYPOTHETICAL ILLUSTRATION OF SECTION 56.1 SUBSIDY ASSISTANCE 264 IX ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e t o thank my parents E d i t h and Otto Kamenz, or as I c a l l them Mom and Dad, f o r making sure t h a t I went t o u n i v e r s i t y and completed my Masters and f o r t h e i r l o v e and understanding, without which I would never have f i n i s h e d my s t u d i e s . S p e c i a l thanks go t o my long time g i r l f r i e n d and now wi f e C h e r i e , who stuck w i t h me no matter what and counter balanced my overwhelming tendency t o take l i f e too s e r i o u s l y . Furthermore, a note of thanks go t o my s i s t e r K a r i n who always b e l i e v e d I would make i t . I would a l s o l i k e t o acknowledge the i n c r e d i b l e amount of support and guidance I r e c e i v e d from my t h e s i s a d v i s o r s : David H u l c h a n s k i , Ted M i t c h e l l and Henry Hightower. Henry, I w i l l never f o r g e t your words of encouragement when the p r e s s u r e s t a r t e d t o get to me. Those words made a world o f d i f f e r e n c e . L a s t l y , my g r a t i t u d e goes t o the Canada Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n f o r awarding me a CMHC U n i v e r s i t y S c h o l a r s h i p . I t sure made l i f e e a s i e r . x INTRODUCTION: THE RENTAL SUPPLY PROBLEM / THE DECLINE OF THE PRIVATE RENTAL HOUSING MARKET IN WESTERN NATIONS The pr ivate r e n t a l housing market i s i n a state of dec l ine i n many western nat ions . In h i s study Michael Harloe found that i n the United States , B r i t a i n , France, West Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, the pr ivate r e n t a l housing market has been i n a general state of dec l ine for the l a s t f or ty years . [1] The Canadian pr iva te r e n t a l market has been i n dec l ine since the ear ly 1970's. A number of commonalities ex i s t i n the dec l ine of the pr iva te r e n t a l housing market i n Canada, the United States , B r i t a i n , France, West Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. These commonalities can be c l a s s i f i e d into f ive categories: pr iva te r e n t a l housing stock c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , pr iva te r e n t a l housing tenant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , landlord-tenant r e l a t i o n s , e f fects of government in tervent ion i n the pr ivate r e n t a l market, and reasons for the dec l ine of the pr iva te r e n t a l market.[2] Three c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the pr iva te r e n t a l housing stock are important to t h i s d i scuss ion . F i r s t , a great deal of the e x i s t i n g pr iva te r e n t a l stock consis ts of o ld uni t s which were lMichael Harloe , Pr ivate Rented Housing i n the United States  and Europe (London: Croom Helm, 1985). C h r i s t i n e M . E . Whitehead, and Mark P. Kleinman, Pr ivate Rented  Housing i n the 1980's and 1990's, Occasional Paper 17 (Cambridge: Granta Ed i t i ons L t d . , 1986) 1-2. 2Harloe, 297-300. 2 b u i l t i n the core areas of o lder c i t i e s and which lack the spaciousness and the amenities of new r e n t a l un i t s . [ 3 ] Second, i n Canada, as i n other countries with a large stock of detached, semi-detached and row housing, the creat ion of a r e n t a l un i t wi th in an owner occupied dwel l ing has become prevalent . [4] These "secondary suites" are used to help defray the high cost of accessing home ownership or to house r e l a t i v e s and f r i e n d s . Consequently, the primary reason for a su i te i s not always f i n a n c i a l . In some Canadian c i t i e s , these r e n t a l uni t s are i l l e g a l , as they v i o l a t e zoning by-laws. Owners of i l l e g a l sui tes usual ly avoid inspect ion by c i t y bylaw enforcement o f f i c i a l s of t h e i r su i t e s . I t i s common, therefore , to f i n d that some of these r e n t a l uni t s v i o l a t e b u i l d i n g and heal th code regula t ions . T h i r d , a small market ex i s t s for newer, high rent uni t s i n Canada and i n many of the countries analyzed by Harloe . Most countries with a severe r e n t a l housing supply problem have a small "luxury market" for high q u a l i t y r e n t a l u n i t s . The p r o f i l e of tenants has changed, a change which p a r a l l e l s the dec l ine of the pr ivate r e n t a l market. In the United States , B r i t a i n , France, West Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, many households took advantage of s o c i a l housing and home owner 3Whitehead and Kleinman, 21-25 and 28. 4Anthony Downs, "The Coming Crunch i n Rental Housing," Annals of the American Academy of P o l i t i c a l and S o c i a l Science 465 (1983): 77 and 82. Whitehead and Kleinman, 54. 3 s u b s i d i e s . [ 5 ] As a r e s u l t , the p r o f i l e of the average r e n t e r became i n c r e a s i n g l y skewed towards young[6] and e l d e r l y households: two segments of s o c i e t y which c o n t a i n a l a r g e number of lower income people.[7] (There are numerous r e f e r e n c e s i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l housing l i t e r a t u r e t o the r e s i d u a l i z a t i o n of the p r i v a t e r e n t a l housing s e c t o r t o low income households.[8]) In Canada the impact of s o c i a l housing on r e n t e r s has been ma r g i n a l . As of 1985, o n l y f o u r t o f i v e p e r c e n t of the housing 5Whitehead and Kleinman, 50-51. S t a t . A b s t r a c t , (1981) 763-64. As r e f e r e n c e d by James W. F o s s e t , and Gary O r f i e l d , Market F a i l u r e and F e d e r a l P o l i c y : Low  Income Housing i n Chicago 190-1983 (Chicago: L e a d e r s h i p C o u n c i l f o r M e t r o p o l i t a n Open Communities, 1986) 11. U.S. Congress, C o n g r e s s i o n a l Budget O f f i c e , The Tax Treatment  of Homeownership: Issues and Options (Washington, D.C: GPO, 1981) x i i . As r e f e r e n c e d by R i c h a r d P. Applebaum, and John I. Gilderbloom, "Supply-Side Economics and Rents: Are R e n t a l Housing Markets T r u l y Competitive?" ed. Rachel G. B r a t t , Chester Hartman and Ann Meyerson ( P h i l a d e l p h i a : Temple U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1986) 171. 6Whitehead and Kleinman, 87-88. 7Whitehead and Kleinman, 30-33. 8Downs, 77. C h r i s P a r i s , "Housing Issues and P o l i c i e s i n A u s t r a l i a , " B u i l t  Environment 11 (1985): 109-111. C h r i s P a r i s , " P r i v a t e R e n t a l Housing i n A u s t r a l i a , " Environment and P l a n n i n g A 16 (1984): 1094, 1095 and 1097. Whitehead and Kleinman, 32-36. CM.E. Whitehead, M. H a r l o e , and A. B o v a i r d s , "Prospects and S t r a t e g i e s f o r Housing i n the P r i v a t e Rented S e c t o r , " J o u r n a l of  S o c i a l P o l i c y 14:2, 163. Graham Bentham y " S o c i o - T e n u r i a l P o l a r i z a t i o n i n the U n i t e d Kingdom, 1953-83: The Income Evidence," Urban S t u d i e s 2 (1986): 162. 4 s t o c k was i n the s o c i a l housing s e c t o r . [ 9 ] However, i n t h e i r a n a l y s i s o f Canadian r e n t e r and home owner p r o f i l e s , David Hulchanski and Glen Drover found a s i m i l a r process of change had taken p l a c e i n Canada as i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s , B r i t a i n , France, West Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands.[10] Table 1 i n d i c a t e s t h a t from 1967 t o 1981, a p e r i o d i n which there were s u b s t a n t i a l Government home owner s u b s i d i e s , the top two income q u i n t i l e s each saw gains of 10 percent i n the number of households owning t h e i r own home. T h i s i s i n d i r e c t c o n t r a s t t o the lowest income q u i n t i l e , which saw a r e d u c t i o n of 19 percent i n the r a t e of home ownership. Furthermore, an examination of the r e n t a l s e c t o r shows t h a t an i n c r e a s i n g percentage of lower income households have moved i n t o the r e n t a l s e c t o r . Table 2 shows t h a t from 1967 to 1981 the lowest income q u i n t i l e r e g i s t e r e d a g a i n of 10 perc e n t i n the number of r e n t e r households w h i l e the h i g h e s t two income q u i n t i l e s r e g i s t e r e d a drop of over 5 per c e n t . I t appears t h a t the wealthy were ab l e t o take advantage of Government home owner s u b s i d i e s w h i l e an i n c r e a s i n g d i f f e r e n c e between home purchase c o s t s and incomes has f o r c e d an i n c r e a s i n g percentage of lower income Canadians i n t o the p r i v a t e r e n t a l s e c t o r . 9Canada Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n , Canadian Housing  S t a t i s t i c s (Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n , v a r i o u s years) n.pag. lOHul c h a n s k i , David J . , and Glen Drover, "Housing S u b s i d i e s i n a P e r i o d of R e s t r a i n t : The Canadian Experience," Housing  Markets and P o l i c i e s Under F i s c a l A u s t e r i t y , ed. W. van V l i e t (New York: Greenwood P r e s s , 1987) 51-70. 5 TABLE 1 CHANGES IN HOHE OVttEKHtP RATES WITHIN" ANO 8ETVEEN INCCTE QUINTILES 1967. 1973. 1977, 1981 X of Households Owning Thetr Unit Change 1967 1973 1977 1931 1967-1931 Lowest Quintile 62.0 Z 50.0 X 47.4 X 43.0 X - 19 X Second Quintile ss.s 53.6 53.3 52.4 - 3 I Middle Quintile 58.6 57.5 63.2 62.7 • 4 X Fourth Quintile 64.2 69.8 73.2 . 75.0 • 11 X Highest Quintile 73.< 81.2 82.3 83.5 • 10 X Total S2.7 62.< 63.9 63.3 • 0.6 5 j Source: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1983. As r e f e r e n c e d by J.D. H u l c h a n s k i , and Glen Drover, "Housing S u b s i d i e s i n a P e r i o d of R e s t r a i n t : The Canadian E x p e r i e n c e , " Housing Markets and P o l i c i e s  Under F i s c a l A u s t e r i t y , ed. W. van V l i e t (New York: Greenwood Press, 1987) 65. 6 TABLE 2 RENTER HOUSEHOLDS BY MCOHE QOIXTILE r • j Canada, 1967, 1973. 1977, 1981 Incase Qulnttle Change 1967 1973 1977 1981 1967-1981 lowest Qufntlie 20.4 2S.fi 29.1 31.1 •10.7 Secend Qufntlie 23.9 24.7 2S.9 26.0 • 2.1 Kiddie Quinine 22.2 22.fi 20.4 20.3 - 1.9 Fourth Qu1nt11e 19.2 lfi.1 14.8 13.fi - 5.6 Highest Qulntlle H.3 10.0 . 9.8 9.0 - 5.3 Total ICO.O 100.0 100.0 100.0 \ Source: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1983. As r e f e r e n c e d by J.D. H u l c h a n s k i , and Glen Drover, "Housing S u b s i d i e s i n a P e r i o d of R e s t r a i n t : The Canadian E x p e r i e n c e , " Housing Markets and P o l i c i e s  Under F i s c a l A u s t e r i t y , ed. W. van V l i e t (New York: Greenwood P r e s s , 1987) 67. 7 As a r e s u l t of these trends r e l a t i n g to income and tenure, the r e n t a l sector has l o s t much of i t s a t tract iveness as an investment.[11] Even long time investors i n r e n t a l housing have abandoned the pr ivate r e n t a l market.[12] In Canada large development corporations—the C a d i l l a c Fairview Corporat ion, for example—played a key ro le i n the 1960's apartment construct ion boom. By the mid-1970's, the large development corporations had decided to d ives t themselves of t h e i r r e n t a l housing assets . The d e c l i n i n g a b i l i t y of tenant incomes to keep pace with increases i n the cost of prov id ing adequate, pr iva te r e n t a l housing has increased landlord/ tenant f r i c t i o n . The problem has been compounded by landlords who rent poor q u a l i t y uni ts to those without the f i n a n c i a l or p o l i t i c a l power to obtain better accommodation. Government in tervent ion i n the pr ivate r e n t a l market has taken two forms: subsidies for r e n t a l construct ion and urban renewal programs. Harloe notes that i n the United States , France, West Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, s i g n i f i c a n t pr ivate r e n t a l market subsidies were offered by the government af ter 1945. In Canada, the large scale subs id iza t ion of the pr ivate r e n t a l market d i d not occur u n t i l the 1974-84 period[13] . The high llWhitehead and Kleinman, 53-54. Whitehead, Harloe and Bovairds , 162. 12Whitehead and Kleinman, 72-73. 13ln November, 1984, the l a s t remaining pr iva te r e n t a l market subsidy program was discont inued. 8 l e v e l of subs id i za t ion was i n response to (1) p o l i t i c a l pressures caused by r i s i n g housing costs and (2) economic pressures due to d e c l i n i n g housing s tar t s e s p e c i a l l y i n the r e n t a l sector . The exact l e v e l of assistance to the pr ivate r e n t a l market var ied dramat ica l ly i n response to changing market condi t ions . However, the importance of the subsidies to the pr ivate r e n t a l sector remained constant: V i r t u a l l y a l l the r e n t a l s tar t s a f ter 1974 were subs id ized , only a minori ty of these subsidized s tar t s were i n the non-market s o c i a l housing sector . . . . This helped maintain the f i c t i o n that there was indeed a v iab le pr iva te r e n t a l sector . This r e n t a l sector , however, was no longer responding to supply and demand s ignals i n the market p lace . I t was responding to the very l u c r a t i v e government subsidy programs.[14] S t a r t i n g i n the 1950's the Governments of Canada, the United States , B r i t a i n , France, West Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands became increas ing ly involved i n large scale c e n t r a l c i t y urban renewal pro jec t s . Urban renewal p r i m a r i l y impacted areas with pr iva te r e n t a l housing. At f i r s t renewal involved the c l e a r i n g of d i l a p i d a t e d s tructures and redevelopment. L a t e r , the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of e x i s t i n g s tructures became the goa l . Regardless, urban renewal had a detrimental e f fec t on the pr ivate r e n t a l stock. At f i r s t renewal resul ted i n the des truct ion of pr iva te r e n t a l u n i t s , and while r e h a b i l i t a t i o n saved e x i s t i n g u n i t s , i t often resu l ted i n a change i n tenure. The dec l ine i n the pr ivate r e n t a l sector has been caused by two f a c t o r s . F i r s t , as discussed prev ious ly , the a b i l i t y of 14Hulchanski and Drover, 60. 9 tenants t o a f f o r d i n c r e a s e s i n r e n t s decreased.[15] Second, a t the same time, the demand f o r owner occupied d w e l l i n g s rose, thereby encouraging the c o n v e r s i o n of r e n t a l u n i t s i n t o condominiums.[16] The impact of t h i s c o n v e r s i o n has been dramatic. However, i n Canada i t has been m i t i g a t e d by the purchase of condominiums, not f o r owner o c c u p a t i o n , but f o r investment purposes, which r e s u l t s , a t l e a s t f o r some p e r i o d of time, i n the u n i t s becoming p a r t of the r e n t a l market. One q u e s t i o n begs t o be asked: Why d i d the d e c l i n e i n the p r i v a t e r e n t a l market i n Canada occur so l a t e i n r e l a t i o n t o the d e c l i n e experienced i n the other c o u n t r i e s ? Perhaps i t i s a r e s u l t of d i f f e r e n c e s i n demographics,[17] the s i z e of the s o c i a l housing s t o c k and tax s t r u c t u r e s . U n l i k e Europe, the p r i v a t e r e n t a l market was booming i n Canada i n the l a t e s i x t i e s and e a r l y s e v e n t i e s . One f a c t o r i n t h i s boom was the entrance of the baby boom g e n e r a t i o n i n t o t h e i r household formation y e a r s . Four f a c t o r s r e s u l t e d i n the baby boomers e n t e r i n g the p r i v a t e r e n t a l s e c t o r : (1) s u f f i c i e n t money f o r 15U.S. Congress, C o n g r e s s i o n a l Budget O f f i c e , The Tax  Treatment of Homeownership: Issues and Options (Washington, D.C: GPO, 1981) x i i . As r e f e r e n c e d by R i c h a r d P. Applebaum, and John I. Gilderbloom, "Supply-Side Economics and Rents: Are R e n t a l Housing Markets T r u l y Competitive?" ed. Rachel G. B r a t t , Chester Hartman and Ann Meyerson ( P h i l a d e l p h i a : Temple U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1986) 171. 16Whitehead, Harloe and B o v a i r d s , 157. U.S. Congress, 171. 17For the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n on demographic d i f f e r e n c e s between Canada and Europe, I am indebted t o Ted M i t c h e l l , p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w , 1 March 1988. 10 household f o r m a t i o n , (2) i n s u f f i c i e n t money f o r home ownership, (3) minimal access t o s o c i a l housing, and (4) a l a c k of c h i l d r e n . The r e s u l t was a l a r g e i n c r e a s e i n the demand f o r p r i v a t e r e n t a l housing which, when combined wi t h low i n t e r e s t r a t e s , long term loans and the a b i l i t y t o e a s i l y o b t a i n p r o p e r l y zoned l a n d l e d to an i n c r e a s e i n the supply o f p r i v a t e r e n t a l housing. In the l a t e s e v e n t i e s , the bottom f e l l out of the p r i v a t e r e n t a l market. At t h i s time, baby boom households i n c r e a s e d t h e i r f i n a n c i a l c l o u t and entered t h e i r c h i l d b e a r i n g y e a r s . As a r e s u l t , the baby boomers began t o move from the p r i v a t e r e n t a l market i n t o the home ownership market. T h i s had a ne g a t i v e e f f e c t on market demand f o r p r i v a t e r e n t a l housing. Furthermore, at t h i s time, the a b i l i t y of the p r i v a t e r e n t a l market t o p r o v i d e a f f o r d a b l e housing d e c l i n e d w i t h r i s i n g i n f l a t i o n , r i s i n g i n t e r e s t r a t e s , an i n a b i l i t y t o o b t a i n long term f i n a n c i n g and more r e s t r i c t i v e zoning p r a c t i c e s . Thus the d e c l i n e of the p r i v a t e r e n t a l market c o i n c i d e d w i t h a drop i n the demand f o r and supply of p r i v a t e r e n t a l housing. The baby boomers d i d not have the same e f f e c t on European housing markets. A f t e r the war, a l o t of young men and women immigrated from Europe t o Canada, thereby i n c r e a s i n g the e f f e c t of the baby boom g e n e r a t i o n i n Canada and d e c r e a s i n g i t s e f f e c t i n Europe. Second, a p o s s i b l e reason f o r the d i f f e r e n c e i n the date of the d e c l i n e of the p r i v a t e r e n t a l market i s t h a t the s i z a b l e European s o c i a l housing sto c k , by p r o v i d i n g an a l t e r n a t i v e t o the pr iva te r e n t a l market, helped to accelerate the dec l ine of the pr iva te r e n t a l market. In Canada th i s never occurred due to the small s ize of the s o c i a l housing stock. T h i r d , the d i f ference i n the t iming of the dec l ine could be the r e s u l t of d i f ferences i n nat iona l tax s t ruc tures . In Harloe 's summary of the dec l ine of the pr iva te r e n t a l sec tor , he i s not c l ear as to h i s p o s i t i o n on rent controls and t h e i r impact on the dec l ine . While noting that "the impact of rent controls was far from simple and se l f -ev ident" , Harloe goes on to describe rent contro ls as a p r i n c i p l e cause of the dec l ine of the pr ivate r e n t a l market i n those countries where rent controls were reimposed or strengthened.[18] In Canada, rent contro l was just one of a number of factors which hurt the pr ivate r e n t a l market. In 1972, the tax she l ter aspect of investment i n pr iva te r e n t a l housing by investors other than l i f e insurance corporations and corporations whose p r i m a r i l y business i s pr iva te r e n t a l housing was discontinued.[19] In the mid-seventies demographics and such economic var iab les as i n t e r e s t rates a lso negat ively impacted the pr iva te r e n t a l market. L a s t l y , i n 1975 second generation rent controls[20] were imposed n a t i o n a l l y . The imposit ion of rent contro l s was a r e s u l t 18Harloe, 298-9. 19For more information on changes i n the tax system and those affected see Appendix A, MURB program d e s c r i p t i o n . 20Second generation rent contro ls allow landlords to receive reasonable p r o f i t l e v e l s while provid ing adequate maintenance. 12 of the i n f l a t i o n a r y e f fec t on rents of an already d e c l i n i n g p r i v a t e r e n t a l market.[21] 21J. David Hulchanski , Market Imperfections and the Role of  Rent Regulations i n the Res ident ia l Rental Market, Research Study No. 6 (Toronto: Commission of Inquiry into R e s i d e n t i a l Tenancies, 1984) 72-3. 13 HOW TO CREATE LOW RENTAL UNITS: THE MARKET-WELFARE VERSUS SOCIAL-WELFARE APPROACH In Canada there Is a shortage of a f f o r d a b l e , adequate housing. No p r e c i s e measurement of t h i s shortage e x i s t s . However, a rough i n d i c a t i o n can be o b t a i n e d by examining the number of r e n t e r households i n core housing need. The core housing need measure c a l c u l a t e s the number of households who would have t o pay more than 30 percent of t h e i r income f o r a d w e l l i n g i n t h e i r l o c a l i t y which has b a s i c f a c i l i t i e s and which i s l a r g e enough so as not t o r e s u l t i n crowded l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s , more than one person per room. The measure does not i n c l u d e households which pay more than 30 percent of t h e i r income f o r housing when they c o u l d o b t a i n s u i t a b l e housing f o r 30 percent or l e s s . In 1982, 558,000 r e n t e r households i n Canada were c l a s s i f i e d as b e ing i n core housing need.[22] The debate over how to p r o v i d e a f f o r d a b l e , adequate housing f o r these people has been a debate between "market-welfare" and " s o c i a l - w e l f a r e " advocates.[23] Market-welfare advocates are 2 2 S t a t i s t i c s Canada, "Household's Income, F a c i l i t i e s and Equipment" (HIFE), 1982 Micro Data F i l e , Family Expenditure Survey and P r o j e c t i o n s by CMHC as quoted by Canada, Task Force on Program Review, Housing Programs i n Search of Balance (Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s Canada, 1986) 23. 23J. David H u l c h a n s k i , " S o c i a l Welfare versus Market Welfare," C i t y Magazine F a l l (1985): 31. 14 composed of n e o - c l a s s i c a l and n e o - c l a s s i c a l based economists[24] and a large percentage of landlords and firms which p a r t i c i p a t e i n the pr ivate housing market.[25] The market-welfare approach i s based upon n e o - c l a s s i c a l economics and the b e l i e f i n the d e s i r a b i l i t y and v i a b i l i t y of r e l y i n g almost s o l e l y on market dynamics. The approach i s character ized by the s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of r e a l i t y through the use of u n r e a l i s t i c assumptions so that economic processes can be modeled.[26] Unfortunately , the majority of these models are not s trongly based on empir ica l research.[27] The soc ia l -we l fare approach i s an empir i ca l outgrowth of p o l i t i c a l economic thought and i s i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y i n nature. Soc ia l -wel fare advocates come from a broad range of academic 24The spectrum of economic thought extends from neo-c l a s s i c a l economists (e .g . M i l t o n Friedman and Michael Walker, d i r e c t o r of The Fraser Ins t i tu te ) to main stream economists, which are n e o - c l a s s i c a l based and propose a market or ientated approach to housing, (e .g . Lawrence Smith, George F a l l i s , and Michael Goldberg) to p o l i t i c a l economists and neo-marxists (e .g . Geffry Pederson, David Hulchanski , Emily Paradise Achtenberg, and Peter Marcuse can be c l a s s i f i e d as p o l i t i c a l economists). 25These firms have created a number of lobbying organizat ions , the most important of which are as fo l lows: the Canadian Home B u i l d i n g Assoc ia t ion (CHBA) which represents the r e s i d e n t i a l - c o n s t r u c t i o n industry , the Urban Development I n s t i -tute of Canada (UDI) which represents a l l large developers, the Canadian I n s t i t u t e of Publ ic Real Estate Companies (Ciprec) whose membership i s composed of only the largest developers and the Canadian Real Estate Assoc ia t ion (Crea) which expresses r e a l estate i n t e r e s t s . 26Applebaum and Gilderbloom, 1986, 167-172. 27Robert Knutter , "The Poverty of Economics," The A t l a n t i c  Monthly February 1985: 76 and 78. 15 d i s c i p l i n e s ( i . e . geography, p l a n n i n g , p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e , s o c i o l o g y and economics). The major p o i n t of c o n t e n t i o n between market- and s o c i a l -w e l f a r e advocates i s on the s t r e n g t h of the d o w n - f i l t e r i n g p r o c e s s . D o w n - f i l t e r i n g i s the process whereby, as housing ages and d e c l i n e s i n q u a l i t y , i t s u c c e s s i v e l y houses lower income households. "To the extent t h a t u n i t s d e c l i n e i n r e l a t i v e p r i c e (or a b s o l u t e incomes r i s e ) more r a p i d l y than they d e t e r i o r a t e i n q u a l i t y , lower income groups can upgrade the q u a l i t y of t h e i r housing without i n c r e a s i n g the f r a c t i o n of t h e i r incomes spent on s h e l t e r . " [ 2 8 ] Market-welfare advocates b e l i e v e the down-f i l t e r i n g process has the p o t e n t i a l t o meet the needs of the poor.[29] A l l i t may need i s a l i t t l e government help.[30] S o c i a l - w e l f a r e advocates, while agreeing t h a t some d o w n - f i l t e r i n g takes p l a c e , contend t h a t due t o the complex nature of the housing market, i t cannot meet the e n t i r e need f o r a f f o r d a b l e , adequate housing.[31] On the supply s i d e of the equation, a l a r g e amount of p r i v a t e r e n t a l housing, by the time i t becomes a f f o r d a b l e , i s no longer adequate (e.g. slum h o u s i n g ) . On the 28Fosset and O r f i e l d , 2. Based upon Q u i g l e y , 1980. 29Applebaum and Gilderbloom, 1986, 167. 30Fosset and O r f i e l d , i i . 31Applebaum and Gilderbloom, 1986, 167-177. R i c h a r d P. Applebaum, and John I. Gilderbloom, "Toward a S o c i o l o g y of Rent: Are R e n t a l Housing Markets Competitive?" S o c i a l Problems 34.3 (1987): 266-272. F o s s e t and O r f i e l d , i i . 16 demand s i d e , the demand f o r a d d i t i o n a l a f f o r d a b l e , adequate housing u n i t s o u t s t r i p s the demand f o r new r e n t a l housing u n i t s , t h e r e f o r e , e n s u r i n g t h a t d o w n - f i l t e r i n g i s unable t o meet the need a t the lower end of the market. S o c i a l - w e l f a r e advocates a l s o note t h a t t o date e m p i r i c a l data has not been produced t o support the p o s i t i o n of market-welfare advocates. T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n o p i n i o n on the a b i l i t y of d o w n - f i l t e r i n g t o p r o v i d e a f f o r d a b l e adequate housing has determined the p o s i t i o n s o f the market- and s o c i a l - w e l f a r e advocates on the c u r r e n t l a c k of a f f o r d a b l e , adequate housing. Market-welfare advocates b e l i e v e t h a t the p r i v a t e r e n t a l housing market should be s u b s i d i z e d , thereby a l l o w i n g the market to p r o v i d e a f f o r d a b l e , adequate housing.[32] They contend t h a t such a subsidy would i n c r e a s e the supply of new u n i t s , i n c r e a s i n g the a b i l i t y of the d o w n - f i l t e r i n g process t o p r o v i d e housing f o r low income households. In c o n t r a s t , s o c i a l - w e l f a r e advocates m a i n t a i n t h a t the Government should expand and improve i t s non-market, s o c i a l housing programs[33], the n o n - p r o f i t and co-o p e r a t i v e housing programs.[34] Market-welfare advocates oppose 32Whitehead and Kleinman, 4. 3 3Whitehead and Kleinman, 5. P h i l l i p L. Clay, At R i s k of Loss: The Endangered Future of  Low-Income R e n t a l Housing Resources (Washington, D.C: Neighborhood Reinvestment C o r p o r a t i o n , 1987) 37-44. 34Vancouver, P l a n n i n g Department, C i t y of Vancouver P l a n n i n g  Department Reports t o C o u n c i l : F e d e r a t i o n of Canadian  M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Housing I n i t i a t i v e s (Vancouver: C i t y of Vancouver, 30 A p r i l 1985) Appendix I I I 2. 17 s o c i a l housing on the grounds t h a t such housing i s too c o s t l y t o p r o v i d e and t h a t i t i s " i n e f f i c i e n t , " because i t c o n t a i n s a s o c i a l mix and, t h e r e f o r e , s u b s i d i z e s those who can a f f o r d t o compete i n the p r i v a t e market. S o c i a l - w e l f a r e advocates argue t h a t s o c i a l housing reduces the c o s t t o the government of p r o v i d -i n g low income c i t i z e n s w i t h a f f o r d a b l e q u a l i t y housing i n the long run, because i t i n c r e a s e s the s t o c k of non-market housing, which i s not s u b j e c t to market s p e c u l a t i o n and i n f l a t i o n . [ 3 5 ] S o c i a l - w e l f a r e advocates a l s o support the maintenance of a s o c i a l mix i n such housing programs i n order to a v o i d the c r e a t i o n of ghettos and to c r e a t e a h i g h e r q u a l i t y r e s i d e n t i a l environment. 35Clay, 37. 18 THESIS CONTENT H i s t o r i c a l l y , Canada has always f a c e d the i n a b i l i t y of the p r i v a t e r e n t a l and home owner housing markets t o supply a l l Canadians w i t h adequate housing a t a p r i c e they can a f f o r d . The s e v e r i t y of t h i s problem has v a r i e d over the y e a r s . Beginning i n the e a r l y 1970's, t h i s problem i n t e n s i f i e d c a u s i n g h a r d s h i p among low income households and w i t h i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r y , as a d e c l i n e i n housing demand t r a n s l a t e s i n t o a housing c o n s t r u c t i o n slump. As a r e s u l t the F e d e r a l Government came under r i s i n g p r e s s u r e t o do something about the i n c r e a s i n g i n t e n s i t y of the problem. From the e a r l y 1970's t o the mid 1980's, the F e d e r a l Govern-ment, through the crown c o r p o r a t i o n Canada Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n (CMHC), i n t r o d u c e d seven new housing programs which p r o v i d e d s u b s i d i e s f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of r e n t a l housing. These programs can be c l a s s i f i e d as e x e m p l i f y i n g e i t h e r a market-welfare or s o c i a l - w e l f a r e approach t o the p r o v i s i o n of r e n t a l housing. Of the seven programs i n t r o d u c e d , three were market-welfare programs: the M u l t i p l e U n i t R e s i d e n t i a l B u i l d i n g Program (MURB; 1974-1979, 1980-1981), the A s s i s t e d R e n t a l Program (ARP, 1975-1978), and the Canada R e n t a l Supply P l a n (CRSP, 1981-1984). Four s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs were implemented by the F e d e r a l Government: the S e c t i o n 15.1 N o n - P r o f i t Program and S e c t i o n 34.18 Co-op Program were c r e a t e d i n 1973 and r e p l a c e d i n 19 1978 by the Sect ion 56.1 Non-Prof i t and Co-operative Housing Program, which i s s t i l l In use today. By January 1984, a l l market-welfare programs had expired. At t h i s time i n t e r e s t rates had begun to drop from t h e i r prev ious ly high l e v e l s , and with t h i s came the return of a r e l a t i v e l y heal thy, s ing le family housing and condominium construct ion industry . The o v e r a l l economic s i t u a t i o n had improved, and a Government focus on the d e f i c i t meant that programs aimed at s t imulat ing the pr ivate r e n t a l sector were no longer a p r i o r i t y . In a d d i t i o n , the newly e lected Progressive Conservatives were opposed to the concept of subsidies for the pr iva te r e n t a l sector b e l i e v i n g that the market could begin to funct ion more normally under the better economic condit ions of the day. Together the market- and soc ia l -we l fare housing programs had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f fec t on Canadian soc ie ty . Of s p e c i f i c i n t e r e s t i s the impact these programs had on the economy and l o c a l communities. To invest igate th i s impact, a geographic study area and a s p e c i f i c time per iod for i n q u i r y were formulated. The Greater Vancouver Area was chosen as the study area. The Greater Vancouver Area i s a s p a t i a l subunit of Greater Vancouver, constructed s p e c i f i c a l l y for t h i s study. I t i s comprised of the c i t i e s and major m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of Greater Vancouver: the c i t i e s of Vancouver, New Westminster and North Vancouver and the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of Burnaby, West Vancouver, North Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond, De l ta , Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port 20 Moody. The 10 year per iod from 1975 to 1985 was used as the time per iod for the i n q u i r y , because i t i s easy to conceptual ize and corresponds we l l with the beginning and end of the market- and soc ia l -we l fare housing programs. This thes is i s d iv ided in to f i v e chapters and f i v e appendixes. Chapter 1 provides an in troduct ion in to the t h e s i s . Chapter 2 gives an overview of the market- and soc ia l -we l fare programs. F i r s t a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of each housing program i s g iven. Deta i led descr ipt ions of the programs are presented i n Appendix A. Next, i n order to get a better understanding of the programs, the market- and soc ia l -we l fare programs are c l a s s i f i e d according to the p o l i c y instrument which they represent, tax expenditure or expenditure subsidy, and d i f ferences between these two p o l i c y instruments are analyzed. The t h i r d chapter quant i f i e s some of the economic impacts of the programs. Appendix B describes how the c a l c u l a t i o n s necessary to create many of the tables i n Chapter 3 were performed, and Appendix C discusses the accuracy of Chapter 3 MURB data. A se l ec t ion of the s o c i a l , or l o c a l community, impacts of the programs are described i n Chapter 4. Appendix D provides a d i scuss ion of the meaning of the term community, and Appendix E restates i n unprocessed form data o r i g i n a l l y presented i n Chapter 4 on the s ize of market- and soc ia l -we l fare u n i t s . L a s t l y , Chapter 5 presents the conclusion which provides a summary of the thes is and i d e n t i f i e s research areas d i r e c t l y re la ted to the thes is which require further i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 21 By no means does t h i s t h e s i s examine a l l of the economic and s o c i a l impacts of the programs. A sampling i s made of the economic and s o c i a l impacts from which suggestions are made as to the o v e r a l l economic and s o c i a l impacts of these programs. A l s o , d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the monetary c o s t s of the programs are not w i t h i n the scope of t h i s r e s e a r c h . T h e r e f o r e , between program comparisons of e f f i c i e n c y cannot be made. Moreover, even though t h i s t h e s i s does make e x t e n s i v e use of e m p i r i c a l data gathered on the Greater Vancouver Area, n a t i o n a l averages and r e s e a r c h based on other areas i n North America are a l s o used. I t i s assumed e r r o r s r e s u l t i n g from t h i s s p a t i a l t r a n s f e r r i n g of i n f o r m a t i o n are s m a l l . 22 A REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL RENTAL SUPPLY PROGRAMS 1975 - 1985 FEDERAL RENTAL SUPPLY PROGRAMS 1975 - 1985 In t h i s chapter the f o l l o w i n g F e d e r a l r e n t a l housing programs w i l l be b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e d : 1) M u l t i p l e U n i t R e s i d e n t i a l B u i l d i n g , 2) A s s i s t e d R e n t a l Program, 3) Canada R e n t a l Supply P l a n , 4) S e c t i o n 15.1 N o n - P r o f i t and 34.18 Co-bp Programs, and 5) S e c t i o n 56.1 N o n - P r o f i t and Co-operative Program. The program d e s c r i p t i o n s are v a l i d up t o December 31, 1985. Appendix A d e s c r i b e s these and r e l a t e d F e d e r a l r e n t a l housing programs i n d e t a i l and should be read i f one i s not f a m i l i a r w i t h the i n t r i c a c i e s of the programs. MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING The M u l t i p l e U n i t R e s i d e n t i a l B u i l d i n g program (MURB) began i n 1974 and was terminated a t the end of 1979. In 1980 the program was r e s u r r e c t e d ; however, i t o n l y l a s t e d a s h o r t time. On December 31, 1981 MURB was again terminated. The program g i v e s i n v e s t o r s which are not development c o r p o r a t i o n s the a b i l i t y t o s h e l t e r income r e g a r d l e s s of i t s source under the c a p i t a l c o s t allowance t a x dedu c t i o n a v a i l a b l e f o r r e n t a l r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t y . ASSISTED RENTAL PROGRAM The A s s i s t e d R e n t a l Program (ARP) began i n 1975. New commitments ceased i n 1978. ARP pr o v i d e s d i r e c t s u b s i d i z e s t o developers of new p r i v a t e s e c t o r r e n t a l housing. The housing had to be moderate i n p r i c e and s i z e . The d e t a i l s of the program 24 changed i n each year of the four years of operat ion, but , e s s e n t i a l l y , the program provided a 5 to 15 year subsidy stream which decreased annually . ARP subsidies u s u a l l y came with r e s t r i c t i o n s or incent ives designed to l i m i t rent increases . The program was designed to be used i n conjunction with MURB. CANADA RENTAL SUPPLY PLAN In November 1981 the Canada Rental Supply Plan (CRSP) was announced i n a budget speech. CRSP ended i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n November 1984. The program provided developers of new pr iva te r e n t a l housing with 15-year i n t e r e s t free loans. Loans, as high as $15,000 per u n i t , were approved. Funding was l i m i t e d to 30,000 uni ts i n t i g h t r e n t a l markets. Developers were required to of fer one - th ird of the uni t s i n each development for p r o v i n c i a l rent subsidy. Each development had to be p h y s i c a l l y access ible to the d i sab led , and a minimum of 5 percent of the uni ts had to be designed for the d i sab led . CRSP could not be used i n conjunction with MURB or p r o v i n c i a l assistance s i m i l a r to CRSP. SECTION 15.1 NON-PROFIT AND 34.18 CO-OP PROGRAMS The Sect ion 15.1 Non-Prof i t and 34.18 Co-op Programs were i n i t i a t e d i n 1973. In 1978 the programs were replaced by the Sect ion 56.1 Non-Prof i t and Co-operative Housing Program. Under the 15.1 and 34.18 programs/ non-prof i t and co-operat ive groups received f i n a n c i a l assistance for the creat ion of housing for low 25 to moderate income households. The housing could be created through new construction or the purchase of e x i s t i n g housing. Assistance under the programs consisted of (1) a loan for 95-100 percent of the lending value of a project, (2)'an i n t e r e s t reduction grant which reduces the i n t e r e s t rate on the loan to 8 percent, and (3) a grant of 10 percent of the loan amount. This Federal assistance allowed the units to be affordable to only moderate income households. The 15.1 and 34.18 programs are augmented by a number of other programs, one of which i s the Section 44(1)(b) Rent Supplement Program. This program funds the creation of rent-geared-to-income units (RGI u n i t s ) i n 15.1 and 34.18 projects. RGI units are affordable to low income households. The Section 44(1)(b) program i s cost shared between the Federal and p r o v i n c i a l government, and an agreement must be signed between the two l e v e l s of government before the program can operate i n a p a r t i c u l a r province. In 1975 agreements were signed between the Federal Government and approximately one-half of the p r o v i n c i a l governments, including, B r i t i s h Columbia. Generally, between 25 and 50 percent of the units i n a project receive 44(1)(b) assistance.[1] lWoods Gordon Management Consultants, Evaluative Study of  Non-Profit and Cooperative Housing i n Ontario (n.p.: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Ontario Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s and Housing, 1981) Appendix B, 2. SECTION 56.1 NON-PROFIT AND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING PROGRAM The S e c t i o n 56.1 N o n - P r o f i t and Co-operative Housing Program r e p l a c e d the S e c t i o n 15.1 N o n - P r o f i t and 34.18 Co-op Programs i n 1978. The program p r o v i d e s funds to n o n - p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n s and c o - o p e r a t i v e s f o r the c r e a t i o n of n o n - p r o f i t , c o - o p e r a t i v e and s p e c i a l purpose housing through new c o n s t r u c t i o n or the a c q u i s i t i o n of e x i s t i n g housing u n i t s . S p e c i a l purpose housing i s n o n - p r o f i t or c o - o p e r a t i v e housing which i s t a r g e t e d to s p e c i f i c groups (e.g. n u r s i n g homes, homes f o r the m e n t a l l y handicapped, e t c . , ) . S e c t i o n 56.1 housing r e c e i v e d p r i v a t e s e c t o r loans a t market i n t e r e s t r a t e s f o r 90-100 per c e n t of p r o j e c t c o s t . The maximum CMHC subsi d y i s equal to the d i f f e r e n c e between the c o s t of the p r i v a t e s e c t o r l o a n and a l o a n f o r 100 percent of p r o j e c t c o s t a t a two percent i n t e r e s t r a t e . In n o n - p r o f i t housing the s u b s i d y i s f i r s t used to lower r e n t s t o the lower end of market r e n t s . Remaining funds are then used t o convert a p o r t i o n of the u n i t s i n a p r o j e c t t o RGI u n i t s . With c o - o p e r a t i v e housing the s u b s i d y i s f i r s t used t o reduce r e n t s to the lower end of market r e n t s f o r 3 y e a r s , a f t e r which time, r e n t s are s l o w l y i n c r e a s e d u n t i l the c o - o p e r a t i v e i s paying f u l l mortgage payments. Remaining a s s i s t a n c e i s used to c r e a t e RGI u n i t s out of a p o r t i o n of the u n i t s i n a p r o j e c t . In the case of s p e c i a l purpose housing, the e n t i r e s u b s i d y i s used to lower mortgage payments. Other o p e r a t i n g c o s t s are f i n a n c e d by the F e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l government. 27 56.1 housing i s occupied mainly by low and moderate income f a m i l i e s . 28 TAX EXPENDITURES VERSUS EXPENDITURE SUBSIDES The programs under analys i s can be categorized according to the type of p o l i c y instruments they represent: MURB i s a tax expenditure, and ARP, CRSP, and the 15.1, 34.18 and 56.1 programs are expenditure subs id ies . Kenneth Woodside i n "The P o l i t i c a l Economy of P o l i c y Instruments: Tax Expenditures and Subsidies i n Canada" gives an exce l lent d i scuss ion on the di f ferences between these two forms of p o l i c y instruments as seen from the p o l i t i c a l economy perspect ive: the study of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p o l i t i c s and the attempts of government to inf luence the economy. The s p e c i f i c approach taken by Woodside "involves an examination of the ways that d i f f e r e n t p o l i c y instruments used by government involve d i f f e r e n t p o l i t i c a l process and are used to solve the problems of d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l and economic groups."[2] The re su l t s of WoodsideVs examination help to provide a stronger understanding of the programs analyzed i n t h i s thes i s . Tax expenditures are "special provis ions i n the tax s tatutes , appl icable to p a r t i c u l a r types of business or sources of income, which r e s u l t i n those designated types of income being taxed at a lower rate than would otherwise be levied."[3] Expenditure 2Kenneth Woodside, "The P o l i t i c a l Economy of P o l i c y Instruments: Tax Expenditures and Subsidies i n Canada," The  P o l i t i c s of Canadian Publ ic P o l i c y , ed. Michael M. Atkinson and Marsha A. Chandler (Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press , 1983) 173. 3Woodside, 175. 29 s u b s i d i e s are d i r e c t payments by the government to c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c groups or s e c t o r s of the economy. In comparing tax expenditures and s u b s i d i e s , f o u r areas must be covered: the g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the two p o l i c y i nstruments, the p o l i t i c a l processes w i t h i n government and p a r l i a m e n t and those o u t s i d e of t h i s sphere which g i v e r i s e t o the p o l i c y instruments, and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and e f f i c i e n c y concerns. In terms of g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r , the d i r e c t n e s s and v i s i b i l i t y of the two p o l i c y instrument forms must be d i s c u s s e d . Fundamentally, a tax expenditure i s a statement by government t h a t i t w i l l not c o l l e c t money which i t otherwise would have. Consequently, there i s the p e r c e p t i o n t h a t the government i s c o r r e c t i n g an erroneous d e c i s i o n : the r e c i p i e n t i s seen as keeping funds which are and were r i g h t f u l l y h i s . With a s u b s i d y the source of the money i s much more d i r e c t : the government g i v e s money, which i t has o b t a i n e d through whatever sources, to the r e c i p i e n t . A tax expenditure d e a l s w i t h foregone revenue, which, due t o p e r c e p t i o n s and Government acc o u n t i n g procedures, i s not as v i s i b l e a d r a i n on Government, as i s , a subsidy. W i t h i n government and p a r l i a m e n t , the p o l i t i c a l process of tax expenditures and s u b s i d i e s are q u i t e d i f f e r e n t . "Tax expenditures are the product of a p o l i t i c a l p r ocess s u b j e c t to a 30 more c o n c e n t r a t e d and narrowly based range of i n t e r e s t s . " [ 4 ] Tax e x p e n d i t u r e s are l e s s l i k e l y t o be seen as impinging on p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n due t o t h e i r l e s s d i r e c t nature. P r e c i s e a c c o u n t i n g of the c o s t s of s u b s i d i e s are a v a i l a b l e t o the p u b l i c , but not so i n the case of tax expenditures. L a s t l y , a tax expenditure undergoes l e s s s c r u t i n y as i t passes through the House of Commons. As a r e s u l t of these f o u r f e a t u r e s , i n c e r t a i n i n s t a n c e s the Government i s a b l e t o do t h i n g s i n a more d i s c r e t e manner w i t h l e s s p u b l i c and p o l i t i c a l i n p u t through the use of tax e x p e n d i t u r e s . The next area of comparison i s the p o l i t i c a l p r ocess of tax expenditures and s u b s i d i e s i n the realm o u t s i d e of government. While not n e c e s s a r i l y i n h e r e n t , tax expenditures h i s t o r i c a l l y have tended to b e n e f i t r i c h , r a t h e r than poor, i n d i v i d u a l s and c o r p o r a t i o n s . The d i s t r i b u t i v e impact of s u b s i d i e s have v a r i e d g r e a t l y , but when t a r g e t i n g a i d a t the poor i n d i v i d u a l or c o r p o r a t i o n , s u b s i d i e s have been the v e h i c l e of c h o i c e . S u b s i d i e s are more v i s i b l e than tax expenditures, a p l u s i n the popular area of r e g i o n a l a i d . Conversely, the low v i s i b i l i t y of tax expenditures g i v e s them an advantage over s u b s i d i e s when the government does not wish t o be seen as i n c r e a s i n g i t s r o l e i n the economy. L a s t l y , b u s i n e s s p r e f e r s tax expenditures over s u b s i d i e s : they "leave the i n i t i a t i v e more c l e a r l y i n the hands of the p r i v a t e s e c t o r b e n e f i c i a r y , e s p e c i a l l y where the tax 4Woodside, 181. 31 expenditure i s i t s e l f a rather broad and open-ended incent ive , and there i s the appearance of less governmental interference with management decis ions ."[5] The f i n a l category of comparison i s program adminis trat ion and e f f i c i e n c y . In terms of f l e x i b i l i t y and responsiveness, subsidies are c l e a r l y super ior . I t i s eas ier to target a subsidy at a s p e c i f i c hard to define group, and subsidies undergo greater supervis ion than tax expenditures.[6] Moreover, due to the complexity of the Income Tax Ac t , the e f fec t of tax expenditures can be unpredictable , and the opportunity provided by a tax expenditure may be missed by f i r m s / i n d i v i d u a l s lack ing the necessary resources to i n t e r p r e t the act . Subsidies , however, a lso have a downside i n t h i s area: due to the high v i s i b i l i t y of subs id ies , i t i s poss ib le that they are more l i k e l y to t r i g g e r counterva i l ing duties from trading partners . Tax expenditures are d i s c r e t e , receive less p u b l i c input , have tended to favour r i c h i n d i v i d u a l s and corporat ions , and are the preferred veh ic l e for ass istance by the business community. In contrast expenditure subsidies are d i r e c t , h igh ly v i s i b l e , and 5David Vogel , "Why Businessmen D i s t r u s t The ir State ," B r i t i s h Journal of P o l i t i c a l Science Jan. (1978): 45-78; and Leonard S i l k and David Vogel , Eth ics and P r o f i t s : The C r i s i s of  Confidence i n American Business (New York: Simon and Schuster 1976) ch .2 . As quoted by Kenneth Woodside, "The P o l i t i c a l Economy of P o l i c y Instruments: Tax Expenditures and Subsidies i n Canada," The P o l i t i c s of Canadian Publ ic P o l i c y , ed. Michael M. Atkinson and Marsha A. Chandler (Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press , 1983) 185-86. 6Canada, Department of Finance, Government of Canada Tax  Expenditure Account (Ottawa: Department of Finance, 1979) 31. 32 have been the means by which Government has a i d e d the poor i n d i v i d u a l and c o r p o r a t i o n . C l e a r l y , the p o l i c y instrument w i l l a f f e c t the c h a r a c t e r of the p o l i t i c a l p r o c e s s . However, these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are a l s o a f f e c t e d by the substance of a p o l i c y . Welfare s u b s i d i e s are h i g h l y s c r u t i n i z e d , whereas grants t o i n d u s t r i e s , such as the pulp and paper i n d u s t r y , seem t o flow q u i e t l y through the system. To i n t e r p r e t the c h a r a c t e r of the p o l i t i c a l process of a p o l i c y , the p o l i c y instrument and the substance o f a p o l i c y must be taken i n t o account. 33 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE FEDERAL RENTAL SUPPLY PROGRAMS IN THE GREATER VANCOUVER AREA 1975 -1985 3 4-Four c a t e g o r i e s o f economic i m p a c t s a r e a n a l y z e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r : R e n t a l S t o c k Growth, Economic D i s p l a c e m e n t , M u l t i p l i e r E f f e c t and Employment G e n e r a t i o n . Each s e c t i o n i s composed o f s u b s e c t i o n s w h i c h d e a l w i t h a s p e c i f i c economic impact (e.g. how many h o u s i n g u n i t s / b e d s were c o n s t r u c t e d under each program). The a n a l y s i s o f each economic impact i s based upon e m p i r i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h i s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e form o f a t a b l e s e r i e s . Each t a b l e i s o r g a n i z e d a c c o r d i n g t o one o f f o u r d a t i n g systems, o r time s c a l e s . Some t a b l e s a r e o r g a n i z e d a c c o r d i n g t o the Canada Mortgage and Ho u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n (CMHC) p r o j e c t a p p r o v a l d a t e . [ l ] O t h e r s a r e o r g a n i z e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e y e a r when a b u i l d i n g i s ready f o r i n i t i a l o c c u p a t i o n , w h i c h i s 1 t o 1 1 / 2 y e a r s a f t e r t h e CMHC p r o j e c t a p p r o v a l d a t e . T a b l e s d e a l i n g w i t h MURB a r e o r g a n i z e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e d a t e when CMHC i s s u e d a MURB c e r t i f i c a t e , w h i c h a p p r o x i m a t e l y c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e CMHC p r o j e c t a p p r o v a l d a t e . A s m a l l number o f t a b l e s a r e o r g a n i z e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e d a t e when a u n i t i s r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e Land T i t l e O f f i c e , w h i c h a l s o a p p r o x i m a t e l y c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e CMHC p r o j e c t a p p r o v a l d a t e . IThe CMHC p r o j e c t a p p r o v a l d a t e has been used as a bench mark t o f a c i l i t a t e comparisons between t a b l e s . T h i s has n e c e s s i t a t e d e s t i m a t i n g t h i s d a t e f o r p r o j e c t s w h i c h were n ot s u b s i d i z e d by CMHC. RENTAL STOCK GROWTH T h i s s e c t i o n d e a l s w i t h the impact each program had on the s i z e of the r e n t a l housing stoc k i n the Greater Vancouver Area. F i r s t , the number of un i t s / b e d s c o n s t r u c t e d under each program i s examined. Next, the q u e s t i o n o f condominium c o n v e r s i o n as i t r e l a t e s t o u n i t s b u i l t under the programs i s d i s c u s s e d . TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS/BEDS CONSTRUCTED The d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s economic impact i s d i v i d e d i n t o three segments. F i r s t , the t o t a l number of uni t s / b e d s produced under each program i s analyzed. Next, temporal p a t t e r n s i n the un i t / b e d p r o d u c t i o n of each program are examined. L a s t l y , p a t t e r n s i n the l o c a t i o n of u n i t s c o n s t r u c t e d under each program are d i s c u s s e d . Program Totals Roughly double the number of u n i t s were c o n s t r u c t e d under the market-welfare programs i n comparison t o the s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs: 23,169 t o 12,662 u n i t s . However, bed p r o d u c t i o n i s l i m i t e d t o the s o c i a l - w e l f a r e s e c t o r , which produced 2,653 beds. T o t a l s f o r the market-welfare programs i n t h i s chapter do not i n c l u d e ARP a c t i v i t y i n order t o a v o i d a double c o u n t i n g e r r o r : most ARP u n i t s were l o c a t e d i n MURB c e r t i f i e d b u i l d i n g s . A t o t a l of 83 pe r c e n t of the 23,169 market-welfare u n i t s are MURB u n i t s , u n i t s i n c e r t i f i e d MURB b u i l d i n g s . The remaining 17 36 T O T A L N U M B E R O F U N I T S C O N S T R U C T E D MURB ARP CRSP 15.1 34. 10 56. 1 N 56.1 C MARKET SOCI AL Program figure 1 percent are CRSP u n i t s . There a r e , however, q u e s t i o n s as t o the accuracy of the MURB data used i n t h i s t h e s i s (see Appendix C ). Irw i n L i t h w i c k c o n s i d e r s MURB a p a r t of ARP.[2] C l a y t o n Research A s s o c i a t e s L i m i t e d s t a t e s " i t i s not p o s s i b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h between the impacts of the two measures s e p a r a t e l y 0 2Irwin L i t h w i c k , An E v a l u a t i o n of the F e d e r a l A s s i s t e d  R e n t a l Program (1976-77). ([Ottawa]: C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n , 1978) 28. 37 TABLE 3 MURB: TOTAL NUMBER OF MURB UNITS COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 62 218 1,251 880 317 2,728 COQUITLAM 36 115 524 263 60 998 DELTA 145 17 50 89 199 500 NEW WESTMINSTER 14 137 482 394 25 1,052 NORTH VANCOUVER 99 357 892 392 190 1,930 PORT COQUITLAM 0 43 13 11 0 67 PORT MOODY 0 0 107 390 48 545 RICHMOND 319 27 824 876 696 2,742 SURREY 0 234 143 924 228 1,529 VANCOUVER 493 924 2,795 1,962 613 6,787 WEST VANCOUVER 0 24 144 107 46 321 TOTAL 1,168 2,096 7,225 6,288 2,422 19,199 NOTE: CI) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE DATE WHEN CMHC ISSUED THE MURB CERTIFICATE (2) MURB DUPLEX UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED Df THE ABOVE DATA (3) 1979 DATA ONLY ENCOMPASSES AN 11 MONTH PERIOD (4) DATA FOR THE YEARS 1980 AND 1981 IS NOT AVAILABLE (5) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY "NORTH VANCOUVER" SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 38 TABLE 4 ARP: TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS CONSTRUCTED COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL BURNABY N/A 189 1,014 0 1,203 COQUITLAM N/A 260 110 36 406 DELTA N/A 0 48 0 48 NEW WESTMINSTER N/A 180 429 0 609 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY N/A 122 436 230 788 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT N/A 0 0 0 0 PORT COQUITLAM N/A 13 0 0 13 PORT MOODY N/A 23 120 0 143 RICHMOND N/A 102 907 144 1,153 SURREY N/A 186 369 0 555 VANCOUVER N/A 603 1,882 123 2,608 WEST VANCOUVER N/A 0 147 0 147 1971 CENSUS, VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA 210 TOTAL 1,678 5,462 533 TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS CONSTRUCTED UNDER ARP FROM 1975 TO 1978 = 7,883 NOTE: DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 39 TABLE 5 CRSP: TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS CONSTRUCTED COMMUNITY 1982 1983 1984 TOTAL BURNABY Q 288 257 545 COQUITLAM 89 277 0 366 DELTA 0 83 0 83 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 214 317 531 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0 158 132 290 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0 0 0 0 PORT COQUITLAM 0 50 0 50 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 RICHMOND 0 404 0 404 SURREY 0 327 347 674 VANCOUVER 0 544 483 1,027 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 89 2,345 1,536 3,970 NOTE: DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 40 TABLE 6 15.1 NON-PROFIT: TOTAL NUMBER OF BEDS CONSTRUCTED COMMUNITY 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 TOTAL BURNABY 0 0 0 0 0 0 COQUITLAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 DELTA 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 NORTH VANCOUVER 0 0 6 0 0 6 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 0 0 RICHMOND 0 0 0 0 0 0 SURREY 0 6 0 0 0 6 VANCOUVER 0 196 206 44 212 658 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 202 212 44 212 670 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 41 TABLE 7 15.1 NON-PROFIT: TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS CONSTRUCTED COMMUNITY 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 TOTAL BURNABY 0 63 209 0 0 272 COQUITLAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 DELTA 0 0 48 0 0 48 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 193 0 129 0 322 NORTH VANCOUVER 0 15 0 82 0 97 PORT COQUITLAM 0 202 0 0 0 202 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 0 0 RICHMOND 64 0 0 0 0 64 SURREY 0 0 0 0 0 0 VANCOUVER 232 238 307 161 64 1,002 WEST VANCOUVER 0_ 0 45 0 0 45 TOTAL 296 711 609 372 64 2,052 l NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various files. 42 TABLE 8 34.18 CO-OP: TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS CONSTRUCTED COMMUNITY 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 0 0 0 0 0 COQUITLAM 0 0 0 0 0 DELTA 0 0 0 0 0 NEW WESTMINSTER 42 0 0 0 42 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0 0 0 0 0 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0 65 0 0 65 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 0 0 0 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 0 RICHMOND 0 0 0 0 0 SURREY 0 0 0 0 0 VANCOUVER 28 330 20 205 583 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 70 395 20 205 690 NOTE: DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 43 TABLE 9 56.1 NON-PROFIT: TOTAL NUMBER OF BEDS CONSTRUCTED COMMUNITY 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 TOTAL BURNABY 0 6 45 22 10 5 0 14 102 COQUITLAM 0 8 87 8 0 0 2 • 0 105 DELTA 8 101 0 0 0 5 0 0 114 NEW WESTMINSTER 5 0 0 82 0 0 0 10 97 NORTH VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 154 14 22 0 190 PORT COQUITLAM 0 5 0 1 0 6 0 0 12 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RICHMOND 0 0 0 0 80 5 0 0 85 SURREY 6 6 58 0 6 0 5 17 98 VANCOUVER 10 259 414 267 129 41 6 54 1,180 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 29 385 604 380 379 76 1,983 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER (3) FOR 82 UNITS APPROVED IN 1979, IT COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER THEY WERE Co-operative OR NON-PROFIT UNITS. THESE UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS OR ANY OTHER 56.1 NON-PROFIT TABLE. SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 44 TABLE 10 56.1 NON-PROFIT: TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS CONSTRUCTED COMMUNITY 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 TOTAL BURNABY 0 0 0 0 27 218 38 0 283 COQUITLAM 0 0 0 195 57 0 0 0 252 DELTA 0 0 0 85 131 0 0 0 216 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 0 0 0 48 0 94 0 142 NORTH VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 85 111 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 78 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 52 RICHMOND 0 0 0 68 162 200 45 45 520 SURREY 0 0 271 447 0 0 0 0 718 VANCOUVER 0 36 30 333 202 312 227 593 1,733 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 36 301 1,206 679 756 404 723 4,105 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED TUTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER (3) FOR 82 UNITS APPROVED IN 1979, IT COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER THEY WERE Co-operative OR NON-PROFIT UNITS. THESE UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS OR ANY OTHER 56.1 NON-PROFIT TABLE. SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various files. 4 5 TABLE 11 56.1 CO-OPERATIVE: TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS CONSTRUCTED COMMUNITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 TOTAL BURNABY 0 0 504 284 0 240 72 1,100 COQUITLAM 0 0 157 291 0 0 0 448 DELTA 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 24 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 0 0 0 49 86 147 282 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 67 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0 0 0 0 173 0 0 173 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 25 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 60 RICHMOND 0 0 0 72 94 64 120 350 SURREY 60 0 215 232 0 0 0 507 VANCOUVER 142 189 461 285 436 733 533 2,779 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 202 189 1,386 1,224 752 1,123 939 5,815 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) FOR 82 UNITS APPROVED IN 1979, IT COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER THEY WERE Co-operative OR NON-PROFIT UNITS. THESE UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS OR ANY OTHER 56.1 Co-operative TABLE. SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various files. 46 since v i r t u a l l y a l l ARP projects were MURBS as wel l ."[3] However, the assumption that an equal number of uni t s were produced under both programs cannot be made. The 1975-79 t o t a l for MURB i s 19,199 u n i t s , compared to a 1975-78 t o t a l of 7,883 uni ts for ARP. Why i s there such a large d i f ference i n the l e v e l of a c t i v i t y under the two programs? MURB production numbers include MURB uni ts which d i d not a c t u a l l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n the program (see Appendix C ) . A l s o , ARP i s much more r e s t r i c t i v e than MURB: ARP has r e s t r i c t i o n s on rents , un i t s i z e , and un i t cos t . Furthermore, the 1975 grant format of ARP negat ive ly impacts MURB benef i t s , and the post-May 1978 vers ion of ARP i s much less a t t r a c t i v e than e a r l i e r versions of ARP. Soc ia l -wel fare un i t production i s s p l i t evenly between the co-operative and non-prof i t sectors . A t o t a l of 6,157 non-prof i t uni ts and 2,653 non-prof i t beds were constructed under the 15.1 and 56.1 programs. Co-operative production under the 34.18 and 56.1 programs was comprised of 6,505 un i t s . [ 4 ] Comparison of 15.1 and 34.18 a c t i v i t y versus 56.1 a c t i v i t y reveals 56.1 un i t production was 362 percent higher than 15.1 and 34.18 uni t product ion. Comparison of 15.1 and 56.1 bed production shows a 296 percent increase under 56.1. This 3Clayton Research Associates L imi ted , The Growing Rental  Housing Shortage i n Canada - Causes and Solutions ( n . p . : [The Canadian I n s t i t u t e of Publ ic Real Estate Companies?], 1980) 12. 4A11 56.1 quant i ta t ive data includes s p e c i a l purpose housing (see Appendix A ) . 47 information must be tempered by the fac t that the 56.1 s t a t i s t i c s span a time per iod almost twice that of the 15.1 and 34.18 s t a t i s t i c s . However, the conclus ion can s t i l l be reached that the 56.1 program was used more a c t i v e l y than i t s predecessors. I t i s a lso i n t e r e s t i n g to note that with the switch to the 56.1 program, co-operat ive a c t i v i t y assumed a larger share of u n i t product ion. Co-operative un i t s account for 25 percent of the combined 15.1 and 34.18 un i t product ion. Under the 56.1 program co-operat ive un i t s account for 59 percent of t o t a l un i t product ion. 48 Temporal Patterns What a c c o u n t s f o r t h e s i m i l a r t r e n d s i n program a c t i v i t y o v e r t i m e found i n MURB and ARP? An e x a m i n a t i o n o f M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver vacancy r a t e s i n p r i v a t e l y i n i t i a t e d r e n t a l apartments and changes i n program s p e c i f i c s p r o v i d e some i n s i g h t . LU 13 < H Z UJ U LT LU a M E T R O P O L I T A N V A N C O U V E R V A C A N C Y R A T E S PRIVATE RENTAL APARTMENTS (>5 UN ITS} 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 75 OCT 75 APR 76 OCT 75 APR 77 OCT 77 APR 78 OCT 78 TIME I APR 79 OCT 79 f i g u r e 2 Canada Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n , Semi Annual  Vacancy Survey (Vancouver: Canada Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n , v a r i o u s y e a r s ) . 49 M U R B A N D A R P : U N I T P R O D U C T I O N P E R Y E A R 1375 197B 1977 197B 1979 T ime • MURB + A R P figure 3 Both programs s t a r t out w i t h a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l degree of a c t i v i t y i n 1975, even though vacancy r a t e s are extremely low. F i r s t year a c t i v i t y , under F e d e r a l p r i v a t e market programs, are bound t o s t a r t out s m a l l . Developers need time t o f u l l y understand the programs, and t h e r e i s l i k e l y t o be some i n i t i a l h e s i t a t i o n on t h e i r p a r t . In 1976 t h i n g s s t a r t t o p i c k up under both programs as developers begin t o respond t o the combination of low vacancy r a t e s and Government s u b s i d i e s . Furthermore ARP changes from a grant t o a l o a n which i n c r e a s e s the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of s t a c k i n g MURB onto ARP. In 1977 a c t i v i t y under both programs 50 peak as projects i n i t i a t e d i n 1976, with i t s low vacancy ra tes , come on stream. The massive increase i n construct ion a c t i v i t y pushes the vacancy rate up to 1.6, which i s s t i l l below the minimum of 2.0 percent determined to be necessary for the proper funct ioning of the r e n t a l market, but which may have been high enough to make investors caut ious . In 1978 the CCA of framed developments under MURB drops from 10 to 5 percent. MURB a c t i v i t y dec l ines s l i g h t l y , however, ARP a c t i v i t y drops sharply , i n response to the May 1978 program change which immensely reduces the at tract iveness of t h i s vers ion of ARP. MURB a c t i v i t y dec l ines sharply i n 1979 i n conjunction with the termination of ARP, a second year (1978) of higher vacancy rates and the termination of e l i g i b i l i t y of framed bui ld ings for p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n MURB. What of the temporal patterns of other programs? From the vacancy rate f igures below, i t i s obvious that Metropol i tan Vancouver q u a l i f i e d as a t i g h t r e n t a l market for p a r t i c i p a t i o n under CRSP. However, un l ike MURB and ARP, l i t t l e can be sa id regarding the number or t iming of CRSP uni ts i n r e l a t i o n to market f a c t o r s . CRSP uni t s were a l l oca ted according to Federal Government p o l i t i c a l p r i o r i t i e s , which need not correspond to market pressures . The same can be sa id of the soc ia l -we l fare programs. 51 TABLE 12 METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER VACANCY RATES IN PRIVATELY INITIATED RENTAL APARTMENT STRUCTURES OF SIX UNITS AND OVER, 1982-84 (PERCENT) APRIL OCTOBER 1982 1983 1984 0.6 2.6 2.4 1.9 1.3 2.2 SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, Semi Annual Spatial Patterns To a i d i n the determination of the s p a t i a l impact of the programs, the subareas of the Greater Vancouver Area have been d iv ided in to older es tabl i shed areas and new emerging areas. The es tabl i shed areas cons i s t of Burnaby, New Westminster, North Vancouver C i t y , Richmond and Vancouver. The emerging areas are comprised of Coquitlam, De l ta , North Vancouver D i s t r i c t , Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and West Vancouver. In those cases were a d i s t i n c t i o n between North Vancouver C i t y and D i s t r i c t can not be made, the combined area of North Vancouver i s included among the es tabl i shed areas. Market- and soc ia l -we l fare production i s concentrated i n es tabl i shed areas. The market-welfare programs are overwhelmingly concentrated i n the es tabl i shed areas: 79 percent of MURB u n i t s , 8 3 percent of ARP uni t s (excluding 1975 a c t i v i t y ) , and 70 percent of CRSP u n i t s . Vacancy Survey. 52 The es tabl i shed area concentrat ion f igures for soc ia l -we l fare un i t production are 86 percent for 15.1, 91 percent for 34.18, 68 percent for 56.1 non-prof i t and 79 percent for 56.1 co-operative u n i t s . Furthermore, 99 percent of 15.1 beds and 83 percent of 56.1 non-prof i t beds were constructed i n es tabl i shed areas. Not only i s 34.18 un i t and 15.1 bed construct ion almost wholly devoted to es tabl i shed areas, production under these programs i s a lso almost t o t a l l y devoted to the C i t y of Vancouver: 84 percent of 34.18 production and 98 percent of 15.1 bed production occurred i n Vancouver. Co-operative uni t product ion i s concentrated i n es tabl i shed areas to a higher extent than non-prof i t un i t product ion. A t o t a l of 85 percent of co-operat ive production and 77 percent of non-prof i t production occurred i n establ i shed areas. Note however, 91 percent of non-prof i t bed production i s located i n es tabl i shed areas. Unit and bed production under 15.1 and 34.18 i s more concentrated i n es tabl i shed areas than 56.1 product ion. The average percentage of 15.1 and 34.18 production b u i l t i n es tabl i shed areas i s 89 percent for uni ts and 99 percent for beds. In comparison, the f igures for the 56.1 program are 74 and 83 percent. 53 CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION Condominium c o n v e r s i o n r e f e r s t o the process of t r a n s f o r m i n g r e n t a l m u l t i p l e f a m i l y housing i n t o ownership housing, or as i t i s a l t e r n a t i v e l y c a l l e d , condominium housing. T h i s d i s c u s s i o n i s devoted t o understanding the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of condominium c o n v e r s i o n r e s t r i c t i o n s , which f a c e owners of market- and s o c i a l - w e l f a r e u n i t s . There are two r e s t r i c t i o n s . L o c a l governments have the power t o l i m i t condominium c o n v e r s i o n . Furthermore, the market- and s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs r e s t r i c t condominium c o n v e r s i o n . To f u l l y understand the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of l o c a l government l e g i s l a t i o n i n l i m i t i n g condominium c o n v e r s i o n r e q u i r e s examining t a b l e s d e a l i n g w i t h the intended and r e g i s t e r e d use of row and apartment u n i t s i n the Greater Vancouver Area. The intended use t a b l e s d e s c r i b e the number of row housing and apartment u n i t s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r i n t e n d e d use, r e n t a l or condominium, when c o n s t r u c t e d . The r e g i s t r a t i o n t a b l e s s t a t e the number of row housing and apartment u n i t s which were r e n t a l or condominium a c c o r d i n g t o whether they were r e g i s t e r e d as condominiums i n a Land T i t l e O f f i c e or not. The intended use of a housing u n i t whether r e n t a l or condominium need not correspond t o i t s r e g i s t e r e d use. The r e g i s t r a t i o n of a u n i t as a condominium w i t h a Land T i t l e O f f i c e does not l i m i t the a b i l i t y of the u n i t t o be r e n t e d . However, i f a r e n t a l u n i t has not been r e g i s t e r e d as a condominium, the a b i l i t y of the owner t o convert the u n i t from r e n t a l i n t o a 54 condominium may be r e s t r i c t e d by l o c a l government. For example, i n the C i t y of Vancouver, i f the uni ts i n a b u i l d i n g have not been reg i s tered as condominiums p r i o r to i n i t i a l occupation on a r e n t a l bas i s , the C i t y r e s t r i c t s the a b i l i t y of the b u i l d i n g owner to convert the uni t s in to condominiums.[5] The key to determining the e f f i c i e n c y of l o c a l government regulat ions i n l i m i t i n g condominium conversion i s the d i f ference i n the proport ion of r e n t a l versus condominium uni t s according to t h e i r intended use and the proport ion of rent versus condominium uni t s according to t h e i r r e g i s t r a t i o n . Over a 10 year per iod , the intended use tables show that there were 31,605 r e n t a l uni t s versus 20,467 condominium uni t s i n the Greater Vancouver Area.[6] The r e g i s t r a t i o n tables show something quite d i f f e r e n t : 7,523 r e n t a l uni ts versus 44,549 condominium un i t s . [7 ] S imi lar di f ferences between r e n t a l versus condominium uni t proportions for intended use and reg i s tered use data ex i s t i n a l l of the l o c a l areas under study. 5Alison Higginson, telephone interview, 1 December 1988. 6Due to d i f ferences between the dat ing systems of the intended use tables and the r e g i s t r a t i o n tab les , comparisons between these two sets of tables for small time periods cannot be made; however, comparisons over the t o t a l 10 year per iod of the tables reduces dating d i f ferences and allows general conclusions to be reached (see Appendix B ) . 7The occurrence of negative values i n the r e n t a l r e g i s t r a t i o n table i s a r e s u l t of problems involved i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of the values presented i n the table (see Appendix B) . These problems, however, are not so great as to negate or throw into doubt the conclusion reached i n the fo l lowing paragraph. 55 TABLE 13 NUMBER OF RENTAL ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT COMPLETIONS ACCORDING TO INTENDED USE COMMUNITY 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 BURNABY 0 264 536 488 594 444 1,522 COQUITLAM 0 263 216 60 496 40 487 DELTA 0 0 66 255 2 168 30 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 233 411 0 150 143 199 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 39 188 370 304 303 253 201 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0 0 0 0 0 39 36 PORT COQUTTLAM 10 13 0 0 0 75 73 PORT MOODY 24 23 0 60 158 88 0 RICHMOND 0 373 646 681 304 683 1,389 SURREY 0 164 469 292 893 929 635 VANCOUVER 104 558 2,298 718 1,169 1,158 791 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 147 60 60 0 0 TOTAL 177 2,079 5,159 2,918 4,129 4,020 5,363 NOTE: DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, B r i t i s h Columbia and Yukon Regional Office, various f i l e s . 56 TABLE 13 NUMBER OF RENTAL ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT COMPLETIONS ACCORDING TO INTENDED USE (CONT.) COMMUNITY 1983 1984 1985 1986 TOTAL BURNABY 451 342 501 0 5,142 COQUITLAM 395 110 0 0 2,067 DELTA 24 59 0 0 604 NEW WESTMINSTER 95 178 353 0 1,762 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 51 79 93 0 1,881 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 32 11 67 0 185 PORT COQUITLAM 0 50 0 0 221 PORT MOODY 0 16 0 0 369 RICHMOND 297 645 0 31 5,049 SURREY 586 675 331 64 5,038 VANCOUVER 888 649 464 221 9,018 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 2 269 TOTAL 2,819 2,814 1,809 318 31,605 57 TABLE 14 NUMBER OF CONDOMINIUM ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT COMPLETIONS ACCORDING TO INTENDED USE COMMUNITY 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 BURNABY 1,288 1,046 0 0 0 146 256 COQUITLAM 199 299 36 23 0 58 0 DELTA 102 0 123 11 33 15 85 NEW WESTMINSTER 223 216 0 0 0 0 55 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 257 66 16 0 49 56 39 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 236 461 12 22 0 57 26 PORT COQUITLAM 101 4 24 0 12 7 72 PORT MOODY 0 236 246 52 0 0 0 RICHMOND 463 405 291 115 76 43 62 SURREY 289 52 87 31 0 161 124 VANCOUVER 1,072 1,383 472 290 116 527 478 WEST VANCOUVER 34 125 41 48 30 70 72 TOTAL 4,264 4,293 1,348 592 616 1,140 1,269 NOTE: DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, B r i t i s h Columbia and Yukon Regional Office, various f i l e s . 58 TABLE 14 NUMBER OF CONDOMINIUM ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT COMPLETIONS ACCORDING TO INTENDED USE (CONT.) COMMUNITY 1983 1984 1985 1986 TOTAL BURNABY 312 109 155 475 3,787 COQUITLAM 60 0 60 117 852 DELTA 0 116 33 133 651 NEW WESTMINSTER 96 0 0 197 787 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0 41 127 105 756 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 13 41. 41 61 970 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 12 38 270 PORT MOODY 10 0 0 . 7 551 RICHMOND 65 145 272 494 2,431 SURREY 85 65 145 550 1,589 VANCOUVER 246 452 519 1,368 7,223 WEST VANCOUVER •8 15 68 89 600 TOTAL 895 984 1,432 3,634 20,467 59 TABLE 15 NUMBER OF RENTAL ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT UNITS ACCORDING TO REGISTRATION COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 BURNABY 199 (223) (314) 285 307 317 819 198 COQUITLAM 78 280 35 12 439 (44) 261 (25) DELTA 61 (159) 189 128 (159) 169 (53) (144) NEW WESTMINSTER (258) 230 240 (142) 99 24 197 (28) NORTH VANCOUVER (80) (151) (348) 58 228 143 (92) (100) PORT COQUITLAM 62 (69) 15 (15) 6 70 138 (146) PORT MOODY (3) 259 (50) (76) 60 88 0 (236) RICHMOND 97 103 193 484 19 372 678 (991) SURREY 257 (100) 481 (444) 751 755 (282) (436) VANCOUVER (185) 429 1,743 483 930 1,011 (474) (1,058) WEST VANCOUVER (226) (2) 63 41 (16) (215) (102) (68) TOTAL 2 597 2,247 814 2,664 2,690 1,090 (3,034) NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE DATE A UNIT IS REGISTERED IN A LAND TITLE OFFICE, WHICH IT IS ASSUMED APPROXIMATELY CORRESPONDS TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, THE WEST VANCOUVER CATEGORY INCLUDES LIONS BAY (3) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Land Title Office, various f i l e s , New Westminster and Vancouver. 60 TABLE 15 NUMBER OF RENTAL ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT UNITS ACCORDING TO REGISTRATION (CONT.) COMMUNITY 1983 1984 1985 TOTAL BURNABY (434) 127 (23) 1,258 COQUITLAM (93) (156) 30 817 DELTA 175 (83) 57 181 NEW WESTMINSTER 131 228 (38) 683 NORTH VANCOUVER 79 183 (37) (117) PORT COQUITLAM 37 (38) 14 74 PORT MOODY 6 0 7 55 RICHMOND 250 (439) 305 1,071 SURREY 59 (131) 138 1,048 VANCOUVER (265) (220) 489 2,883 WEST VANCOUVER 1 35 59 (430) TOTAL (54) (494) 1,001 7,523 61 TABLE 16 NUMBER OF CONDOMINIUM ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT UNITS ACCORDING TO REGISTRATION COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 BURNABY 1,089 1,533 850 203 287 273 959 565 COQUITLAM 121 282 217 71 57 142 226 480 DELTA 41 159 0 138 194 14 168 168 NEW WESTMINSTER 481 219 171 142 51 119 57 219 NORTH VANCOUVER 612 866 746 268 124 262 394 196 PORT COQUITLAM 49 86 9 15 6 12 7 146 PORT MOODY 27 0 296 188 98 0 0 246 RICHMOND 366 675 744 312 361 354 773 1,353 SURREY 32 316 75 767 142 335 1,041 1,107 VANCOUVER 1,361 1,512 1,027 525 655 674 1,743 2,192 WEST VANCOUVER 260 127 125 67 106 285 174 76 TOTAL 4,439 5,775 4,260 2,696 2,081 2,470 5,542 6,748 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE DATE A UNIT IS REGISTERED IN A LAND TITLE OFFICE, WHICH IT IS ASSUMED APPROXIMATELY CORRESPONDS TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, THE WEST VANCOUVER CATEGORY INCLUDES LIONS BAY (3) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Land T i t l e Office, New Westminster and Vancouver. 62 TABLE 16 NUMBER OF CONDOMTJJIUM ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT UNITS ACCORDING TO REGISTRATION (CONT.) COMMUNITY 1983 1984 1985 TOTAL BURNABY 885 529 498 7,671 COQUITLAM 203 216 87 2,102 DELTA 0 116 76 1,074 NEW WESTMINSTER 47 125 235 1,866 NORTH VANCOUVER 93 145 203 3,909 PORT COQUITLAM 13 50 24 417 PORT MOODY 10 0 0 865 RICHMOND 540 711 220 6,409 SURREY 681 607 476 5,579 VANCOUVER 1,366 1,203 1,100 13,358 WEST VANCOUVER 14 33 32 1,299 TOTAL 3,852 3,735 2,951 44,549 63 Developers throughout the Greater Vancouver Area have r e g i s t e r e d t h e i r u n i t s as condominiums, even though they may i n i t i a l l y r e n t t h e i r u n i t s i n order t o f a c i l i t a t e p o s s i b l e f u t u r e condominium c o n v e r s i o n by cir c u m v e n t i n g l o c a l government condominium c o n v e r s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s . Condominium c o n v e r s i o n i s a g r e a t e r t h r e a t t o r e n t a l u n i t s produced under the market-welfare programs than those c r e a t e d under the s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs. Under MURB, one c o u l d c o v e r t a u n i t a t any time a t the c o s t of l o s i n g the tax s h e l t e r b e n e f i t s . These b e n e f i t s d e c l i n e w i t h time o f f e r i n g l a r g e b e n e f i t s f o r approximately 5 years a f t e r purchase; however, u n i t s a l e r e s t a r t s the b e n e f i t process (see Appendix A).[8] ARP u n i t s had t o remain r e n t a l u n t i l the end of the subsidy disbursement p e r i o d , which ranged from 5 t o 15 y e a r s . T h i s requirement c o u l d be negated a t anytime a t the c o s t of f u t u r e ARP grants or immediate repayment of the o u t s t a n d i n g ARP loan depending on the v e r s i o n of ARP one i s d e a l i n g w i t h . With CRSP the lo a n was i n t e r e s t f r e e f o r 15 years over which time CRSP u n i t s had to remain r e n t a l . I f they d i d not, the t o t a l l o a n amount would become due immediately. In the Greater Vancouver Area, CMHC agreements w i t h p r o j e c t sponsors r e q u i r e d 15.1 and 34.18 u n i t s t o remain r e n t a l f o r 50 8For the i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h i s paragraph concerning MURB, ARP and CRSP, I am indebted t o Len Gross, telephone i n t e r v i e w , 1 December 1988. . 64 y e a r s . [ 9 ] Under the 56.1 program the r e n t a l requirement was f o r 35 y e a r s i n the Greater Vancouver Area.[10] CMHC w i l l take l e g a l a c t i o n to b l o c k any attempts t o engage i n condominium c o n v e r s i o n w h i l e these agreements are i n e f f e c t . [ 1 1 ] In order t o prematurely terminate these agreements, a p a r t i c i p a n t has t o prematurely repay the housing p r o j e c t l o a n which would occur a t the c o s t of f u t u r e mortgage payment s u b s i d i e s . [ 1 2 ] Even once the agreement has been terminated, sponsors are bound by an u n a l t e r a b l e c l a u s e i n t h e i r i n c o r p o r a t i n g documents t o the p r o v i s i o n of n o n - p r o f i t housing, but the q u e s t i o n i s once the CMHC-sponsor agreement i s terminated, who w i l l make sure t h a t the sponsor abides by the n o n - p r o f i t c l a u s e . [ 1 3 ] There i s a g r e a t danger of l o s i n g the p o r t i o n of the r e n t a l s t o c k s u b s i d i z e d under the market-welfare programs. L o c a l government condominium c o n v e r s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s have f o r the m a j o r i t y of u n i t s been circumvented. Market-welfare program r e s t r i c t i o n s on condominium c o n v e r s i o n are f o r a s h o r t time p e r i o d , and g i v e n the r i g h t economic c o n d i t i o n s , p e n a l t i e s f o r co n t r a v e n i n g the r e s t r i c t i o n s c o u l d become i n e f f e c t i v e . 9Stephen Pomeroy, telephone i n t e r v i e w , 1 December 1988. lOPomeroy, telephone i n t e r v i e w , 1 December 1988. UDon Hazelton, telephone i n t e r v i e w , 22, 23 March 1989. 12Pomeroy, telephone i n t e r v i e w , 1 December 1988. 13Hazelton, telephone i n t e r v i e w , 22, 23 March 1989. 65 ECONOMIC DISPLACEMENT Q u i t e o f t e n government housing programs have an economic displacement e f f e c t . I f a r e n t a l program causes displacement, i t means the r e n t a l p r i c e of a p r o p o r t i o n of developers (group x) i s so h i g h i n comparison t o the r e n t a l p r i c e of the remaining developers (group y) t h a t the a f t e r s u b s i d y u n i t q u a l i t y and r e n t a l p r i c e of the u n i t s c r e a t e d by group x can be matched by group y without the h e l p of a subsidy. A program which does not cause displacement produces housing a t a q u a l i t y and price which developers cannot match on t h e i r own. Thus, a displacement r a t e of 75 percent means t h a t t h r e e - q u a r t e r s of the u n i t s s u b s i d i z e d under a program would have been b u i l t w i t h an equal or high e r q u a l i t y and an equal or lower p r i c e i n l i e u of the program. Three f a c e t s of displacement w i l l be d i s c u s s e d f o r each program: the number of uni t s / b e d s which r e s u l t e d i n displacement, the number of " e x t r a u n i t s / b e d s " c o n s t r u c t e d under each program and the d o l l a r v a l u e of those u n i t s which r e s u l t e d i n displacement. NUMBER OF DISPLACED UNITS/BEDS A c c o r d i n g t o a 1984 CMHC r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s , both ARP and MURB have a displacement r a t e of 28 percent.[14] 14Canada Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n , An A n a l y s i s of the R e n t a l Market (n.p.: Canada Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n , 1984) 18-19. 66 Irwin Lithwick also ca l cu la ted the displacement rate of ARP and MURB.[15] Using an econometric model to compute displacement, he derived an 81 percent displacement ra te . However, the econometric model d i d not "take in to account the gap between market rents and operating costs plus debt service costs."[16] Lithwick argues t h i s gap was so large as to r e s u l t i n a 0 percent displacement ra te . In other words, the gap between at ta inable rents and operating costs inc lud ing debt serv ice costs was so large no new r e n t a l construct ion would have taken place i f MURB and ARP had not ex i s ted . By averaging the two displacement ra te s , Lithwick reaches the conclus ion that ARP and MURB had a 40 percent displacement ra te . However, he warns that "this estimate should be treated with a subs tant ia l degree of caution"[17] and that the estimate i s only appl icable to 1976. Clayton Research Associates Limited not only apply the 40 percent displacement rate for the years 1975 through 1979 but a lso state that due to the continuance of a large gap between operating costs inc lud ing debt s e r v i c i n g costs and r e n t a l income, the 40 percent displacement rate i s a maximum.[18] A l l ARP and MURB tables deal ing with displacement have been ca l cu la ted twice: once using the 28 percent displacement rate and 15For the information on Irwin Li thwick ' s displacement est imation I am indebted to Irwin Li thwick , 23-29. 16Irwin Li thwick , 24. 17lrwin Li thwick , 28. 18Clayton Research Associates L imi ted , 1980, 13. 67 once using the 40 percent ra te . In l i g h t of the above arguments on the accuracy of the 40 percent displacement r a t e , more weight must be given to the tables using the 28 percent displacement r a t e . The CMHC regress ion analys i s a lso deal t with CRSP and the s o c i a l housing programs. While a regress ion c o e f f i c i e n t was generated for CRSP, i t was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , and therefore no displacement percentage can be based on i t . [ 1 9 ] However, i t i s a general ly held theory that at the time of CRSP, 1981 to 1984, the gap between operating costs inc lud ing debt s e r v i c i n g costs and r e n t a l income was so large that the displacement rate for CRSP was most l i k e l y 0 percent. The soc ia l -we l fare programs d i d not r e s u l t i n economic displacement. For the 15.1 and 34.18 programs, regress ion analys i s ind icates a 0 percent displacement rate . [20] The 56.1 regress ion c o e f f i c i e n t was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ; however, the displacement rate for the program can be deduced.[21] The 15.1 and 34.18 programs d id not d i sp lace other u n i t s : the pr iva te r e n t a l market could not dupl icate 15.1 and 34.18 housing q u a l i t y and s t i l l match t h e i r rents . This i s a lso true of housing produced under the 56.1 program; therefore , i t i s 19Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, An Analys i s of  the Rental Market, 1984, 18-19. 20Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, An Analys i s of  the Rental Market, 1984, 18-19. 21Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, An Analys is of  the Rental Market, 1984, 18. 68 quite sound to maintain that the 56.1 program had a 0 percent displacement r a t e . Program T o t a l s The soc ia l -we l fare programs were superior to the market-welfare programs i n minimizing displacement. Between 5,376 and 7,680 of the t o t a l 23,169 market-welfare un i t s created resu l ted i n displacement. MURB resu l ted i n the displacement of between 5,376 and 7,680 of the t o t a l 19,199 MURB N U M B E R O F D I S P L A C E D U N I T S MURB 23% MURB 405S ARP 28% ARP 40J6 P rogram f i g u r e 4 69 TABLE 17 MURE: NUMBER OF DISPLACED UNITS (28% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 17 61. 350 246 89 764 COQUITLAM 10 32 147 74 17 279 DELTA 41 5 14 25 56 140 NEW WESTMINSTER 4 38 135 110 7 295 NORTH VANCOUVER 28 100 250 110 53 540 PORT COQUITLAM 0 12 4 3 0 19 PORT MOODY 0 0 50 109 13 153 RICHMOND 89 8 231 245 195 768 SURREY 0 66 40 259 64 428 VANCOUVER 138 259 783 549 172 1,900 WEST VANCOUVER 0 7 40 30 13 90 TOTAL 327 587 2,023 1,761 678 5,376 1 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE DATE WHEN CMHC ISSUED THE MURB CERTIFICATE (2) MURB DUPLEX UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE DATA (3) 1979 DATA ONLY ENCOMPASSES AN 11 MONTH PERIOD (4) DATA FOR THE YEARS 1980 AND 1981 IS NOT AVAILABLE (5) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the  Rental Market (n.p.: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1984) 18-19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 70 TABLE 18 MURB: NUMBER OF DISPLACED UNITS (40% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 25 87 500 352 127 1,091 COQUITLAM 14 46 210 105 24 399 DELTA 58 7 20 36 80 200 NEW WESTMINSTER 6 55 193 158 10 421 NORTH VANCOUVER 40 143 357 157 76 772 PORT COQUITLAM 0 17 5 4 0 27 PORT MOODY 0 0 43 156 19 218 RICHMOND 128 11 330 350 278 1,097 SURREY 0 94 57 370 91 612 VANCOUVER 197 370 1,118 785 245 2,715 WEST VANCOUVER 0 10 58 43 18 128 TOTAL 467 838 2,890 2,515 969 7,680 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE DATE WHEN CMHC ISSUED THE MURB CERTIFICATE (2) MURB DUPLEX UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE DATA (3) 1979 DATA ONLY ENCOMPASSES AN 11 MONTH PERIOD (4) DATA FOR THE YEARS 1980 AND 1981 IS NOT AVAILABLE (5) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Clayton Research Associates Limited, The Growing Rental  Housing Shortage i n Canada - Causes and Solutions (p.p.: [The Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies?], 1980) 13. Irwin Lithwick, An Evaluation of the Federal Assisted Rental  Program (1976-77) ([Ottawa]: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1978) 23-29. 71 TABLE 19 ARP: NUMBER OF DISPLACED UNITS (28% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL BURNABY N/A 53 284 0 337 COQUITLAM N/A 73 31 10 114 DELTA N/A 0 13 0 13 NEW WESTMINSTER N/A 50 120 0 171 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY N/A 34 122 64 221 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT N/A 0 0 0 0 PORT COQUITLAM N/A 4 0 0 4 PORT MOODY N/A 6 34 0 40 RICHMOND , N/A 29 254 40 323 SURREY N/A 52 103 0 155 VANCOUVER N/A 169 527 34 730 WEST VANCOUVER N/A 0 41 0 41 1971 CENSUS, VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA 59 TOTAL 470 1,529 149 TOTAL NUMBER OF DISPLACED UNITS UNDER ARP FROM 1975 TO 1978 = 2207 NOTE: DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market. 1984, 18-19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various files. 72 TABLE 20 ARP: NUMBER OP DISPLACED UNITS (40% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL BURNABY N/A 76 406 0 481 COQUITLAM N/A 104 44 14 162 DELTA N/A 0 19 0 19 NEW WESTMINSTER N/A 72 172 Q 244 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY N/A 49 174 92 315 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT N/A 0 0 0 0 PORT COQUITLAM N/A 5 0 0 5 PORT MOODY N/A 9 48 0 57 RICHMOND N/A 41 363 58 461 . SURREY N/A 74 148 0 222 VANCOUVER N/A 241 753 49 1,043 WEST VANCOUVER N/A 0 59 0 59 1971 CENSUS, VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA 84 671 2,185 213 TOTAL NUMBER OF DISPLACED UNITS UNDER ARP FROM 1975 TO 1978 =3,153 NOTE: DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Clayton Research Associates Limited, 1980, 13. Irwin Lithwick, 23-29. 73 u n i t s . Under ARP between 2,207 and 3,153 of the t o t a l 7,883 ARP uni t s constructed caused displacement. ARP f igures were not inc luded i n the market-welfare program t o t a l to avoid a double counting e r r o r . Displacement d i d not occur under CRSP. The soc ia l -we l fare programs d i d not r e s u l t i n displacement. Temporal and Spatial Patterns The Number of Displaced Units tables are a funct ion of t o t a l un i t production and constants and therefore w i l l exh ib i t the same temporal and s p a t i a l patterns found i n the table ser ies dea l ing with t o t a l un i t and bed product ion. NUMBER OF EXTRA UNITS/BEDS CONSTRUCTED The term extra units /beds re fers to those units /beds which were created only as a r e s u l t of the programs, or i n other words the t o t a l number of units /beds created minus the number of units /beds which resu l ted i n displacement. Program Totals T o t a l soc ia l -we l fare un i t construct ion equal led 55 percent of t o t a l market-welfare un i t cons truct ion . In terms of extra un i t product ion, the percentage i s between 71 and 82 percent. Furthermore, while no bed construct ion occurred under the market-welfare programs, 6,505 extra beds were created under the s o c i a l -welfare programs. 74 A t o t a l of between 15,489 and 17,793 extra uni ts were created under the market-welfare programs. MURB accounted for 74 percent of the 15,489 t o t a l and 78 percent of the 17,793 t o t a l . CRSP accounted for the remaining 26 and 22 percent re spec t ive ly . Once again the impact of ARP which was between 4,730 and 5,676 extra uni ts was excluded from the market-welfare t o t a l i n order to avoid a double counting e r r o r . N U M B E R O F " E X T R A " U N I T S C O N S T R U C T E D -18 MB 23 MB 40 AP 2B AP 40 CR5P 15.1 34.18 56.1N 56. 1C MKT28 MKT40 33C I AL Program figure 5 75 TABLE 21 MURB: NUMBER OF EXTRA UNITS CONSTRUCTED (28% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 45 157 901 634 228 1,964 COQUITLAM 26 83 377 189 43 719 DELTA 104 12 36 64 143 360 NEW WESTMINSTER 10 99 347 284 18 757 NORTH VANCOUVER 71 257 642 282 137 1,390 PORT COQUITLAM 0 31 9 8 0 48 PORT MOODY 0 0 77 281 35 392 RICHMOND 230 19 593 631 501 1,974 SURREY 0 168 103 665 164 1,101 VANCOUVER 355 665 2,012 1,413 441 4,887 WEST VANCOUVER 0. 17 104 77 33 231 TOTAL 841 1,509 5,202 4,527 1,744 13,823 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE DATE WHEN CMHC ISSUED THE MURB CERTIFICATE (2) MURB DUPLEX UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE DATA (3) 1979 DATA ONLY ENCOMPASSES AN 11 MONTH PERIOD (4) DATA FOR THE YEARS 1980 AND 1981 IS NOT AVAILABLE (5) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market, 18-19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 76 TABLE 22 MURB: NUMBER OF EXTRA UNITS CONSTRUCTED (40% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 37 131 751 528 190 1,637 COQUITLAM 22 69 314 158 36 599 DELTA 87 10 30 53 119 300 NEW WESTMINSTER 8 82 289 236 15 631 NORTH VANCOUVER 59 214 535 235 114 1,158 PORT COQUITLAM Q 26 8 7 0 40 PORT MOODY 0 0 64 234 29 327 RICHMOND 191 16 494 526 418 1,645 SURREY 0 140 86 554 137 917 VANCOUVER 2 % 554 1,677 1,177 368 4,072 WEST VANCOUVER 0 14 86 64 28 193 TOTAL 701 1,258 4,335 3,773 1,453 11,519 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE DATE WHEN CMHC ISSUED THE MURB CERTIFICATE (2) MURB DUPLEX UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE DATA (3) 1979 DATA ONLY ENCOMPASSES AN 11 MONTH PERIOD (4) DATA FOR THE YEARS 1980 AND 1981 IS NOT AVAILABLE (5) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Clayton Research Associates Limited, The Growing Rental Housing Shortage i n Canada, 13. Irwin Lithwick, 23-29. 77 TABLE 23 ARP: NUMBER OF EXTRA UNITS CONSTRUCTED (28% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL BURNABY N/A 136 730 0 866 COQUITLAM N/A 187 79 26 292 DELTA N/A 0 35 0 35 NEW WESTMINSTER N/A 130 309 0 438 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY N/A 88 314 166 567 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT N/A 0 0 0 0 PORT COQUITLAM N/A 9 0 0 9 PORT MOODY N/A 17 86 0 103 RICHMOND N/A 73 653 104 830 SURREY N/A 134 266 0 400 VANCOUVER N/A 434 1,355 89 1,878 WEST VANCOUVER N/A 0 106 0 106 1971 CENSUS, VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA 151 TOTAL 1,208 3,933 384 TOTAL NUMBER OF EXTRA UNITS CONSTRUCTED UNDER ARP FROM 1975 TO 1978 = 5,676 NOTE: DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market, 18-19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 78 TABLE 24 ARP: NUMBER OF EXTRA UNITS CONSTRUCTED (40% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL BURNABY N/A 113 608 0 722 COQUITLAM N/A 156 66' 22 244 DELTA N/A 0 29 0 29 NEW WESTMINSTER N/A 108 257 0 365 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY N/A 73 262 138 473 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT N/A 0 0 0 0 PORT COQUITLAM N/A 8 0 0 8 PORT MOODY N/A 14 72 0 86 RICHMOND N/A 61 544 86 692 SURREY N/A 112 221 0 333 VANCOUVER N/A 362 1,129 74 1,565 WEST VANCOUVER N/A 0 88 Q 88 1971 CENSUS, VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA 126 TOTAL 1,007 3,277 320 TOTAL NUMBER OF EXTRA UNITS CONSTRUCTED UNDER ARP FROM 1975 TO 1978 = 4,730 NOTE: DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Clayton Research Associates Limited, The Growing Rental Shortage i n Canada, 13. Irwin Lithwick, 23-29. 79 TABLE 25 CRSP: NUMBER OF EXTRA UNITS CONSTRUCTED COMMUNITY 1982 1983 1984 TOTAL BURNABY 0 288 257 545 COQUITLAM 89 277 0 366 DELTA Q 83 0. 83 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 214 317 531 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0 158 132 290 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0 0 0 0 PORT COQUITLAM Q 50 0 50 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 RICHMOND 0 404 0 404 SURREY 0 327 347 674 VANCOUVER 0 544 483 1,027 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0. 0 0. TOTAL 89 2,345 , 1,536 3,970 NOTE: (1) CRSP RESULTED IN NO DISPLACEMENT EFFECT (2) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 80 TABLE 26 15.1 NON-PROFIT: NUMBER OF EXTRA BEDS CONSTRUCTED COMMUNITY 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 TOTAL BURNABY 0 0 0 0 0 0 COQUITLAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 DELTA 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 NORTH VANCOUVER 0 0 6 0 0 6 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 ^ 0 0 RICHMOND 0 0 0 0 0 0 SURREY 0 6 0 0 0 6 VANCOUVER 0 196 206 44 212 658 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 202 212 44 212 670 NOTE: (1) THE 15.1 NON-PROFIT PROGRAM RESULTED IN NO DISPLACEMENT EFFECT (2) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (3) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the  Rental Market. 18-19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 81 TABLE 27 15.1 NON-PROFIT: NUMBER OF EXTRA UNITS CONSTRUCTED COMMUNITY 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 TOTAL BURNABY 0 63 209 0 0 272 COQUITLAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 DELTA 0 0 48 0 0 48 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 193 0 129 0 322 NORTH VANCOUVER 0 15 0 82 0 97 PORT COQUITLAM 0 202 0 0 0 202 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 0 0 RICHMOND 64 0 0 0 0 64 SURREY 0 0 0 0 0 0 VANCOUVER 232 238 307 161 64 1,002 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 45 0 0 45 TOTAL 296 711 609 372 64 2,052 NOTE: (1) THE 15.1 NON-PROFIT PROGRAM RESULTED IN NO DISPLACEMENT EFFECT (2) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (3) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the  Rental Market, 18-19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 82 TABLE 28 34.18 CO-OP: NUMBER OF EXTRA UNITS CONSTRUCTED COMMUNITY 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 0 0 0 0 0 COQUITLAM 0 0 0 0 0 DELTA 0 0 0 0 0 NEW WESTMINSTER 42 0 0 0 42 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0 0 0 0 0 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0 65 0 0 65 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 0 0 0 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 0 RICHMOND 0 0 0 0 0 SURREY 0 0 0 0 0 VANCOUVER 28 330 20 205 583 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 70 395 20 205 690 NOTE: (1) THE 34.18 CO-OP PROGRAM RESULTED IN NO DISPLACEMENT EFFECT (2) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the  Rental Market, 18-19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 83 TABLE 29 56.1 NON-PROFIT: NUMBER OF EXTRA BEDS CONSTRUCTED COMMUNITY 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 TOTAL BURNABY 0 6 45 22 10 5 0. 14 102 COQUITLAM 0 8 87 8 0 0 2 0 105 DELTA 8 101 0 0 0 5 0 0 114 NEW WESTMINSTER 5 0 0 82 0 0 0 10 97 NORTH VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 154 14 22 0 190 PORT COQUITLAM 0 5 0 1 0 6 0 0 12 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 RICHMOND 0 0 0 0 80 5 0. 0 85 SURREY 6 6 58 0 6 0 5 17 98 VANCOUVER 10 259 414 267 129 41 6 54 1,180 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 29 385 604 380 379 76 35 95 1,983 NOTE: (1) THE 56.1 PROGRAM RESULTED TU NO DISPLACEMENT EFFECT (2) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (3) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market, 19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 84 TABLE 30 56.1 NON-PROFIT: NUMBER OF EXTRA UNITS CONSTRUCTED COMMUNITY 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 TOTAL BURNABY 0 0 0 0 27 218 38 0 283 COQUITLAM 0 0 0 195 57 Q 0 0 252 DELTA 0 0 0 85 131 0 0 0 216 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 0 0 0 48 0 94 0 142 NORTH VANCOUVER 0 0 0. 0 0 26 0 85 111 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 78 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 52 RICHMOND 0 0 0 68 162 200 45 45 520 SURREY 0 0 271 447 0 0 0 0 718 VANCOUVER 0 36 30 333 202 312 227 593 1,733 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 36 301 1,206 679 756 404 723 4,105 NOTE: (1) THE 56.1 PROGRAM RESULTED IN NO DISPLACEMENT EFFECT (2) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (3) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market, 19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 85 TABLE 31 56.1 CO-OPERATIVE: NUMBER OF EXTRA UNITS CONSTRUCTED COMMUNITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 TOTAL BURNABY 0 0 504 284 0 240 72 1,100 COQUITLAM 0 0 157 291 0 0 0 448 DELTA 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 24 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 0 0 0 49 86 147 282 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 67 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0 0 0 0 173 0 0 173 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 25 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 60 0 0, 0 60 RICHMOND 0 0 0 72 94 64 120 350 SURREY 60 0 215 232 0 0 0 507 VANCOUVER 142 189 461 285 436 733 533 2,779 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 202 189 1,386 1,224 752 1,123 939 5,815 NOTE: (1) THE 56.1 PROGRAM RESULTED IN NO DISPLACEMENT EFFECT (2) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market, 19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 86 The soc ia l -we l fare programs created 12,662 extra uni t s and 2,653 extra beds. This i s i d e n t i c a l to the t o t a l number of uni ts and beds created by the soc ia l -we l fare programs, because these programs d i d not r e s u l t i n displacement. As a r e s u l t , analys i s of soc ia l -we l fare production according to i t s various categories i s a l so i d e n t i c a l to that d e t a i l e d i n the T o t a l Number of Units/Beds Constructed subsection of t h i s chapter: t o t a l non-p r o f i t extra un i t construct ion roughly equals that of co-operative cons truct ion , a l l extra bed construct ion i s l i m i t e d to the non-prof i t sector , the i n t e n s i t y of construct ion under the 56.1 program was higher than that under the 15.1 and 34.18 programs combined, and co-operat ive a c t i v i t y assumed a larger proport ion of t o t a l soc ia l -we l fare extra un i t production once the 15.1 and 34.18 programs were replaced with the 56.1 program. Temporal and S p a t i a l Patterns The Number of Extra Units/Beds Constructed table ser ies i s a funct ion of t o t a l un i t /bed production and constants. Therefore, the temporal and s p a t i a l patterns evident i n the Number of Extra Units/Beds Constructed table ser ies are i d e n t i c a l to those found i n the T o t a l Number of Units/Beds Constructed tables and w i l l not be re-e laborated upon at t h i s time. DOLLAR VALUE OF DISPLACEMENT The value of the uni ts which resu l ted i n displacement under each of the programs i s given i n terms of estimates of the 87 c a p i t a l cost of the uni ts inc lud ing land costs but excluding mortgage costs (see Appendix B for a more d e t a i l e d explanat ion) . Inflation has not been factored out of these estimates. Program Totals Once again, the market-welfare programs f a i r far worse than the soc ia l -we l fare programs. Under the market-welfare programs, a t o t a l of between $147,113,903 and $210,162,718 i n housing was d i sp laced . A l l D O L L A R V A L U E O F D I S P L A C E M E N T MURB 2B% MURB 4 OK AHP 2B% ARP Program figure 6 88 TABLE 32 MURB: DOLLAR VALDE OF DISPLACEMENT (28% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 372,004 1,454,476 9,250,458 7,150,391 2,827,583 21,054,912 COQUITLAM 216,002 767,269 3,874,692 2,136,992 535,189 7,530,145 DELTA 870,010 113,422 369,723 723,165 1,775,044 3,851,364 NEW WESTMINSTER 84,001 914,051 3,564,125 3,201,425 222,996 7,986,598 NORTH VANCOUVER 594,007 2,381,871 6,595,850 3,185,174 1,694,766 14,451,668 PORT COQUITLAM 0 286,892 96,128 89,380 0 472,400 PORT MOODY 0 0 791,206 3,168,923 428,151 4,388,281 RICHMOND 1,914,022 180,141 6,093,027 7,117,890 6,208,195 21,513,275 SURREY 0 1,561,226 1,057,406 7,507,911 2,033,719 12,160,263 VANCOUVER 2,958,034 6,164,842 20,667,489 15,942,123 5,467,850 51,200,337 WEST VANCOUVER 0 160,126 1,064,801 869,423 410,312 2,504,661 TOTAL 7,008,080 13,984,317 53,424,905 51,092,797 21,603,804 147,113,903 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE DATE WHEN CMHC ISSUED THE MURB CERTIFICATE (2) MURB DUPLEX UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE DATA (3) 1979 DATA ONLY ENCOMPASSES AN 11 MONTH PERIOD (4) DATA FOR THE YEARS 1980 AND 1981 IS NOT AVAILABLE (5) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER , SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market, 18-19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s (Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1983) 81. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s (Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1985) 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Administrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section 56.1 Non-Profit and Cooperative Housing Program  Evaluation ([Ottawa]: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1983) 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 89 TABLE 33 HURB: DOLLAR VALUE OF DISPLACEMENT (40% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 531,435 2,077,822 13,214,939 10,214,845 4,039,404 30,078,446 COQUITLAM 308,575 1,096,099 5,535,274 3,052,846 764,556 10,757,350 DELTA 1,242,871 162,032 528,175 1,033,092 2,535,777 5,501,948 NEW WESTMINSTER 120,001 1,305,788 5,091,607 4,573,465 318,565 11,409,426 NORTH VANCOUVER 848,581 3,402,673 9,422,643 4,550,249 2,421,094 20,645,239 PORT COQUITLAM 0 409,846 137,326 127,686 0 674,857 PORT MOODY 0 0 1,130,295 4,527,034 611,645 6,268,973 RICHMOND 2,734,317 257,345 8,704,325 10,168,414 8,868,850 30,733,250 SURREY 0 2,230,323 1,510,581 10,725,587 2,905,313 17,371,804 VANCOUVER 4,225,762 8,806,917 29,524,984 22,774,461 7,811,214 73,143,339 WEST VANCOUVER 0 228,751 1,521,144 1,242,032 586,160 3,578,087 TOTAL 10,011,543 19,977,596 76,321,293 72,989,709 30,862,577 210,162,718 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE DATE WHEN CMHC ISSUED THE MURB CERTIFICATE (2) MURB DUPLEX UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE DATA (3) 1979 DATA ONLY ENCOMPASSES AN 11 MONTH PERIOD (4) DATA FOR THE YEARS 1980 AND 1981 IS NOT AVAILABLE (5) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1983, 81. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Administrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section 56.1 Non-Profit and Cooperative Housing Program  Evaluation. 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Clayton Research Associates Limited, The Growing Rental Housing Shortage i n Canada, 13. Irwin Lithwick, 23-29. 90 TABLE 34 ARP: DOLLAR VALUE OF DISPLACEMENT (28% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNIT? 1975 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL BURNABY N/A 1,260,990 7,497,973 0 8,758,963 COQUITLAM N/A 1,734,696 813,390 292,516 2,840,601 DELTA N/A 0 354,934 0 354,934 NEW WESTMINSTER N/A 1,200,943 3,172,219 0 4,373,163 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY N/A 813,973 3,223,980 1,868,852 5,906,805 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT N/A 0 0 0 0 PORT COQUITLAM N/A 86,735 0 0 86,735 PORT MOODY N/A 153,454 887,334 0 1,040,788 RICHMOND N/A 680,535 6,706,767 1,170,064 8,557,365 SURREY N/A 1,240,975 2,728,552 0 3,969,527 VANCOUVER N/A 4,023,160 13,916,356 999,430 18,938,945 WEST VANCOUVER N/A Q 1,086,984 0 1,086,984 1971 CENSUS, VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA 1,260,014 TOTAL 11,195,460 40,388,489 4,330,862 TOTAL DOLLAR VALUE OF DISPLACED UNITS UNDER ARP FROM 1975 TO 1978 = 57,174,825 NOTE: DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market. 18-19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1983, 81. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s . 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Administrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section 56.1 Non-Profit and Cooperative Housing Program  Evaluation, 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 91 TABLE 35 ARP: DOLLAR VALUE OF DISPLACEMENT (40% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL BURNABY N/A 1,801,415 10,711,390 0 12,512,805 COQUITLAM N/A 2,478,137 1,161,985 417,880 4,058,002 DELTA N/A 0 507,048 0 507,048 NEW WESTMINSTER N/A 1,715,633 4,531,742 0 6,247,375 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY N/A 1,162,818 4,605,686 2,669,789 8,438,293 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT N/A 0 0 0 0 PORT COQUITLAM N/A 123,907 0 0 123,907 PORT MOODY N/A 219,220 1,267,620 0 1,486,840 RICHMOND N/A 972,192 9,581,095 1,671,520 12,224,807 SURREY N/A 1,772,821 3,897,932 0 5,670,753 VANCOUVER N/A S,747,371 19,880,508 1,427,757 27,055,636 WEST VANCOUVER N/A 0 1,552,835 0 1,552,835 1971 CENSUS, VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA 1,800,021 TOTAL 15,993,514 57,697,841 6,186,946 TOTAL DOLLAR VALUE OF DISPLACED UNITS UNDER ARP FROM 1975 TO 1978 = 81,678,322 NOTE: DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1983, 81. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Administrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section 56.1 Non-Profit and Cooperative  Housing Program Evaluation, 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Clayton Research Associates Limited, The Growing Rental Housing Shortage i n Canada. 13. Irwin Lithwick, 23-29. 92 displacement costs are a t t r i b u t a b l e to MURB. CRSP d i d not d i sp lace any u n i t s , and ARP displacement estimates of between $57,174,825 and $81,678,322 were not included i n the market-welfare t o t a l i n order to avoid a double counting e r r o r . No displacement occurred under the soc ia l -we l fare programs; consequently, the d o l l a r value of displacement for these programs i s 0. Temporal and Spatial Patterns The table ser ies for th i s subsection i s not based on constant d o l l a r s . The un i t of measure u t i l i z e d by the tables changes over time. Therefore, these tables are not v a l i d for temporal and s p a t i a l pattern ana lys i s . 93 MULTIPLIER EFFECT I n a g i v e n economic system (e. g . t h e G r e a t e r Vancouver A r e a ) , an i n c r e a s e i n e x p e n d i t u r e s w i l l r e s u l t i n an i n c r e a s e i n t h e income of t h e system w h i c h i s g r e a t e r t h a n t h e i n i t i a l i n c r e a s e i n e x p e n d i t u r e s . T h i s i s r e f e r r e d t o as t h e m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t , w h i c h can be b r o k e n down i n t o t h r e e components: d i r e c t m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t , i n d i r e c t m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t and i n d u c e d m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t . F o r example, an i n v e s t o r e x t e r n a l t o an economic system b u i l d s a b u i l d i n g . The money spen t by t h e i n v e s t o r f o r l a b o u r and m a t e r i a l s s u p p l i e d w i t h i n t h e system r e p r e s e n t s t h e d i r e c t m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t . The money spen t by m a t e r i a l s u p p l i e r s l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e system on l a b o u r from w i t h i n t h e system and m a t e r i a l s o b t a i n e d o r produced w i t h i n t h e system t o f i l l t h e i n v e s t o r s o r d e r s r e p r e s e n t s t h e i n d i r e c t e f f e c t . The money s p e n t by t h e l a b o u r i n v o l v e d i n t h e d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t on goods and s e r v i c e s w i t h i n t h e system r e p r e s e n t s t h e i n d u c e d m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t . The d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t has been c a l c u l a t e d t w i c e : once f o r t h e t o t a l number o f u n i t s c o n s t r u c t e d under each program, t o t a l program s p e n d i n g , and once f o r t h e number o f e x t r a u n i t s c o n s t r u c t e d under each program, " e x t r a program s p e n d i n g . " The d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t o f bed p r o d u c t i o n has not been i n c l u d e d i n t h e s e c a l c u l a t i o n s (see Appendix B ) . Furthermore due to an oversight, inflation has not been factored out. 94 DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF TOTAL SPENDING Program Totals The d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t e f f e c t of t o t a l program spending f o r the market-welfare programs was j u s t over $600 m i l l i o n i n comparison t o j u s t over $550 m i l l i o n f o r the s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs. These f i g u r e s a r e , however, m i s l e a d i n g . The market-w e l f a r e programs c r e a t e d almost twice the number of u n i t s as the M U L T I P L I E R E F F E C T O F T O T A L S P E N D I N G 7D0 — i : '• MURB ARP CRSP 15 .1 34. 18 55.1 N 5B. 1 C MARKET 5DCI AL Program f i g u r e 7 95 TABLE 36 MURB: DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF TOTAL SPENDING COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 1,060,212 4,145,256 26,363,804 20,378,615 8,058,611 60,006,499 COQUITLAM 615,607 2,186,718 11,042,872 6,090,427 1,525,289 21,460,913 DELTA 2,479,528 323,254 1,053,709 2,061,019 5,058,876 10,976,386 NEW WESTMINSTER 239,403 2,605,046 10,157,757 9,124,062 635,537 22,761,805 NORTH VANCOUVER 1,692,919 6,788,332 18,798,172 9,077,747 4,830,083 41,187,253 PORT COQUITLAM 0 817,642 273,964 254,733 0 1,346,339 PORT MOODY 0 0 2,254,938 9,031,432 1,220,231 12,506,601 RICHMOND 5,454,962 513,403 17,365,128 20,285,985 17,693,355 61,312,833 SURREY 0 4,449,495 3,013,608 21,397,546 5,796,099 34,656,748 VANCOUVER 8,430,396 17,569,800 58,902,344 45,435,049 15,583,372 145,920,961 WEST VANCOUVER 0 456,358 3,034,682 2,477,854 1,169,388 7,138,284 TOTAL 19,973,028 39,855,304 152,260,979 145,614,470 61,570,842 419,274,622 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE DATE WHEN CMHC ISSUED THE MURB CERTIFICATE (2) MURB DUPLEX UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE DATA (3) 1979 DATA ONLY ENCOMPASSES AN 11 MONTH PERIOD (4) DATA FOR THE YEARS 1980 AND 1981 IS NOT AVAILABLE (5) DDE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1983, 81. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 AdMnistrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section 56.1 Non-Profit  and Cooperative Housing Program Evaluation. 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . H. Craig Davis, "Income and Employment Multipliers for Seven B r i t i s h Columbia Regions," Canadian Journal of Regional Science IX:1 (1986): 107. 96 TABLE 37 ARP: DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF TOTAL SPENDING COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL BURNABY N/A 3,593,823 21,369,222 0 24,963,045 COQUITLAM N/A 4,943,883 2,318,160 833,671 8,095,714 DELTA N/A 0 1,011,561 0 1,011,561 NEW WESTMINSTER N/A 3,422,688 9,040,825 0 12,463,513 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY N/A 2,319,822 9,188,344 5,326,229 16,834,395 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT N/A 0 0 0 0 PORT COQUITLAM N/A 247,194 Q 0 247,194 PORT MOODY N/A 437,344 2,528,902 Q 2,966,246 RICHMOND N/A 1,939,523 19,114,285 3,334,683 24,388,491 SURREY N/A 3,536,778 7,776,374 0 11,313,152 VANCOUVER N/A 11,466,006 39,661,614 2,848,375 53,975,995 WEST VANCOUVER N/A 0 3,097,905 0 3,097,905 1971 CENSUS, VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA 3,591,041 TOTAL 31,907,061 115,107,193 12,342,957 DOLLAR VALUE OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECT OF TOTAL SPENDING UNDER ARP FROM 1975 TO 1978 = 162,948,251 NOTE: DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing  S t a t i s t i c s , 1983, 81. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing  S t a t i s t i c s , 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Administrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section  56.1 Non-Profit and Cooperative Housing Program Evaluation. 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Davis, 107. 97 TABLE 38 CRSP: DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF TOTAL SPENDING COMMUNITY 1982 1983 1984 TOTAL BURNABY 0 13,189,464 11,921,415 25,110,880 COQUITLAM 3,753,514 12,685,700 0 16,439,214 DELTA 0 3,801,130 0 3,801,130 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 9,800,505 14,704,625 24,505,130 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0 7,235,887 6,123,062 13,358,948 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0 0 Q 0 PORT COQUITLAM 0 2,289,838 .0 2,289,838 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 RICHMOND 0 18,501,887 0 18,501,887 SURREY 0 14,975,538 16,096,230 31,071,768 VANCOUVER 0 24,913,432 22,404,839 47,318,272 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 . 0 0 TOTAL 3,753,514 107,393,381 71,250,172 182,397,067 NOTE: DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing  S t a t i s t i c s , 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Administrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section 56.1 Non-Profit and Cooperative  Housing Program Evaluation. 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Davis, 107. 98 TABLE 39 15.1 NON-PROFIT: DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF TOTAL SPENDING COMMUNITY 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 TOTAL BURNABY 0 1,330,292 4,849,467 0 0 6,179,760 COQUITLAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 DELTA 0 0 1,113,753 0 0 1,113,753 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 4,075,340 0 3,285,840 0. 7,361,180 NORTH VANCOUVER 0 316,736 0 2,088,673 0 2,405,410 PORT COQUITLAM 0 4,265,382 0 0 0 4,265,382 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 0 0 RICHMOND 1,219,356 0 0 0 0 1,219,356 SURREY 0 0 0 0 0 0 VANCOUVER 4,420,166 5,025,549 7,123,380 4,100,932 1,938,914 22,608,941 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 1,044,144 0 0 1,044,144 TOTAL 5,639,522 15,013,299 14,130,745 9,475,446 1,938,914 46,197,925 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER (3) THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECT OF BED CONSTRUCTION HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE CALCULATIONS SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Administrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section 56.1 Non-Profit and Cooperative  Housing Program Evaluation, 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Davis, 107. 99 TABLE 40 34.18 CO-OP: DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF TOTAL SPENDING COMMUNITY 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 0 0 0 0 0 COQUITLAM 0 0 0 0 0 DELTA 0 0 0 0 Q NEW WESTMINSTER 793,902 0 0 0 793,902 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0 0 0 0 0 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0 1,361,716 0 a 1,361,716 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 0 Q 0 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 0 RICHMOND 0 0 0 0 . 0 SURREY 0 0 0 0 0 VANCOUVER 529,268 6,913,330 460,410 5,180,568 13,083,576 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1,323,169 8,275,046 460,410 5,180,568 15,239,194 NOTE: DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing  S t a t i s t i c s , 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Administrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section  56.1 Non-Profit and Cooperative Housing Program Evaluation. 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Davis, 107. 100 TABLE 41 56.1 NON-PROFIT: DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF TOTAL SPENDING COMMUNITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 BURNABY 0 0 0 1,172,855 9,591,736 COQUITLAM 0 0 7,800,612 2,476,028 0 DELTA 0 0 3,400,267 5,690,520 0 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 0 0 2,085,076 0 NORTH VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 1,143,969 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 3,120,245 0 0 PORT MOODY 0 Q 0 2,258,833 0 RICHMOND 0 0 2,720,213 7,037,132 8,799,758 SURREY 0. 10,288,907 17,881,403 0 0 VANCOUVER 1,090,639 1,138,993 13,321,045 8,774,696 13,727,622 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1,090,639 11,427,900 48,243,786 29,495,140 33,263,084 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER (3) THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECT OF BED CONSTRUCTION HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE CALCULATIONS SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Administrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section 56.1 Non-Profit  and Cooperative Housing Program Evaluation. 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Canada, S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Construction Price S t a t i s t i c s (Ottawa: Canada, 1987) Cat. No. 62-007. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s (Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1987) 90. Davis, 107. 101 TABLE 41 56.1 NON-PROFIT: DOLLAR VALDE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF TOTAL SPENDING (CONT.) COMMUNITY 1985 1986 TOTAL BURNABY 1,798,384 0 12,562,976 COQUITLAM 0 0 10,276,640 DELTA Q 0 9,090,787 NEW WESTMINSTER 4,448,635 0 6,533,711 NORTH VANCOUVER 0 4,429,730 5,573,698 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 3,120,245 PORT MOODY 0 0 2,258,833 RICHMOND 2,129,666 2,345,151 23,031,920 SURREY 0 0 28,170,310 VANCOUVER 10,742,981 30,903,879 79,699,855 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 TOTAL 19,119,666 37,678,759 180,318,975 102 TABLE 42 56.1 CO-OPERATIVE: DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF TOTAL SPENDING COMMUNITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 BURNABY 0 0 24,538,676 15,015,007 0 COQUITLAM 0 0 7,643,992 15,385,095 0 DELTA Q 0. 1,168,508 0 0 NEW WESTMINSTER Q 0 0 0 2,623,997 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0 0 0 0 0 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0 0 0. 0. 9,264,315 PORT COQUITLAM Q Q 1,217,196 0. 0 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 3,172,185 0 RICHMOND 0 0 0 3,806,621 5,033,790 SURREY 2,256,920 0 10,467,887 12,265,780 0 VANCOUVER 5,341,376 8,733,499 22,445,098 15,067,877 23,348,217 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0. 0 0. TOTAL 7,598,296 8,733,499 67,481,358 64,712,565 40,270,319 NOTE: DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Administrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section 56.1 Non-Profit and Cooperative  Program Evaluation, 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Canada, S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Construction Price S t a t i s t i c s , 1987, 90. Davis, 107. 103 TABLE 42 56.1 CO-OPERATIVE: DOLLAR VALDE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF TOTAL SPENDING (CONT.) o COMMUNITY 1985 1986 TOTAL BURNABY 13,824,094 4,566,856 57,944,633 COQUITLAM 0 0 23,029,087 DELTA 0 0 1,168,508 NEW WESTMINSTER 4,953,634 9,323,997 16,901,628 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0 4,249,713 4,249,713 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0 0 9,264,315 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 1,217,196 PORT MOODY 0 0 3,172,185 RICHMOND 3,686,425 7,611,426 20,138,263 SURREY 0 0 24,990,587 VANCOUVER 42,221,088 33,807,419 150,964,574 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 TOTAL 64,685,241 59,559,412 313,040,691 104 s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs. But 19,199 of the 23,169 market-welfare u n i t s had t h e i r p r o j e c t a p p r o v a l date between 1975 and 1979. In comparison, the v a s t m a j o r i t y of s o c i a l - w e l f a r e housing u n i t s were c r e a t e d i n the 1980's i n terms of CMHC p r o j e c t a p p r o v a l d a t e s . As a r e s u l t , the m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t of s o c i a l - w e l f a r e u n i t p r o d u c t i o n i s i n i n f l a t e d d o l l a r s compared t o t h a t of the market-^ w e l f a r e programs. T h e r e f o r e , a comparison of the m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t of the market- versus s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs cannot be made. MURB accounted f o r 70 pe r c e n t , or $419,274,622, of the $601,671,689 market-welfare m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t . CRSP accounted f o r the remaining 30 percen t , or $182,397,067. To a v o i d double c o u n t i n g , the m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t of ARP spending ($162,948,251) was excluded from the market-welfare t o t a l . The exact v a l u e of the m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t of the s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs was $554,796,785. The s o c i a l - w e l f a r e breakdown by s e c t o r shows t h a t the non-p r o f i t s e c t o r had a $226,516,900 m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t compared t o $328,279,885 f o r the c o - o p e r a t i v e s e c t o r . The combined impact of 15.1 and 34.18 a c t i v i t y was $61,437,119 i n comparison t o $493,359,666 f o r the 56.1 program. However, i n f l a t i o n i n c r e a s e d the val u e of the 56.1 program t o t a l i n r e l a t i o n t o the 15.1 and 34.18 program t o t a l , and the 56.1 program was i n o p e r a t i o n f o r almost twice as long as the 15.1 and 34.18 programs. 105 A t o t a l of 25 percent of the m u l t i p l i e r e f f ec t of 15.1 and 34.18 t o t a l spending i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to co-operat ive cons truct ion . For the 56.1 program the f igure i s 63 percent i n d i c a t i n g that over time the d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t e f fec t of the co-operative sector r e l a t i v e to that of soc ia l -we l fare sector i n general increased dramat i ca l ly . Temporal and S p a t i a l Patterns The data i n t h i s table ser ies i s not presented i n constant d o l l a r s ; therefore , no analys i s of the temporal and s p a t i a l patterns of the tables was done. DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF EXTRA SPENDING Program Totals Because t h i s table ser ies i s not i n constant d o l l a r s , any comparison of the d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t m u l t i p l i e r e f fec t of extra program spending between the market-welfare and soc ia l -we l fare sectors i s i n v a l i d . The m u l t i p l i e r e f fec t of extra spending for the market-welfare programs amounts to between $433,961,840 and $484,274,795. MURB a c t i v i t y accounts for 58 percent of the minimum m u l t i p l i e r e f fec t t o t a l and 62 percent of the maximum. CRSP, which d i d not r e s u l t i n a displacement e f f ec t , i s responsible for the remaining 42 and 38 percent. Under ARP the m u l t i p l i e r e f fec t was between $97,768,951 and $117,322,741. ARP data i s again excluded from 106 M U L T I P L I E R E F F E C T O F " E X T R A " S P E N D I N G 6D0 MB 2B MB 40 AP 2B AP 40' CRSP 15.1 34.1B 56.1N 56.1C MKT28 MKT4D33C1AL Program f i g u r e 8 the market-welfare t o t a l i n order t o a v o i d double c o u n t i n g . The m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t f o r s o c i a l - w e l f a r e e x t r a spending i s $554,796,785. None of the s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs r e s u l t e d i n displacement; consequently, the m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t of e x t r a spending f o r each program i s i d e n t i c a l t o the m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t of t o t a l spending f o r each program. T h e r e f o r e , the component breakdown of s o c i a l - w e l f a r e a c t i v i t y i n terms of the m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t of e x t r a spending i s a l s o i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t d e s c r i b e d f o r the m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t of t o t a l spending: the n o n - p r o f i t s e c t o r 107 TABLE 43 MURB: DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF EXTRA SPENDING (28% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 763,353 2,984,584 18,981,939 14,672,603 5,802,200 43,204,679 COQUITLAM 443,237 1,574,437 7,950,868 4,385,108 1,098,208 15,451,858 DELTA 1,785,260 232,743 758,671 1,483,934 3,642,391 7,902,998 NEW WESTMINSTER 172,370 1,875,633 7,313,585 6,569,325 457,587 16,388,499 NORTH VANCOUVER 1,218,902 4,887,599 13,534,684 6,535,978 3,477,659 29,654,822 PORT COQUITLAM 0 588,702 197,254 183,408 0 969,364 PORT MOODY 0 0 1,623,555 6,502,631 878,567 9,004,753 RICHMOND 3,927,573 369,650 12,502,892 14,605,909 12,739,216 44,145,240 SURREY 0 3,203,636 2,169,798 15,406,233 4,173,191 24,952,859 VANCOUVER 6,069,885 12,650,256 42,409,688 32,713,236 11,220,028 105,063,092 WEST VANCOUVER 0 328,578 2,184,971 1,784,055 841,960 5,139,564 TOTAL 14,380,580 28,695,819 109,627,905 104,842,419 44,331,006 301,877,728 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE DATE WHEN CMHC ISSUED THE MURB CERTIFICATE (2) MURB DUPLEX UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE DATA (3) 1979 DATA ONLY ENCOMPASSES AN 11 MONTH PERIOD (4) DATA FOR THE YEARS 1980 AND 1981 IS NOT AVAILABLE (5) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market, 18-19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1983, 81. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Administrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section 56.1 Non-Profit  and Cooperative Housing Program Evaluation, 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Davis, 107. 108 TABLE 44 MURB: DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF EXTRA SPENDING (40% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 636,127 2,487,154 15,818,282 12,227,169 4,835,167 36,003,899 COQUITLAM 369,364 1,312,031 6,625,723 3,654,256 915,174 12,876,548 DELTA 1,487,717 193,952 632,226 1,236,611 3,035,326 6,585,832 NEW WESTMINSTER 143,642 1,563,028 6,094,654 5,474,437 381,322 13,657,083 NORTH VANCOUVER 1,015,752 4,072,999 11,278,903 5,446,648 2,898,050 24,712,352 PORT COQUITLAM 0 490,585 164,379 152,840 0 807,804 PORT MOODY 0 0 1,352,963 5,418,859 732,139 7,503,961 RICHMOND 3,272,977 308,042 10,419,077 12,171,591 10,616,013 36,787,700 SURREY 0 2,669,697 1,808,165 12,838,528 3,477,659 20,794,049 VANCOUVER 5,058,238 10,541,880 35,341,406 27,261,030 9,350,023 87,552,577 WEST VANCOUVER Q 273,815 1,820,809 1,486,713 701,633 4,282,970 TOTAL 11,983,817 23,913,182 91,356,587 87,368,682 36,942,505 251,564,773 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE DATE WHEN CMHC ISSUED THE MURB CERTIFICATE (2) MURB DUPLEX UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE DATA (3) 1979 DATA ONLY ENCOMPASSES AN 11 MONTH PERIOD (4) DATA FOR THE YEARS 1980 AND 1981 IS NOT AVAILABLE (5) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1983, 81. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s ; 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Aclministrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section 56.1 Non-Profit and Cooperative  Housing Program Evaluation. 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Clayton Research Associates Limited, The Growing Rental Housing Shortage i n Canada, 13. Davis, 107. Irwin Lithwick, 23-29. 109 TABLE 45 ARP: DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF EXTRA SPENDING (28% DISPLACEMENT) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL BURNABY N/A 2,587,552 15,385,840 0 17,973,393 COQUITLAM N/A 3,559,596 1,669,075 600,243 5,828,914 DELTA N/A 0 728,324 0 728,324 NEW WESTMINSTER N/A 2,464,336 6,509,394 0 8,973,730 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY N/A 1,670,272 6,615,608 3,834,885 12,120,765 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT N/A 0 0 0 0 PORT COQUITLAM N/A 177,980 Q 0 177,980 PORT MOODY N/A 314,887 1,820,809 o 2,135,697 RICHMOND N/A 1,396,457 13,762,285 2,400,971 17,559,713 SURREY N/A 2,546,480 5,598,989 0 8,145,469 VANCOUVER N/A 8,255,524 28,556,362 2,050>830 38,862,716 WEST VANCOUVER N/A 0 2,230,492 0 2,230,492 1971 CENSUS, VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA 2,585,549 0 TOTAL 22,973,084 82,877,179 8,886,929 DOLLAR VALUE OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECT OF EXTRA SPENDING UNDER ARP FROM 1975 TO 1978 = 117,322,741 NOTE: DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market. 18-19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1983, 81. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Administrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section 56.1 Non-Profit and Cooperative  Housing Program Evaluation, 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Davis, 107. 110 TABLE 46 ARP: DOLLAR VALDE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF EXTRA SPENDING (40% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL BURNABY N/A 2,156,294 12,821,533 0 14,977,827 COQUITLAM N/A 2,966,330 1,390,896 500,202 4,857,428 DELTA N/A 0 606,936 Q 606,936 NEW WESTMINSTER N/A 2,053,613 5,424,495 0 7,478,108 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY N/A 1,391,893 5,513,007 3,195,737 10,100,637 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT N/A 0 0 0 0 PORT COQUITLAM N/A 148,316 0 0 148,316 PORT MOODY N/A 262,406 1,517,341 Q 1,779,747 RICHMOND N/A 1,163,714 11,468,571 2,000,810 14,633,094 SURREY N/A 2,122,067 4,665,824 0 6,787,891 VANCOUVER N/A 6,879,604 23,796,968 1,709,025 32,385,597 WEST VANCOUVER N/A 0 1,858,743 0 1,858,743 1971 CENSUS, VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA 2,154,625 TOTAL 19,144,237 69,064,316 7,405,774 DOLLAR VALUE OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECT OF EXTRA SPENDING UNDER ARP FROM 1975 TO 1978 = 97,768,951 NOTE: DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1983, 81. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Administrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section 56.1 Non-Profit and Cooperative Housing Program Evaluation. 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Clayton Research Associates Limited, The Growing Rental Housing Shortage i n Canada, 13. Davis, 107. Irwin Lithwick, 23-29. I l l TABLE 47 CRSP: DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF EXTRA SPENDING COMMUNITY 1982 1983 1984 TOTAL BURNABY 0 13,189,464 11,921,415 25,110,880 COQUITLAM 3,753,514 12,685,700 0 16,439,214 DELTA 0 3,801,130 0 3,801,130 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 9,800,505 14,704,625 24,505,130 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0 7,235,887 6,123,062 13,358,948 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0 0 0 0 PORT COQUITLAM 0. 2,289,838 0. 2,289,838 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 RICHMOND 0 18,501,887 0 18,501,887 SURREY 0 14,975,538 16,096,230 31,071,768 VANCOUVER 0 24,913,432 22,404,839 47,318,272 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 3,753,514 107,393,381 71,250,172 182,397,067 NOTE: (1) CRSP RESULTED IN NO DISPLACEMENT EFFECT (2) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Administrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and.Housing Corporation, Section 56.1 Non-Profit  and Cooperative Housing Program Evaluation, 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Davis, 107. 112 TABLE 48 15.1 NON-PROFIT: DOLLAR VALDE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF EXTRA SPENDING COMMUNITY 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 TOTAL BURNABY 0 1,330,292 4,849,467 0 0 6,179,760 COQUITLAM 0 0 Q 0 0 0 DELTA 0 0 1,113,753 0 0 1,113,753 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 4,075,340 0 3,285,840 0 7,361,180 NORTH VANCOUVER 0 316,736 0 2,088,673 0 2,405,410 PORT COQUITLAM a 4,265,382 0 0 0 4,265,382 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 0 a RICHMOND 1,219,356 0 0 0 0 1,219,356 SURREY 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 VANCOUVER 4,420,166 5,025,549 7,123,380 4,100,932 1,938,914 22,608,941 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 1,044,144 0 0 1,044,144 TOTAL J 5,639,522 15,013,299 14,130,745 9,475,446 1,938,914 46,197,925 NOTE: (1) THE 15.1 NON-PROFIT PROGRAM RESULTED IN NO DISPLACEMENT EFFECT (2) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (3) THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECT OF BED CONSTRUCTION HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE CALCULATIONS (4) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market, 18-19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Administrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section 56.1 Non-Profit and Cooperative Housing Program  Evaluation. 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Davis, 107. 113 TABLE 49 34.18 CO-OP: DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF EXTRA SPENDING COMMUNITY 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 0 0 0 0 0 COQUITLAM 0. 0 0. 0 0 DELTA 0 0 0 0 0 NEW WESTMINSTER 793,902 0 0 0 793,902 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0 0 0 0 0 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0 1,361,716 0 0 1,361,716 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 0 0 0 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 0 RICHMOND 0 0 0 Q 0 SURREY 0 0 0 0 0 VANCOUVER 529,268 6,913,330 460,410 5,180,568 13,083,576 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1,323,169 8,275,046 460,410 5,180,568 15,239,194 NOTE: (1) THE 34.18 CO-OP PROGRAM RESULTED IN NO DISPLACEMENT EFFECT (2) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market. 18-19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Administrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section 56.1 Non-Profit and Cooperative  Housing Program Evaluation, 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Davis, 107. 114 TABLE 50 56.1 NON-PROFIT: DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF EXTRA SPENDING COMMUNITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 BURNABY 0 0 0 1,172,855 9,591,736 COQUITLAM 0 0 7,800,612 2,476,028 0 DELTA 0 Q 3,400,267 5,690,520 0 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 0 0 2,085,076 0 NORTH VANCOUVER 0. 0 0 0 1,143,969 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 3,120,245 0 0 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 2,258,833 0 RICHMOND 0 a 2,720,213 7,037,132 8,799,758 SURREY 0 10,288,907 17,881,403 0 0 VANCOUVER 1,090,639 1,138,993 13,321,045 8,774,696 13,727,622 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1,090,639 11,427,900 48,243,786 29,495,140 33,263,084 NOTE: (1) THE 56.1 NON-PROFIT PROGRAM RESULTED IN NO DISPLACEMENT EFFECT (2) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC APPROVAL DATE (3) THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECT OF BED CONSTRUCTION HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE CALCULATIONS (4) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental  Market, 19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing  S t a t i s t i c s . 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Administrative data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section  56.1 Non-Profit and Cooperative Housing Program Evaluation, 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Canada, S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Construction Price S t a t i s t i c s , 1987, 90. Davis, 107. 115 TABLE 50 56.1 NON-PROFIT: DOLLAR VALDE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF EXTRA SPENDING (CONT.) COMMUNITY 1985 1986 TOTAL BURNABY 1,798,384 0 12,562,976 COQUITLAM 0 0 10,276,640 DELTA 0 0 9,090,787 NEW WESTMINSTER 4,448,635 0 6,533,711 NORTH VANCOUVER Q 4,429,730 5,573,698 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 3,120,245 PORT MOODY 0 0 2,258,833 RICHMOND 2,129,666 2,345,151 23,031,920 SURREY 0 0 28,170,310 VANCOUVER 10,742,981 30,903,879 79,699,855 WEST VANCOUVER 0 Q 0 TOTAL 19,119,666 37,678,759 180,318,975 116 TABLE 51 56.1 CO-OPERATIVE: DOLLAR VALDE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MOLTIPLIER EFFECT OF EXTRA SPENDING COMMODITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 BURNABY 0 0 24,538,676 15,015,007 0 COQUITLAM 0 0 7,643,992 15,385,095 Q DELTA 0 0 1,168,508 0 0 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 0 0 0 2,623,997 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0. 0 Q 0 0 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0 0 0 Q 9,264,315 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 1,217,196 0 0 PORT MOODY 0 0 0. 3,172,185 0 RICHMOND 0 0 0 3,806,621 5,033,790 SURREY 2,256,920 0 10,467,887 12,265,780 0 VANCOUVER 5,341,376 8,733,499 22,445,098 15,067,877 23,348,217 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 7,598,296 8,733,499 67,481,358 64,712,565 40,270,319 NOTE: (1) THE 56.1 CO-OPERATIVE PROGRAM RESULTED IN NO DISPLACEMENT EFFECT (2) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market, 19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s . 1985, 88. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Administrative Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section 56.1 Non-Profit and Cooperative  Program Evaluation, 121. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Canada, S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Construction Price S t a t i s t i c s . 1987, 90. Davis, 107. 117 TABLE 51 56.1 CO-OPERATIVE: DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF EXTRA SPENDING (CONT.) COMMUNITY 1985 1986 TOTAL BURNABY 13,824,094 4,566,856 57,944,633 COQUITLAM 0 0 23,029,087 DELTA 0 0 1,168,508 NEW WESTMINSTER 4,953,634 9,323,997 16,901,628 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0 4,249,713 4,249,713 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0 0 9,264,315 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 1,217,196 PORT MOODY 0 0 3,172,185 RICHMOND 3,686,425 7,611,426 20,138,263 SURREY 0 0 24,990,587 VANCOUVER 42,221,088 33,807,419 150,964,574 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 TOTAL 64,685,241 59,559,412 313,040,691 118 had a s m a l l e r m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t than the c o - o p e r a t i v e s e c t o r ; the 56.1 program, w i t h the h e l p of i n f l a t i o n , had a much l a r g e r m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t than t h a t r e a l i z e d f o r the 15.1 and 34.18 programs combined; and c o - o p e r a t i v e e x t r a spending accounted f o r a l a r g e r percentage of the m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t o f the 56.1 program than t h a t of the 15.1 and 34.18 programs combined. Temporal and Spatial Patterns The m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t of the e x t r a spending t a b l e s e r i e s i s not i n co n s t a n t d o l l a r s . Consequently, temporal and s p a t i a l p a t t e r n a n a l y s i s of t h i s t a b l e s e r i e s was not c a r r i e d out. 119 EMPLOYMENT GENERATION In c a l c u l a t i n g the employment g e n e r a t i o n e f f e c t of each of the programs, the o n - s i t e , or d i r e c t , and o f f - s i t e , or i n d i r e c t , labour requirements f o r new housing were taken i n t o account. D i r e c t [ o n - s i t e ] labour requirements are composed of c o n s t r u c t i o n workers employed by g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r s and s u b - c o n t r a c t o r s , as w e l l as workers employed i n any assembly process c a r r i e d out i n the c o n t r a c t o r ' s workshop. I t does not, however, i n c l u d e labour r e q u i r e d t o develop s e r v i c e d l a n d , t o c a r r y out s e r v i c i n g , l a n d s c a p i n g , or s i t e development of a d w e l l i n g u n i t or r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t , or t o s u p e r v i s e work on the c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e . [ 2 2 ] O f f - s i t e labour requirements are composed of p e r s o n n e l employed i n the f o l l o w i n g economic s e c t o r s : (1) o f f - s i t e c o n s t r u c t i o n ( a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , s u p e r v i s o r y and p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f ) ; (2) f i n i s h e d good manufacturing; (3) r e t a i l and wholesale t r a d e s ; (4) t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ; and (5) primary and s e m i - f i n i s h e d goods production.[23] The employment g e n e r a t i o n e f f e c t has been c a l c u l a t e d f o r the t o t a l number of u n i t s c o n s t r u c t e d under each program, r e f e r r e d to as the t o t a l number of man-years of employment generated, and f o r the t o t a l number of e x t r a u n i t s c o n s t r u c t e d under each program, r e f e r r e d t o as the number of e x t r a man-years of employment generated. Bed production has not been included i n these 22L. Hansen, Labour Requirements f o r the R e s i d e n t i a l  C o n s t r u c t i o n I n d u s t r y (Ottawa: C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n , 1976) 6. 23More i n f o r m a t i o n on i n d i r e c t labour requirements can be found i n Hansen, 6-7. 120 c a l c u l a t i o n s (see Appendix B) . TOTAL NUMBER OF MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED Program Tota l s The employment generated by the market-welfare programs i s almost double that generated by the soc ia l -we l fare programs. The market-welfare programs created 20,284.4 man-years of employment. MURB accounted for 83 percent (16,808.7 man-years) T O T A L M A N - Y E A R S O F E M P L O Y M E N T G E N E R A T E D MURB ARP CR5P 15.-1 34. 18 58. 1 N 55. 1 C MARKET SOC I AL Program f igure 9 121 T&BLE 52 MURB: TOTAL NUMBER OF MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 54.3 190.9 1,095.3 770.4 277.5 2,388.4 COQUITLAM 31.5 100.7 458.8 230.3 52.5 873.7 DELTA 126.9 14.9 43.8 77.9 174.2 437.8 NEW WESTMINSTER 12.3 119.9 422.0 344.9 21.9 921.0 NORTH VANCOUVER 86.7 312.6 780.9 343.2 166.3 1,689.7 PORT COQUITLAM 0.0 37.6 11.4 9.6 0.0 58.7 PORT MOODY 0.0 0.0 93.7 341.4 42.0 477.1 RICHMOND 279.3 23.6 721.4 766.9 609.3 2,400.6 SURREY 0.0 204.9 125.2 809.0 199.6 1,338.6 VANCOUVER 431.6 809.0 2,447.0 1,717.7 536.7 5,942.0 WEST VANCOUVER 0.0 21.0 126.1 93.7 40.3 281.0 TOTAL 1,022.6 1,835.0 6,325.5 5,505.1 2,120.5 16,808.7 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE DATE WHEN CMHC ISSUED THE MURB CERTIFICATE (2) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, THE MAN-YEARS EMPLOYMENT PER UNIT RATIO USED WAS AN AVERAGE OF THE ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT RATIOS (3) MURB DUPLEX UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE DATA (4) 1979 DATA ONLY ENCOMPASSES AN 11 MONTH PERIOD (5) DATA FOR THE YEARS 1980 AND 1981 IS NOT AVAILABLE (6) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . L. Hansen, Labour Requirements for the Residential Construction Industry (Ottawa: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1976) 40. 122 TABLE 53 ARP: TOTAL NUMBER OF MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL BURNABY N/A 157.3 841.4 0.0 998.7 COQUITLAM N/A 210.9 89.2 29.2 329.3 DELTA N/A 0.0 38.9 0.0 38.9 NEW WESTMINSTER N/A 146.0 347.9 0.0 493.9 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY N/A 98.9 355.5 216.2 670.7 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PORT COQUITLAM N/A 10.5 0.0 0.0 10.5 PORT MOODY N/A 18.7 97.3 0.0 116.0 RICHMOND N/A 82.7 758.7 125.0 966.4 SURREY N/A 174.8 . 343.1 0.0 517.9 VANCOUVER N/A 489.0 1,532.4 100.4 2,121.8 WEST VANCOUVER N/A 0.0 119.2 0.0 119.2 1971 CENSUS, VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA 183.9 TOTAL 1,388.9 4,523.7 470.8 TOTAL NUMBER OF MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED UNDER ARP FROM 1975 TO 1978 =6,567.2 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, FOR 1975 THE MAN-YEARS EMPLOYMENT PER UNIT RATIO USED WAS AN AVERAGE OF THE ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT RATIOS. FOR ALL OTHER YEARS A WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE ROW HOUSING, APARTMENT, AND SEMI-DETACHED AND DUPLEX RATIOS WAS USED. SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Hansen, 40. 123 TABLE 54 CRSP: TOTAL NUMBER OF MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED COMMUNITY 1982 1983 1984 TOTAL BURNABY 0.0 252.1 225.0 477.1 COQUITLAM 77.9 242.5 0.0 320.4 DELTA 0.0 72.7 0.0 72.7 NEW WESTMINSTER 0.0 187.4 277.5 464.9 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0.0 138.3 115.6 253.9 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PORT COQUITLAM . 0.0 43.8 0.0 43.8 PORT MOODY . 0.0 Q.O 0.0 0.0 RICHMOND 0.0 353.7 0.0 353.7 SURREY 0.0 286.3 303.8 590.1 VANCOUVER 0.0 476.3 422.9 899.1 WEST VANCOUVER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 77.9 2,053.0 1,344.8 3,475.7 NOTE: , (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, THE MAN-YEARS EMPLOYMENT PER UNIT RATIO USED WAS AN AVERAGE OF THE ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT RATIOS SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Hansen, 40. 124 TABLE 55 15.1 NON-PROFIT: TOTAL NUMBER OF MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED COMMUNITY 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 TOTAL BURNABY 0.0 55.2 183.0 0.0 0.0 238.1 COQUITLAM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DELTA 0.0 0.0 42.0 0.0 0.0 42.0 NEW WESTMINSTER 0.0 169.0 0.0 112.9 0.0 281.9 NORTH VANCOUVER 0.0 13.1 0.0 71.8 0.0 84.9 PORT COQUITLAM 0.0 176.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 176.9 PORT MOODY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Q.O RICHMOND 56.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.0 SURREY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 VANCOUVER 203.1 208.4 268.8 141.0 56.0 877.3 WEST VANCOUVER 0.0 0.0 39.4 0.0 0.0 39.4 TOTAL 259.1 622.5 533.2 325.7 56.0 1,796.5 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) THE ABOVE DATA IS BASED ONLY ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS, NOT BEDS, CONSTRUCTED (3) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, THE MAN-YEARS EMPLOYMENT PER UNIT RATIO USED WAS AN AVERAGE OF THE ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT RATIOS (4) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Hansen, 40. 125 TABLE 56 34.18 CO-OP: TOTAL NUMBER OF MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED COMMUNITY 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COQUITLAM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DELTA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NEW WESTMINSTER 35.9 0.0 0.0 Q.O 35.9 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0.0 61.1 0.0 Q.O 61.1 PORT COQUITLAM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Q.O PORT MOODY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RICHMOND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SURREY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Q.O VANCOUVER 22.7 335.2 18.8 210.4 587.1 WEST VANCOUVER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 58.6 396.3 18.8 210.4 684.1 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) THE MAN-YEARS EMPLOYMENT PER UNIT RATIO USED WAS A WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE SINGLE-DETACHED, SEMI-DETACHED AND DUPLEX, ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT RATIOS SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Hansen, 40. 126 TABLE 57 56.1 NON-PROFIT: TOTAL NUMBER OF MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED COMMUNITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 TOTAL BURNABY 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.4 176.8 35.7 0.0 237.9 COQUITLAM 0.0 0.0 166.8 53.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 220.4 DELTA 0.0 0.0 68.9 112.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 181.8 NEW WESTMINSTER 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.1 0.0 76.2 0.0 121.4 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.4 0.0 0.0 24.4 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0.0 Q.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.9 79.9 PORT COQUITLAM 0.0 0.0 63.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.3 PORT MOODY 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.9 RICHMOND Q.O 0.0 63.9 144.8 182.8 36.5 42.3 470.4 SURREY 0.0 250.1 389.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 639.7 VANCOUVER 33.8 24.3 276.5 163.8 265.4 193.6 480.9 1,438.5 WEST VANCOUVER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 33.8 274.4 1,029.0 594.4 649.5 342.1 603.1 3,526.4 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) THE ABOVE DATA IS BASED ONLY ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS, NOT BEDS, CONSTRUCTED (3) THE MAN-YEARS EMPLOYMENT PER UNIT RATIO USED WAS A WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT RATIOS SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Hansen, 40. 127 TABLE 58 56.1 CO-OPERATIVE: TOTAL NUMBER OF MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED COMMUNITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 TOTAL BURNABY 0.0 0.0 433.9 243.6 0.0 . 206.3 58.4 942.2 COQUITLAM 0.0 0.0 135.1 238.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 373.9 DELTA 0.0 0.0 22.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.6 NEW WESTMINSTER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.1 69.7 138.2 254.0 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.0 63.0 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 155.3 0.0 0.0 155.3 PORT COQUITLAM 0.6 0.0 23.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 PORT MOODY 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.4 RICHMOND 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.7 88.4 60.2 112.8 329.0 SURREY 48.7 0.0 202.1 199.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 449.7 VANCOUVER 115.2 164.1 416.3 247.9 379.5 604.1 450.8 2,378.0 WEST VANCOUVER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Q.O TOTAL 163.8 164.1 1,233.4 1,053.4 669.2 940.3 823.2 5,047.5 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) THE MAN-YEARS EMPLOYMENT PER UNIT RATIO USED WAS A WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT RATIOS SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Hansen, 40. 128 of the market welfare t o t a l . CRSP was responsible for the remaining 17 percent (3,475.7 man-years). ARP employment generation data (6,567.2 man-years) has been excluded from the market-welfare t o t a l to avoid a double counting e r r o r . In comparison, the soc ia l -we l fare t o t a l was 11,054.5 man-years . This t o t a l was s p l i t evenly between the non-prof i t (5,322.9 man-years) and co-operat ive sectors (5,731.6 man-years). The employment generation e f fec t of the 56.1 program (8,573.9 man-years) was 346 percent larger than that of the 15.1 and 34.18 programs combined (2,480.6 man-years). However, remember, the 56.1 program was i n operation for approximately twice as long as the 15.1 and 34.18 programs. Taking the 15.1 and 34.18 programs as one, co-operat ive un i t production accounted for 28 percent of the employment generated. In comparison, the co-operat ive sector accounted for 59 percent of the employment generated by the 56.1 program. Temporal P a t t e r n s T o t a l program employment generation f igures are p r i m a r i l y a funct ion of t o t a l program un i t production f i gures . Therefore, the temporal pattern analys i s given for the t o t a l program un i t production f igures i s a lso v a l i d for t o t a l program employment generation f igures and w i l l not be repeated. 129 S p a t i a l Patterns The employment g e n e r a t i o n f i g u r e s i n c l u d e o f f - s i t e labour requirements which are s i g n i f i c a n t . O f f - s i t e labour requirements need not be f i l l e d w i t h i n the same l o c a l government boundaries t h a t c o n t a i n the u n i t s b e i n g c o n s t r u c t e d . T h e r e f o r e , s p a t i a l p a t t e r n a n a l y s i s of employment g e n e r a t i o n w i t h i n the Greater Vancouver Area i s not v a l i d . NUMBER OF EXTRA MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED Program Totals The employment generated through e x t r a u n i t c o n s t r u c t i o n was between 13,560.9 and 15,578.0 man-years f o r the market-welfare programs and 11,054.5 man-years f o r the s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs. MURB accounted f o r 74 pe r c e n t of the lower market-welfare t o t a l and 78 p e r c e n t of the h i g h e r t o t a l . CRSP d i d not r e s u l t i n a displacement e f f e c t and t h e r e f o r e c o n t r i b u t e d 3,475.7 man-years t o both t o t a l s , which t r a n s l a t e s i n t o 26 pe r c e n t of the lower t o t a l and 22 pe r c e n t of the h i g h e r t o t a l . ARP, which recorded an employment g e n e r a t i o n e f f e c t of between 3,940.3 and 4,728.2 man-y e a r s , was not i n c l u d e d i n the market-welfare t o t a l s t o a v o i d a double c o u n t i n g e r r o r . None of the s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs r e s u l t e d i n displacement. The employment generated through the c o n s t r u c t i o n of e x t r a s o c i a l - w e l f a r e u n i t s i s equal t o t h a t generated through t o t a l s o c i a l - w e l f a r e u n i t c o n s t r u c t i o n , which i s 11,054.5 man-years. The component breakdown of t h i s f i g u r e i s a l s o i d e n t i c a l t o the 130 EXTRA MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED 16 MB 2B MB 40 AP 28 AP 40 CRSP 15 . T 3 4 . 1 8 5 S . 1 N 56 . 1C MKT28 MKT40 SOCIAL Program figure 10 one g i v e n f o r t o t a l s o c i a l - w e l f a r e employment g e n e r a t i o n : the n o n - p r o f i t and c o - o p e r a t i v e s e c t o r s were f a i r l y equal i n terms of employment g e n e r a t i o n , the employment generated by the 15.1 and 34.18 programs combined was l e s s than o n e - t h i r d of t h a t generated by the 56.1 program, and c o - o p e r a t i v e housing accounted f o r a much l a r g e r p o r t i o n of the employment generated by the 56.1 program than t h a t generated by the 15.1 and 34.18 programs combined. 131 TABLE 59 MURB: NUMBER OF EXTRA MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED (28% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 39.1 137.4 788.6 554.7 199.8 1,719.6 COQUITLAM 22.7 72.5 330.3 165.8 37.8 629.1 DELTA 91.4 10.7 31.5 56.1 125.4 315.2 NEW WESTMINSTER 8.8 86.4 303.8 248.4 15.8 663.1 NORTH VANCOUVER 62.4 225.0 562.3 247.1 119.8 1,216.6 PORT COQUITLAM 0.0 27.1 8.2 6.9 0.0 42.2 PORT MOODY 0.0 0.0 67.4 245.8 30.3 343.5 RICHMOND 201.1 17.0 519.4 552.2 438.7 1,728.4 SURREY 0.0 147.5 90.1 582.5 143.7 963.8 VANCOUVER 310.8 582.5 1,761.9 1,236.8 386.4 4,278.3 WEST VANCOUVER 0.0 15.1 90.8 67.4 29.0 202.3 TOTAL 736.3 1,321.2 4,554.4 3,963.7 1,526.7 12,102.3 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE DATE WHEN CMHC ISSUED THE MURB CERTIFICATE (2) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, THE MAN-YEARS EMPLOYMENT PER UNIT RATIO USED WAS AN AVERAGE OF THE ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT RATIOS (3) MURB DUPLEX UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE DATA (4) 1979 DATA ONLY ENCOMPASSES AN 11 MONTH PERIOD (5) DATA FOR THE YEARS 1980 AND 1981 IS NOT AVAILABLE (6) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market. 18-19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Hansen, 40. 132 TABLE 60 MURB: NUMBER OF EXTRA MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED (40% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 32.6 114.5 657.2 462.3 166.5 1,433.0 COQUITLAM 18.9 60.4 275.3 138.2 ,31.5 524.2 DELTA 76.2 8.9 26.3 46.8 104.5 262.7 NEW WESTMINSTER 7.4 72.0 253.2 207.0 13.1 552.6 NORTH VANCOUVER 52.0 187.5 468.6 205.9 99.8 1,013.8 PORT COQUITLAM 0.0 22.6 6.8 5.8 0.0 35.2 PORT MOODY 0.0 0.0 56.2 204.9 25.2 286.3 RICHMOND 167.6 14.2 432.8 460.2 365.6 1,440.4 SURREY 0.0 122.9 75.1 485.4 119.8 803.2 VANCOUVER 259.0 485.4 1,468.2 1,030.6 322.0 3,565.2 WEST VANCOUVER Q.O 12.6 75.6 56.2 24.2 168.6 TOTAL 613.6 1,101.0 3,795.3 3,303.1 1,272.3 10,085.2 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE DATE WHEN CMHC ISSUED THE MURB CERTIFICATE (2) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, THE MAN-YEARS EMPLOYMENT PER UNIT RATIO USED WAS AN AVERAGE OF THE ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT RATIOS (3) MURB DUPLEX UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE DATA (4) 1979 DATA ONLY ENCOMPASSES AN 11 MONTH PERIOD (5) DATA FOR THE YEARS 1980 AND 1981 IS NOT AVAILABLE (6) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Clayton Research Associates Limited, The Growing Rental Housing Shortage i n Canada. 13. Irwin Lithwick, 23-29. Hansen, 40. 133 TABLE 61 ARP: NUMBER OF EXTRA MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED (28% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL BURNABY N/A 113.2 605.8 0.0 719.1 COQUITLAM N/A 151.8 64.2 21.0 237.1 DELTA N/A 0.0 28.0 0.0 28.0 NEW WESTMINSTER N/A 105.1 250.5 0.0 355.6 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY N/A 71.2 256.0 155.7 482.9 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PORT COQUITLAM N/A 7.6 0.0 0.0 7.6 PORT MOODY N/A 13.4 70.1 0.0 83.5 RICHMOND N/A 59.6 546.2 90.0 695.8 SURREY N/A 125.9 247.0 0.0 372.9 VANCOUVER N/A 352.1 1,103.3 72.3 1,527.7 WEST VANCOUVER N/A 0.0 85.8 0.0 85.8 1971 CENSUS, VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA 132.2 TOTAL 1,000.0 3,257.1 339.0 TOTAL NUMBER OF EXTRA MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED UNDER ARP FROM 1975 TO 1978 = 4,728.2 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, FOR 1975 THE MAN-YEARS EMPLOYMENT PER UNIT RATIO USED WAS AN AVERAGE OF THE ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT RATIOS. FOR ALL OTHER YEARS A WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE ROW HOUSING, APARTMENT, AND SEMI-DETACHED AND DUPLEX RATIOS WAS USED SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market, 18-19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Hansen, 40. 134 TABLE 62 ARP: NUMBER OF EXTRA MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED (40% DISPLACEMENT RATIO) COMMUNITY 1975 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL BURNABY N/A 94.4 504.9 0.0 599.2 COQUITLAM N/A 126.5 53.5 17.5 197.6 DELTA N/A 0.0 23.4 0.0 23.4 NEW WESTMINSTER N/A 87.6 208.8 0.0 296.3 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY N/A 59.4 213.3 129.7 402.4 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 Q.O PORT COQUITLAM N/A 6.3 0.0 0.0 6.3 PORT MOODY N/A 11.2 58.4 0.0 69.6 RICHMOND N/A 49.6 455.2 75.0 579.9 SURREY N/A 104.9 205.9 0.0 310.8 VANCOUVER N/A 293.4 919.4 60.2 1,273.1 WEST VANCOUVER N/A 0.0 71.5 0.0 71.5 1971 CENSUS, VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA 110.3 TOTAL 833.3 2,714.2 282.5 TOTAL NUMBER OF EXTRA MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED UNDER ARP FROM 1975 TO 1978 = 3,940.3 NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, FOR 1975 THE MAN-YEARS EMPLOYMENT PER UNIT RATIO USED WAS AN AVERAGE OF THE ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT RATIOS. FOR ALL OTHER YEARS A WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE ROW HOUSING, APARTMENT, AND SEMI-DETACHED AND DUPLEX RATIOS WAS USED. SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Clayton Research Associates Limited, The Growing Rental Housing Shortage i n Canada, 13. Hansen, 40. Irwin Lithwick, 23-29. 135 TABLE 63 CRSP: NUMBER OF EXTRA MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED COMMUNITY 1982 1983 1984 TOTAL BURNABY 0.0 252.1 225.0 477.1 COQUITLAM 77.9 242.5 0.0 320.4 DELTA 0.0 72.7 0.0 72.7 NEW WESTMINSTER 0.0 187.4 277.5 464.9 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0.0 138.3 115.6 253.9 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0.0 Q.O 0.0 0.0 PORT COQUITLAM 0.0 43.8 0.0 43.8 PORT MOODY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RICHMOND 0.0 353.7 0.0 353.7 SURREY 0.0 286.3 303.8 590.1 VANCOUVER 0.0 476.3 422.9 899.1 WEST VANCOUVER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 77.9 2,053.0 1,344.8 3,475.7 NOTE:.• (1) CRSP RESULTED IN NO DISPLACEMENT EFFECT (2) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (3) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, THE MAN-YEARS EMPLOYMENT PER UNIT RATIO USED WAS AN AVERAGE OF THE ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT RATIOS SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Hansen, 40. 136 TABLE 64 15.1 NON-PROFIT: NUMBER OF EXTRA MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED COMMUNITY 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 TOTAL BURNABY 0.0 55.2 183.0 0.0 0.0 238.1 COQUITLAM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DELTA 0.0 0.0 42.0 0.0 0.0 42.0 NEW WESTMINSTER 0.0 169.0 0.0 112.9 0.0 281.9 NORTH VANCOUVER 0.0 13.1 0.0 71.8 0.0 84.9 PORT COQUITLAM 0.0 176.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 176.9 PORT MOODY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RICHMOND 56.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.0 SURREY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 VANCOUVER 203.1 208.4 268.8 141.0 56.0 877.3 WEST VANCOUVER 0.0 0.0 39.4 0.0 0.0 39.4 TOTAL 259.1 622.5 533.2 325.7 56.0 1,796.5 NOTE: (1) THE 15.1 NON-PROFIT PROGRAM RESULTED IN NO DISPLACEMENT EFFECT (2) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (3) THE ABOVE DATA IS BASED ONLY ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS, NOT BEDS, CONSTRUCTED (4) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, THE MAN-YEAR EMPLOYMENT PER UNIT RATIO USED WAS AN AVERAGE OF THE ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT RATIOS (5) DUE TO DATA LIMITATIONS, NORTH VANCOUVER CITY AND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THE CATEGORY NORTH VANCOUVER SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market, 18-19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Hansen, 40. 137 TABLE 65 34.18 CO-OP: NUMBER OF EXTRA MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED COMMUNITY 1976 1977 1978 1979 TOTAL BURNABY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COQUITLAM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DELTA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NEW WESTMINSTER 35.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.9 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0.0 61.1 0.0 0.0 61.1 PORT COQUITLAM 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0' 0.0 PORT MOODY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RICHMOND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SURREY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 VANCOUVER 22.7 335.2 18.8 210.4 587,1 WEST VANCOUVER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 58.6 396.3 18.8 210.4 684.1 NOTE: (1) THE 34.18 CO-OP PROGRAM RESULTED IN NO DISPLACEMENT EFFECT (2) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (3) THE MAN-YEAR EMPLOYMENT PER UNIT RATIO USED WAS A WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE SINGLE-DETACHED/ SEMI-DETACHED AND DUPLEX, ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT RATIOS SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market, 18-19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Hansen, 40. 138 TABLE 66 56.1 NON-PROFIT: NUMBER OF EXTRA MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED COMMUNITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 TOTAL BURNABY 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.4 176.8 35.7 0.0 237.9 COQUITLAM 0.0 0.0 166.8 53.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 220.4 DELTA 0.0 0.0 68.9 112.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 181.8 NEW WESTMINSTER 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.1 0.0 76.2 0.0 121.4 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.4 0.0 0.0 24.4 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.9 79.9 PORT COQUITLAM 0.0 0.0 63.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.3 PORT MOODY 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.9 0.0 0.0 0.0. 48.9 RICHMOND 0.0 0.0 63.9 144.8 182.8 36.5 42.3 470.4 SURREY 0.0 250.1 389.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 639.7 VANCOUVER 33.8 24.3 276.5 163.8 265.4 193.6 480.9 1,438.5 WEST VANCOUVER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 33.8 274.4 1,029.0 594.4 649.5 342.1 603.1 3,526.4 NOTE: (1) THE 56.1 NON-PROFIT PROGRAM RESULTED IN NO DISPLACEMENT EFFECT (2) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (3) THE ABOVE DATA IS BASED ONLY ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS, NOT BEDS, CONSTRUCTED (4) THE MAN-YEARS EMPLOYMENT PER UNIT RATIO USED WAS A WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT RATIOS SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market, 19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Hansen, 40. 139 TABLE 67 56.1 GO-OPERATIVE: NUMBER OF EXTRA MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED COMMUNITY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 TOTAL BURNABY 0.0 0.0 433.9 243.6 0.0 206.3 58.4 942.2 COQUITLAM 0.0 0.0 135.1 238.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 373.9 DELTA 0.0 0.0 22.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.6 NEW WESTMINSTER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.1 69.7 138.2 254.0 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.0 63.0 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 155.3 0.0 0.0 155.3 PORT COQUITLAM 0.0 0.0 23.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 PORT MOODY 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.4 RICHMOND 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.7 88.4 60.2 112.8 329.0 SURREY 48.7 0.0 202.1 199.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 449.7 VANCOUVER 115.2 164.1 416.3 247.9 379.5 604.1 450.8 2,378.0 WEST VANCOUVER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 163.8 164.1 1,233.4 1,053.4 669.2 940.3 823.2 5,047.5 NOTE: (1) THE 56.1 CO-OPERATIVE PROGRAM RESULTED IN NO DISPLACEMENT EFFECT (2) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (3) THE MAN-YEARS EMPLOYMENT PER UNIT RATIO USED WAS A WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT RATIOS SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, An Analysis of the Rental Market, 19. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . Hansen, 40. 140 Temporal Patterns For each program, the number of e x t r a man-years of employment generated i s p r i m a r i l y a f u n c t i o n of the t o t a l number of u n i t s c o n s t r u c t e d under the program. Th e r e f o r e the temporal p a t t e r n a n a l y s i s which was done f o r the t o t a l number of u n i t s c o n s t r u c t e d d a t a i s a l s o a p p l i c a b l e t o the number of e x t r a man-years of employment generated data and w i l l not be repeated here. Spatial Patterns No s p a t i a l p a t t e r n a n a l y s i s was performed because too l a r g e a p r o p o r t i o n of the employment generated through e x t r a u n i t c o n s t r u c t i o n i s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o o f f - s i t e labour requirements, which are not necessary l i m i t e d t o the l o c a l government boundaries w i t h i n which the u n i t s were c o n s t r u c t e d . 141 CONCLUSION There are four key points which the quant i ta t ive information i n t h i s chapter h i g h l i g h t s . The market- and soc ia l -we l fare programs have had an enormous impact on the economy of the Greater Vancouver Area. Over 23,000 market-welfare r e n t a l housing uni t s were subsidized i n the area, which trans la tes in to an economic m u l t i p l i e r impact of over $600 m i l l i o n and the creat ion of over 20,000 man-years of employment. The s o c i a l -welfare programs resu l ted i n the construct ion of 12,662 uni ts and 2,653 beds. The un i t production alone caused an economic m u l t i p l i e r e f fec t of over $550 m i l l i o n and created over 11,000 man-years of employment. Remember that comparisons between the m u l t i p l i e r e f fect of market- and soc ia l -we l fare programs cannot be made because the m u l t i p l i e r f igures are not given i n constant d o l l a r s . S p a t i a l l y , the analyzed economic impacts of both the market-and soc ia l -we l fare programs were overwhelmingly concentrated i n the es tabl i shed areas of the Greater Vancouver Area. Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i s the fact that 84 percent of 34.18 un i t production and 98 percent of 15.1 bed production are located wi th in the C i t y of Vancouver. MURB and, therefore , market-welfare production i s d r a s t i c a l l y reduced once displacement i s factored out of production t o t a l s . Market-welfare production drops by between 5,376 to 7,680 uni t s to between 15,489 and 17,793 u n i t s . T o t a l soc ia l -we l fare un i t 142 production (12,662 units ) was equal to 55 percent of t o t a l market welfare product ion. Once displacement i s factored out of the equation, the percentage jumps to between 71 and 82 percent. A removal of displacement reduces the market-welfare m u l t i p l i e r e f fec t by roughly between $117 and $167 m i l l i o n and employment generation by between 4,706 and 6,724 man-years. As discussed ear ly i n t h i s chapter, condominium conversion i s a r e a l threat to the future of the market-welfare r e n t a l housing stock. The intended and reg i s tered use table ser ies proves that throughout the Greater Vancouver Area developers r e g i s t e r uni t s as condominiums regardless of the i n i t i a l intended use of the un i t to f a c i l i t a t e future poss ib le condominium conversion by ensuring that l o c a l government condominium conversion laws w i l l not a f fec t t h e i r a b i l i t y to convert u n i t s . The p o s s i b i l i t y of condominium conversion i s p r i m a r i l y a threat to the housing stock constructed under the market-welfare programs due to the r e l a t i v e l y short per iod of tenure contro l exercised under the programs, the ease with which tenure c o n t r o l may be terminated and the p r o f i t o r i e n t a t i o n of market-welfare projec t owners. 143 SOCIAL IMPACTS OF THE FEDERAL RENTAL SUPPLY PROGRAMS IN THE GREATER VANCOUVER AREA 1975 - 1985 T h i s chapter examines s e v e r a l of the ways i n which the market-and s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs impacted the c h a r a c t e r of l o c a l communities i n the Greater Vancouver Area from 1975 t o 1985. (For a d i s c u s s i o n of what i s meant by the term l o c a l community and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o communities i n g e n e r a l see Appendix D.) In t h i s c hapter, the analyzed l o c a l community impacts of the programs have been d i v i d e d i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s : those which are a r e s u l t of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of households which occupy program housing, and those which are a r e s u l t of program housing l o c a t i o n . The household c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s analyzed are l i m i t e d t o those which can be determined through a n a l y s i s of program s p e c i f i c a t i o n s or a v a i l a b l e e m p i r i c a l d a ta. 145 LOCAL COMMUNITY IMPACTS ACCORDING TO HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS The l o c a l community impacts of f o u r household c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are analyzed i n t h i s s e c t i o n : household income, household housing tenure, household f a m i l y s t a t u s , and household d i s a b i l i t y s t a t u s . HOUSEHOLD INCOME MURB and CRSP served moderate t o hig h income households. In c o n t r a s t , the s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs served low t o moderate income households. The income of MURB and CRSP households can be deduced from t h e i r program d e s c r i p t i o n s and economic theory. MURB and CRSP p l a c e d no r e s t r i c t i o n s on r e n t s , r e n t e r income or housing form. Both programs produced o n l y new housing, and economic t h e o r y s t a t e s t h a t d e v e l o p e r s , i n order t o maximize p r o f i t s , seek the h i g h e s t r e n t s p o s s i b l e , which f o r new u n i t s i s a t the upper range of market r e n t s . By 1985, MURB and CRSP u n i t s were not o l d enough f o r r e n t s t o have dropped t o the lower end of the market r e n t s , and while i t i s t r u e t h a t under CRSP developers had to make u n i t s a v a i l a b l e f o r p r o v i n c i a l r e n t s u b sidy, the p r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia d i d not e x e r c i s e t h i s o p t i o n . Consequently, i t can be assumed t h a t MURB and CRSP u n i t s were occupied by moderate to h i g h income households. Low income households d i d not have the economic means necessary t o r e n t such expensive housing. 146 The 1976 to 1977 ARP program, under which the vast majority of ARP uni t s were created, placed r e s t r i c t i o n s on housing form to ensure modest housing and rent . The necessary research required to determine which income l e v e l of households were served by ARP i s too large a task given the l i m i t e d resources of t h i s research. The soc ia l -we l fare programs served low to moderate income households. Under the 15.1 and 34.18 programs, only low and moderate income households could occupy program housing u n i t s . A s i m i l a r r e s t r i c t i o n was not placed on 56.1 u n i t s . In a 1983 evaluat ion of the 56.1 program, CMHC reached the conclus ion that "between 47 and 69 percent of the households served by the programs would be considered to be low and moderate income."[1] The methodology used to reach t h i s conclusion was not r igorous . [2 ] In a December 1983 open l e t t e r , CMHC's Nat ional Advisory Committee noted that the [CMHC 56.1 evaluation] report i t s e l f shows on p. 215 that a f u l l 82% of the benef i ts of the program go to households earning less than S t a t i s t i c Canada's 1982 low-income cut o f f l e v e l . Furthermore, a f u l l 91% of the benef i ts go to households earning less than $20,000. [3] lCanada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, Sect ion 56.1 Non- P r o f i t and Cooperative Housing Program Evaluat ion ([Ottawa]: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1983) Executive Summary 8. 2David Hulchanski and Je f f rey Patterson, "CMHC's Evaluat ion of i t s Non-prof i t and Co-op Housing Programs: Is i t an Eva luat ion? ," Plan Canada 24.1 (1984): 29-30. 3As quoted by David Hulchanski and Je f f rey Patterson, 30. 147 The following material on the l o c a l community impact of household income i s based upon United States l i t e r a t u r e , which does not adequately d i s t i n g u i s h between income and race impacts. Household income aff e c t s household mobility; therefore, as household income drops, the a b i l i t y of household members to engage i n relationships which are external to the l o c a l community decreases. Consequently, low income households r e l y more on the services and s o c i a l l i f e of t h e i r l o c a l community. In accordance with t h i s theory, individuals who l i v e i n households with higher incomes have been found to have more nonlocal s o c i a l contacts and to r e l y more on nonlocal indi v i d u a l s for emotional support.[4] Consequently, i t i s not surp r i s i n g that income i s inversely related to the i n t e n s i t y of neighbourly r e l a t i o n s . Neighbouring can be thought of as r e f e r r i n g to the relationships and a c t i v i t i e s engaged i n by neighbours as neighbours.[5] If one talks to a neighbour who i s also a fr i e n d , or r e l a t i v e , neighbouring does not take place, as the a c t i v i t y i s occurring between neighbours as friends, or as r e l a t i v e s , and not between neighbours as neighbours. Suzanne K e l l e r notes that the "i n t e n s i t y [of neighbourly relations] i s p a r t l y a function of the c o l l e c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n of neighboring p r e v a i l i n g i n an area, and pa r t l y , e s p e c i a l l y where such binding d e f i n i t i o n s are lacking, of 4Roger S. Ahlbrandt J r . , Neighbourhoods, People, and  Community (New York: Plenum Press, 1984) 22. 5Suzanne K e l l e r , The Urban Neighbourhood: A So c i o l o g i c a l  Perspective (New York: Random House, Inc., 1968) 29. 148 the emotional and economic needs of i n d i v i d u a l s " . [ 6 ] As a r e s u l t , as income i n c r e a s e s the i n t e n s i t y of n e i g h b o u r l y r e l a t i o n s decreases. For example, i n an environment plagued by c r i s e s , a s i t u a t i o n more common to low income l o c a l communities, i t becomes frowned upon not t o h e l p when neighbours are i n need.[7] However, while income a f f e c t s the a b i l i t y o f a household t o i n t e r a c t w i t h n o n l o c a l i n d i v i d u a l s i n a p o s i t i v e manner and the i n t e n s i t y o f n e i g h b o u r l y r e l a t i o n s i n a n e g a t i v e manner, the i n f e r e n c e t h a t as income i n c r e a s e s , l o c a l community s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n (e.g. use of l o c a l community-based i n s t i t u t i o n s ) s u f f e r s cannot be made: low income l o c a l communities do not n e c e s s a r i l y have a higher l e v e l of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . As income r i s e s i n d i v i d u a l s tend t o i n c r e a s e t h e i r (1) neighbouring l e v e l s , [ 8 ] (2) p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n l o c a l community i s s u e - r e l a t e d organizations!;9], and (3) use of l o c a l community f a c i l i t i e s . [ 10] Furthermore, K e l l e r notes t h a t "sometimes a t extreme l e v e l s of p o v e r t y where s e l f - i n t e r e s t has not been e f f e c t i v e l y l i n k e d t o c o l l e c t i v e purpose, where d i s t r u s t , s u s p i c i o n , and f e a r mark the r e l a t i o n s between man and man and between man and community, we 6 K e l l e r , 39. 7 K e l l e r , 40. 8Ahlbrandt, 22-23. 9Ahlbrandt, 33. lOAhlbrandt, 22-23. 149 f i n d n o t h i n g resembling the n e i g h b o r i n g t h a t we have d e s c r i b e d because we f i n d n o t h i n g resembling the s o c i e t y t h a t g i v e s r i s e t o i t . " [ 1 1 ] T h e r e f o r e , low income i n d i v i d u a l s are more i s o l a t e d i n terms of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h i n t h e i r n o n l o c a l community and w i t h i n t h e i r l o c a l community. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n , w h i l e v a l i d , must be tempered w i t h the knowledge t h a t (1) due to the l i m i t e d m o b i l i t y of lower income households, they are more dependent on the l o c a l community f o r the f u l f i l m e n t of t h e i r needs, and (2) as income decreases the i n t e n s i t y of n e i g h b o u r l y r e l a t i o n s i n c r e a s e s . T h e r e f o r e , the s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h i n the l o c a l community, while l e s s f r e q u e n t than t h a t of h i g h e r income households, means more t o those w i t h lower incomes. Consequently, i n terms of the q u a l i t y of l i f e i n a low income l o c a l community, the i n c r e a s e d meaning of l o c a l community s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n may p a r t i a l l y make up f o r a l a c k of frequency i n l o c a l community s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . There i s one l a s t p o i n t t o be made i n t h i s p a r t of the t h e s i s : income i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o l o c a l community s a t i s f a c t i o n . [ 1 2 ] T h i s i s not s u r p r i s i n g c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t the h i g h e r an i n d i v i d u a l ' s income the g r e a t e r the i n d i v i d u a l ' s a b i l i t y t o c o n t r o l w i t h whom he/she a s s o c i a t e s and t o choose the l o c a l community which be s t s u i t s h i s / h e r wants and needs. Furthermore, H K e l l e r , 49. 12For the i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s paragraph, I am in d e b t e d t o Ahlbrandt, 52. 150 i n d i v i d u a l s with higher incomes have the a b i l i t y to re locate i f they are not s a t i s f i e d with the l o c a l community. HOUSEHOLD HOUSING TENURE This d i scuss ion of the l o c a l community impacts of market- and soc ia l -we l fare households according housing tenure concerns i s d iv ided in to three categories: l o c a l community impacts of (1) r e n t a l households, (2) co-operative households and (3) condominium conversion. R e n t a l Households ARP, CRSP, MURB, the 15.1 program and the non-pro f i t component of the 56.1 program produced r e n t a l accommodation. The l o c a l community impacts of r e n t a l households are given i n comparison to those of home ownership households. This comparison i s based on a survey of residents of the C i t y of Pi t tsburgh i n which no d i s t i n c t i o n was made between owners of apartments and s ing le detached dwel l ings . Therefore , the degree to which the home owner information r e f l e c t s tenure versus housing type i s i n quest ion. A household's housing tenure i s re la ted to l o c a l community s a t i s f a c t i o n and attachment and whether or not the household intends to re loca te . Renters have a lower l e v e l of both l o c a l community s a t i s f a c t i o n and attachment i n comparison to home 151 owners.[13] The r e l a t i o n s h i p between a household's housing tenure and l o c a l community s a t i s f a c t i o n may be a r e s u l t of less cons iderat ion of where to l i v e on the part of renters . Renters are able to move with r e l a t i v e ease, whereas the f i n a n c i a l stake which home owners have i n t h e i r housing increases the seriousness of a l o c a t i o n a l dec i s ion and decreases the ease with which they may change t h e i r res idence. I t i s a lso poss ib le that rent ing i s less s a t i s f y i n g than home ownership. Roger Ahlbrandt notes that tenure (renta l versus home ownership) i s one of the most important v a r i a b l e s i n d i scr iminat ing between households planning to move from those planning to remain; "homeowners . . . are less l i k e l y to move than others".[14] This d i f ference i n r e l o c a t i o n intent ions between renters and home owners could wel l be due to a s e l f s e l ec t ion process: i n d i v i d u a l s whose l i f e i s i n a per iod of change or whose job requires l o c a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y may be more i n c l i n e d to rent , rather than own, t h e i r housing. In a d i scuss ion on the ef fects of a high turnover rate on s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n wi th in a l o c a l community, Ahlbrandt writes that a number of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n var iab le s w i l l be negat ive ly impacted.[15] This may be true; however, the conclus ion that a high turnover should be avoided i s not. The s i t u a t i o n i s much 13For the information contained i n t h i s sentence and the remainder of t h i s paragraph, I am indebted to Ahlbrandt , 52. 14Ahlbrandt, 72. 15Ahlbrandt, 111. 152 more complex. People's needs, desires and job locat ions change with time. People should be able to change residences i n response to changes i n these v a r i a b l e s ; i t i s s o c i a l l y and economically b e n e f i c i a l . Co-operative Households Co-operative housing was produced under the 34.18 program and the co-operat ive component of the 56.1 program. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of co-operative households promote w i th in -co -operative s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , l o c a l community s t a b i l i t y , res ident housing s a t i s f a c t i o n , and the in tegrat ion of d i sab led and new res idents in to the wi th in-co-operat ive s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n network. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of co-operative members promote s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n wi th in the co-operat ive . When co-operat ives are created, i t i s made c l ear to prospective members what co-operative l i v i n g e n t a i l s ; as a r e s u l t , i n d i v i d u a l s who are not interested i n being involved i n the planning[16] , ownershipf17] 16ln the construct ion of a co-operat ive , the members of the co-operat ive are usua l ly assembled before the co-operat ive i s designed, and they usua l ly p a r t i c i p a t e i n pro jec t design and planning (e .g . the s i t i n g of bui ld ings and playgrounds and u n i t f l oor plan layout ) . "A 1976/77 survey by CHF [Co-operative Housing Foundation of Canada] found that only f i v e of f i f t y - o n e co-operatives responding reported l i t t l e or no p a r t i c i p a t i o n by members i n planning and design matters." Nicholas Van Dyk, " P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the Development of Co-operative Communities," bachelor of arch i tec ture research p r o j e c t , Car le ton U n i v e r s i t y , 1978, 2 .1 .4 . as quoted by J . Selby, and A. Wilson, "Canada's Housing Co-operat ives: An Al ternat ive Approach to Resolving Community Problems," UBC Planning Papers: Canadian Planning  Issues 26 (1988): 23. 153 and management[18] of a housing p r o j e c t tend not t o become co-o p e r a t i v e members. T h i s e x i s t e n c e of a mutual g o a l and common a c t i v i t y , namely the e f f i c i e n t "hands on" p l a n n i n g and running of a c o - o p e r a t i v e , h e l p s t o c r e a t e a s o c i a l l i f e and communal bond w i t h i n c o - o p e r a t i v e s : " i n the process of managing t h e i r p r o j e c t , co-op members f o r g e bonds w i t h each other t h a t r e s u l t i n s t r o n g l o c a l communities capable of a d d r e s s i n g n e i g h b o u r h o o d - l e v e l problems as they a r i s e " . [ 1 9 ] Furthermore, "through the process of s o l v i n g common problems, s e t t i n g c o l l e c t i v e g o a l s and accomplishing t a s k s , members g a i n a g r e a t e r awareness and t o l e r a n c e f o r the views, needs and l i f e s t y l e s of o t h e r s " . [ 2 0 ] Two c o - o p e r a t i v e household c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s promote co-o p e r a t i v e and l o c a l community s t a b i l i t y . C o - o p e r a t i v e households have a secure tenure; consequently, the r i s k of i n v o l u n t a r y r e l o c a t i o n due t o l a r g e r e n t i n c r e a s e s or s i t e redevelopment are s m a l l . Second, c o - o p e r a t i v e r u l e s are made by the r e s i d e n t s ; t h e r e f o r e , c o - o p e r a t i v e s are i n c l i n e d t o be more i n l i n e w i t h tenants' needs which enhances c o - o p e r a t i v e s t a b i l i t y and r e s i d e n t housing s a t i s f a c t i o n . 170wnership of a c o - o p e r a t i v e i s v e s t e d i n the c o - o p e r a t i v e i t s e l f . 18For example, c o - o p e r a t i v e members become i n v o l v e d i n d e c i s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o the e v i c t i o n of households, l e v e l s of maintenance and the performance of maintenance a c t i v i t i e s . 19Co-operative Housing Foundation of Canada, Response t o the  F e d e r a l Government's C o n s u l t a t i o n Paper on Housing (Ottawa: Co-o p e r a t i v e Housing Foundation of Canada, 1985) 22. 20Selby and Wilson, 23. 154 Co-operative households' i n p u t i n t o u n i t d e s i g n a l s o promotes r e s i d e n t housing s a t i s f a c t i o n . The d e s i g n and p l a n n i n g p r o f e s s i o n s s t r e s s the importance of having the d e s i g n e r / p l a n n e r c o n s u l t w i t h the u l t i m a t e user of a development t o determine the needs, d e s i r e s , and b i a s e s of the user. By combining t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h p r o f e s s i o n a l knowledge, the d e s i g n e r / p l a n n e r i s best able t o p r o v i d e a housing development w i t h which users are s a t i s f i e d . In the c o n s t r u c t i o n of housing, what u s u a l l y occurs i s t h a t market demands are taken as r e f l e c t i n g the p r e f e r e n c e s of the u l t i m a t e user or market r e s e a r c h i s done on a sample of housing consumers i n an attempt t o determine the p r e f e r e n c e s of the u l t i m a t e user; however, the amount of e r r o r and g e n e r a l i t y i n h e r e n t i n t h i s process makes i t a poor s u b s t i t u t e f o r d i s c u s s i o n between the d e s i g n e r / p l a n n e r and the u l t i m a t e u s e r s . In c o - o p e r a t i v e s members are u s u a l l y brought t o g e t h e r w i t h the d e s i g n e r and p o s s i b l y w i t h a planner thereby g i v i n g the d e s i g n e r / p l a n n e r access t o the u l t i m a t e user of the housing and a l l o w i n g t h e i r v a l u e s t o be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n the housing d e s i g n to the degree p o s s i b l e . C o-operative households' common g o a l of good housing management and t h e i r i n c l i n a t i o n towards w i t h i n - c o - o p e r a t i v e s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n have a p o s i t i v e impact on the d i s a b l e d . In a c o - o p e r a t i v e members who are d i s a b l e d are encouraged t o become a c t i v e members of t h e i r community thereby h e l p i n g them to l e a d a normal and f u l f i l l i n g l i f e . Furthermore, "the p r o s p e c t f o r f r e e l y o f f e r e d a s s i s t a n c e from c a r i n g neighbours i s g r e a t l y 155 enhanced by the community bond developed i n housing co-operatives" . [ 21 ] When a newcomer arr ive s i n a l o c a l community, the s o c i a l a t t i tudes of the res idents and the opportuni t ies for i n t e r a c t i o n with in the l o c a l community w i l l determine how q u i c k l y and smoothly the newcomer w i l l be integrated in to the l o c a l community. In the Greater Vancouver Area, a high percentage of residents were born outside of the area, and therefore the s o c i a l a t t i tudes of res idents i n the Greater Vancouver Area are qui te favourable to new a r r i v a l s : newcomers are not looked upon with susp ic ion . T h i s , i n combination with an i n c l i n a t i o n for w i t h i n -co-operative s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , means that co-operat ive households are l i k e l y good at f a c i l i t a t i n g the i n t e g r a t i o n of newcomers. Condominium Conversion I n i t i a l l y a l l un i t s constructed under the market- and s o c i a l -welfare programs were r e n t a l or co-operat ive u n i t s . However, as described i n Chapter 3, condominium conversion i s a great threat to the market-welfare housing stock. Consequently, even though no data has been presented on the incidence of condominium conversion among market-welfare u n i t s , the l o c a l community impacts of r e n t a l versus condominium housing are d iscussed . 2 lCo-operat ive Housing Foundation of Canada, 13. 156 With condominium c o n v e r s i o n , the m a j o r i t y of tenants are not able or w i l l i n g t o buy t h e i r u n i t s ; as a r e s u l t , tenants are d i s p l a c e d . The new r e s i d e n t s of converted u n i t s do not share the same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as the pr e v i o u s r e s i d e n t s . Of importance t o t h i s study, new r e s i d e n t s w i l l tend t o have h i g h e r incomes and w i l l be home owners, not r e n t e r s . The impacts of these changes have a l r e a d y been d e s c r i b e d . HOUSEHOLD FAMILY STATUS Family households are households w i t h c h i l d r e n . Non-family households have no c h i l d r e n . No data e x i s t s on the number of f a m i l y and non-family households occupying market- and s o c i a l - w e l f a r e u n i t s ; t h e r e f o r e , bedroom count data i s used as a s u b s t i t u t e . The number of bedrooms i n a u n i t can be used as an i n d i c a t i o n of whether or not the u n i t i s occupied by a f a m i l y . No f i x e d f i g u r e e x i s t s as t o the number of bedrooms which a u n i t must c o n t a i n i n order t o i n d i c a t e f a m i l y o c c u p a t i o n . In t h i s r e s e a r c h u n i t s c o n t a i n i n g two or more bedrooms, f a m i l y u n i t s , i n d i c a t e f a m i l y o c c u p a t i o n . H o s t e l , b a c h e l o r and one bedroom u n i t s , non-family u n i t s , i n d i c a t e n o n - f a m i l y o c c u p a t i o n . Market-welfare bedroom count f i g u r e s do not show a co n s t a n t t r e n d i n terms of f a m i l y versus non-family u n i t p r o d u c t i o n . Only 37 percent of 1976 to 1978 ARP p r o d u c t i o n was i n the form o f 157 TABLE 68 ARP BEDROOM COUNT: UNIT AND PERCENTAGE TOTALS FOR THE GREATER VANCOUVER AREA, 1976-78 < 1 BEDROOM > 2 BEDROOM TOTAL ESTABLISHED AREAS UNIT COUNT 4146 2053 6199 EMERGING AREAS UNIT COUNT 510 682 1192 TOTAL 4656 2735 7391 % OF TOTAL NUMBER OF GVA ARP UNITS 63.0% 37.0% 100.0% NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) 1975 UNIT SIZE DATA IS UNAVAILABLE (3) FOR 282, 1977 ARP UNITS, UNIT SIZE DATA IS UNAVAILABLE (4) THE ABBREVIATION GVA STANDS FOR GREATER VANCOUVER AREA SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . TABLE 69 CRSP BEDROOM COUNT: UNIT AND PERCENTAGE TOTALS FOR THE GREATER VANCOUVER AREA, 1982-84 < 1 BEDROOM > 2 BEDROOM TOTAL ESTABLISHED AREAS UNIT COUNT 1475 1322 2797 EMERGING AREAS UNIT COUNT 494 679 1173 TOTAL 1969 2001 3970 % OF TOTAL NUMBER OF GVA CRSP UNITS 49.6% 50.4% 100.0% NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) THE ABBREVIATION GVA STANDS FOR GREATER VANCOUVER AREA SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 158 TABLE 70 34.18 CO-OP BEDROOM COUNT: UNIT AND PERCENTAGE TOTALS FOR THE GREATER VANCOUVER AREA, 1976-79 < 1 BEDROOM > 2 BEDROOM TOTAL ESTABLISHED AREAS UNIT COUNT 94 531 625 EMERGING AREAS UNIT COUNT 0 65 65 TOTAL 94 596 690 % OF TOTAL NUMBER OF GVA 34.18 UNITS 13.6% 86.4% 100.0% NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) THE ABBREVIATION GVA STANDS FOR GREATER VANCOUVER AREA SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . TABLE 71 56.1 NON-PROFIT BEDROOM COUNT: UNIT AND PERCENTAGE TOTALS FOR THE GREATER VANCOUVER AREA, 1979-86 < 1 BEDROOM > 2 BEDROOM TOTAL ESTABLISHED AREAS UNIT COUNT 2584 1859 4443 EMERGING AREAS UNIT COUNT 620 1025 1645 TOTAL 3204 2884 6088 % OF TOTAL NUMBER OF GVA 56.IN UNITS 52.6% 47.4% 100.0% NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) THE ABBREVIATION GVA STANDS FOR GREATER VANCOUVER AREA SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 159 TABLE 72 56.1 CO-OPERATIVE BEDROOM COUNT: UNIT AND PERCENTAGE TOTALS FOR THE GREATER VANCOUVER AREA, 1980-86 < 1 BEDROOM > 2 BEDROOM TOTAL ESTABLISHED AREAS UNIT COUNT 1028 3550 4578 EMERGING AREAS UNIT COUNT 309 928 1237 TOTAL 1337 4478 5815 % OF TOTAL NUMBER OF GVA 56.1C UNITS 23.0% 77.0% 100.0% NOTE: (1) DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE (2) THE ABBREVIATION GVA STANDS FOR GREATER VANCOUVER AREA SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . f a m i l y u n i t s . In comparison CRSP p r o d u c t i o n was e v e n l y s p l i t between f a m i l y and non-family u n i t s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , no bedroom count d a t a i s a v a i l a b l e f o r MURB or 1975 ARP p r o d u c t i o n . While the m a j o r i t y of ARP u n i t s were l o c a t e d i n c e r t i f i e d MURB b u i l d i n g s , 1976 to 1978 ARP bedroom count data cannot be used as a proxy f o r MURB. The ARP u n i t s may re p r e s e n t a b i a s e d sample of MURB u n i t s . In the s o c i a l - w e l f a r e s e c t o r , the c o - o p e r a t i v e programs were s t r o n g l y o r i e n t a t e d t o f a m i l y housing w h i l e 56.1 n o n - p r o f i t p r o d u c t i o n was roughly, e v e n l y s p l i t between f a m i l y and non-f a m i l y u n i t s . Family u n i t s comprised 86 perc e n t of 34.18 p r o d u c t i o n and 77 perc e n t of 56.1 c o - o p e r a t i v e p r o d u c t i o n . Only 47 pe r c e n t of 56.1 n o n - p r o f i t u n i t s were f a m i l y u n i t s . No bedroom count data i s a v a i l a b l e f o r the 15.1 program. 160 Temporal pattern analys i s of the market-welfare bedroom count data requires knowledge of r e n t a l un i t market demand according to u n i t s i z e , which i s beyond the scope of th i s research. Temporal pattern analys i s of the soc ia l -we l fare data i s not worthwhile: un i t s i ze was l i k e l y inf luenced by p o l i t i c a l concerns, which need not have corresponded to market pressures. An i n t e r e s t i n g s p a t i a l pattern i s evident i n the ARP and CRSP data . Under both programs the majori ty of es tabl i shed area uni t s (66.9 percent for ARP and 52.7 percent for CRSP) were non-family u n i t s . In contrast the majori ty of emerging area un i t s (57.2 percent for ARP and 57.9 percent for CRSP) were family uni ts . [22] The s p a t i a l pattern apparent i n the 34.18 and 56.1 data i s more complicated. Under the 34.18 program, the majori ty of es tabl i shed and emerging area un i t s were family uni t s although the percentage was much higher i n emerging areas (85.0 versus 100.0 percent) . The non-prof i t component of the 56.1 program exhibi ted the same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as ARP and CRSP: the major i ty of es tabl i shed area uni t s (58.2 percent) were non-family u n i t s , whereas the majority of emerging area uni t s (62.3 percent) were family u n i t s . Thus both the 34.18 and the non-prof i t component of the 56.1 program had a higher percentage of family uni t s i n emerging areas. Under the co-operat ive component of the 56.1 program, the uni ts i n both areas were mostly family u n i t s , and 22This i s i n keeping with the fac t that the large land parce l s needed for ground or ientated family housing were more r e a d i l y ava i lab le and less expensive i n the emerging areas. 161 the percentage of f a m i l y u n i t s was roughly the same f o r both areas (77.5 percent f o r e s t a b l i s h e d areas and 75.0 percent f o r emerging a r e a s ) . Households w i t h c h i l d r e n are more i n v o l v e d i n t h e i r l o c a l community than those without c h i l d r e n . Such households have been found to neighbour more f r e q u e n t l y and t o p a r t i c i p a t e more i n l o c a l community-based o r g a n i z a t i o n s . [ 2 3 ] A p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t the a c t i v i t i e s of c h i l d r e n i n c r e a s e the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r i n t e r a c t i o n among pa r e n t s ; c h i l d r e n , e s p e c i a l l y young c h i l d r e n , remain c l o s e t o home, have l o c a l community playmates and a t t e n d a s c h o o l which i s e i t h e r i n the l o c a l community or c l o s e t o i t . [ 2 4 ] HOUSEHOLD DISABILITY STATUS No f i g u r e s are a v a i l a b l e on the number of market and s o c i a l w e l f a r e u n i t s which were oc c u p i e d by p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d i n d i v i d u a l s ; however, program s p e c i f i c a t i o n s s t a t e t h a t CRSP and the 56.1 program r e q u i r e d a p o r t i o n of the u n i t s i n each p r o j e c t be m o d i f i e d f o r use by the p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d . Under CRSP a minimum of f i v e p ercent of the u n i t s i n a p r o j e c t had to be designed f o r the p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d . However, t h i s requirement may have been avoided i f a developer convinced CMHC the housing market was i n c a p a b l e of a bsorbing the u n i t s . S t a r t i n g i n 1981, the 56.1 program r e q u i r e d f i v e p e r c e n t of the u n i t s i n each new 23Ahlbrandt, 23-24. 24Ahlbrandt, 18. 162 non-prof i t and co-operat ive projec t to be modified for use by the p h y s i c a l l y d i sabled unless t h i s was u n r e a l i s t i c given s i t e condit ions and the l oca t ion of support serv ices . In the 1983 56.1 program eva luat ion , CMHC noted that roughly 17 percent of 56.1 projects were found to have uni ts modified to accommodate the handicapped.[25] There has not been a great deal of l i t e r a t u r e published on the l o c a l community impacts of p h y s i c a l l y d i sabled res idents . However, the p h y s i c a l l y d i sab led have a l i m i t e d l e v e l of m o b i l i t y , a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c held i n common with e l d e r l y and low income households, whose l o c a l community impacts are we l l covered i n community l i t e r a t u r e . Therefore, one i s able to glean from ava i lab le information the l o c a l community impacts of households with l i m i t e d m o b i l i t y . There i s the danger of overestimating the s i m i l a r i t y between the d i f f e r e n t groups; for t h i s reason, only the basic community impacts of reduced mobi l i ty are assumed to apply to the p h y s i c a l l y d i sab led . Households with a l i m i t e d m o b i l i t y are l i k e l y to be more dependent on t h e i r l o c a l community to meet t h e i r s o c i a l , emotional and p h y s i c a l needs. This does not mean the p h y s i c a l l y d i sabled have a greater tendency to enter in to l o c a l community re la t ionsh ips or that they make greater use of l o c a l community f a c i l i t i e s than i s the norm. In f a c t , the opposite may be t rue . What i s meant i s that for the p h y s i c a l l y d i sab led the s p a t i a l 25Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, Sect ion 56.1 Non- P r o f i t and Cooperative Housing Program Evaluat ion , 226. 163 e x t e n t of t h e i r s o c i a l and i n s t i t u t i o n a l network i s l e s s than i s the norm. By t a k i n g t h i s argument one s t e p f u r t h e r , i t becomes apparent the p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d are a l s o l i k e l y t o be more i s o l a t e d w i t h i n t h e i r own l o c a l community than i s the norm. Furthermore, the importance of l o c a l community r e l a t i o n s h i p s and a c t i v i t i e s and the i n t e n s i t y o f l o c a l community r e l a t i o n s h i p s are l i k e l y t o be hig h e r f o r p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d r e s i d e n t s than i s the norm. "Being c o n s t r a i n e d t o p l a c e , f o r whatever the reason, i n c r e a s e s people's r e l i a n c e upon the neighborhood, i t s s e r v i c e s , and the f a b r i c of i t s s o c i a l l i f e " . [ 2 6 ] Moreover, the i n t e n s i t y of the n e i g h b o u r l y r e l a t i o n s of the p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d can be expected t o be hig h e r than i s the norm, as the emotional needs of the p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d are h i g h e r than the norm g i v e n t h e i r r e s t r i c t e d m o b i l i t y t o i n t e r a c t w i t h o t h e r s and the f r u s t r a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h many p h y s i c a l d i s a b i l i t i e s . 26Ahlbrandt, 195. 164 LOCAL COMMUNITY IMPACTS ACCORDING TO HOUSING LOCATION T h i s s e c t i o n of the t h e s i s d e a l s w i t h the l o c a l community impacts of the c r e a t i o n of medium to h i g h d e n s i t y [ 2 7 ] r e n t a l u n i t s a c c o r d i n g t o the c h a r a c t e r of the surrounding area. Three d i f f e r e n t types of areas w i l l be d e a l t w i t h : s i n g l e f a m i l y areas, medium to h i g h d e n s i t y areas, and areas of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . I t i s beyond the scope of t h i s r e s e a r c h t o determine i n what type of a l o c a l community (e.g. s i n g l e f a m i l y ) program housing p r o j e c t s were l o c a t e d . As a r e s u l t , t h i s s e c t i o n of the chapter, w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n s u b s e c t i o n , does not analyze the impact of one program versus another; o n l y a g e n e r i c d e s c r i p t i o n of the l o c a l community impact of the c o n s t r u c t i o n medium t o h i g h d e n s i t y r e n t a l housing a c c o r d i n g to the c h a r a c t e r of the l o c a l community i s g i v e n . SINGLE FAMILY AREAS The c r e a t i o n of medium t o h i g h d e n s i t y r e n t a l housing i n a l o c a l community of s i n g l e f a m i l y housing a f f e c t s the (1) s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r and (2) p h y s i c a l s e c u r i t y of the l o c a l community, (3) r e s i d e n t commitment t o the l o c a l community and (4) r e s i d e n t c o n f i d e n c e i n the l o c a l community as a p l a c e t o i n v e s t and l i v e . 27While the market- and s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs produced some low d e n s i t y housing, the v a s t m a j o r i t y of the housing produced was medium to h i g h d e n s i t y . 165 F i r s t , when medium t o h i g h d e n s i t y housing i s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o a s i n g l e f a m i l y area, as opposed t o on i t s f r i n g e where i t can be o s t r a c i z e d by the s i n g l e f a m i l y r e s i d e n t s , the s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r of the l o c a l community i s a f f e c t e d . The s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r of a l o c a l community i s dependent on the p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the l o c a l community and those of i t s r e s i d e n t s . The p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of medium t o h i g h d e n s i t y housing are c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t from those of s i n g l e f a m i l y housing. I t i s f o r s o c i a l and economic reasons t h a t households choose t o l i v e i n one type of accommodation, as opposed t o another; consequently, r e n t e r s have d i f f e r e n t socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s compared t o home owners of s i n g l e f a m i l y housing. In summary, the i n t r o d u c t i o n of medium t o h i g h d e n s i t y housing i n t o an area of s i n g l e f a m i l y housing i n t r o d u c e s a new housing form and r e s i d e n t s o f a d i f f e r e n t socio-economic group which r e s u l t s i n a change i n the s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r of a l o c a l community. What does t h i s mean i n terms of an e x i s t i n g household's c o m p a t i b i l i t y w i t h a s i n g l e f a m i l y l o c a l community once medium t o hi g h d e n s i t y housing i s introduced? Households choose t h e i r l o c a l community on the a b i l i t y o f the l o c a l community t o p r o v i d e a l i f e s t y l e which the household d e s i r e s . The a b i l i t y of a l o c a l community t o do t h i s depends on the correspondence between the va l u e s h e l d by the household and the d e n s i t y , p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r and t r a f f i c a t t r i b u t e s of the l o c a l community. Because i n e v a l u a t i n g a l o c a l community, households are concerned w i t h d e n s i t y , the l o c a t i o n of medium t o h i g h d e n s i t y 166 housing i n a l o c a l community of s ing le family housing i s l i k e l y to br ing a strong negative react ion from l o c a l res idents . The reac t ion of Burnaby residents to the suggestion of densi ty i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n on i n f i l l s i t e s was so strong that the attempt to o f f i c i a l l y plan for such uni t s was qu ick ly abandoned.[28] In report ing on a publ i c meeting held on the subject of planning for densi ty i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n i n some Burnaby l o c a l communities, termed "compaction", the Burnaby Now newspaper wrote "one-by-one, Burnaby res idents took the microphone to express t h e i r concern that the new 'compaction' zone w i l l destroy the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s s ing l e - fami ly neighbourhoods".[29] A Burnaby municipal report stated 94.7 percent of res idents p o l l e d were against the concept.[30] The in troduct ion of medium to high densi ty housing w i l l a lso af fec t the phys i ca l character of a s ing le family l o c a l community, because a d i f f e r e n t housing form i s being introduced in to the area. The in troduct ion of medium to high densi ty housing w i l l a l t e r the streetscape and reduce the amount of sunl ight and pr ivacy enjoyed by s ing le family neighbours. Pr ivacy would be reduced because of upper s tory windows overlooking prev ious ly pr iva te areas. In general these problems would e x i s t where the 28"Opposition K i l l s Burnaby H i g h-Density Zoning P l a n , " Sun [Vancouver] 8 Aug. 1984, T h i r d e d . : F12. 29David Spaner, "Shouting Match Erupts Over New Housing Zone." Burnaby Now 25 June 1984: 1. 30"Nobody Mourns Death of Compaction," Burnaby Now 19 Nov. 1984: 1. 167 medium to h i g h d e n s i t y housing has f o u r or more s t o r i e s . Above t h i s h e i g h t , i t i s u s u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e t o c o r r e c t the problems through s c r e e n i n g and landscaping.[31] These problems can a l s o e x i s t w i t h b u i l d i n g s of lower h e i g h t s i f proper s c r e e n i n g or l a n d s c a p i n g i s not p r o v i d e d . I n c r e a s i n g the number of people l i v i n g i n an area means automobiles and the problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h them become more n o t i c e a b l e . The c r e a t i o n of medium t o h i g h d e n s i t y housing w i l l i n c r e a s e the amount of t r a f f i c on l o c a l roads; as a r e s u l t , the suburban environment w i l l become more urban i n c h a r a c t e r . The q u e s t i o n of p a r k i n g i s not so c l e a r c u t . With proper s i t e d e s i g n , o n - s i t e p a r k i n g can meet the p a r k i n g needs of r e s i d e n t s i n a manner which i s not o v e r l y d e s t r u c t i v e t o the c h a r a c t e r of a l o c a l community. The key q u e s t i o n s concern the q u a l i t y of m u n i c i p a l p a r k i n g d e s i g n requirements and the p r o p e n s i t y of developers to take the i n i t i a t i v e and b u i l d q u a l i t y p a r k i n g f a c i l i t i e s when r e g u l a t i o n s don't r e q u i r e t h e i r c o n s t r u c t i o n . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , such i n f o r m a t i o n has not y e t been compiled f o r the Greater Vancouver Area. A second important l o c a l community impact of the i n t r o d u c t i o n of medium t o h i g h d e n s i t y housing i s the e f f e c t i t has on the a b i l i t y of the l o c a l community to f u l f i l i t s p h y s i c a l s e c u r i t y 31It i s r e a l i z e d the p r i v a c y concern can be e l i m i n a t e d through proper b u i l d i n g d e s i g n (e.g. windows which p r o v i d e s u n l i g h t but not a view); however, at the same time, i t i s noted t h a t such designs are u s u a l l y not undertaken due t o c o s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . 168 f u n c t i o n . As the number of r e s i d e n t s i n a l o c a l community i n c r e a s e s , the f a m i l i a r i t y of r e s i d e n t s w i t h t h e i r neighbours decreases; t h i s decrease i n f a m i l i a r i t y decreases l o c a l community r e s i l i e n c e a g a i n s t crime. T h i r d , the i n t r o d u c t i o n of r e n t e r s may lower the o v e r a l l commitment of r e s i d e n t s t o t h e i r l o c a l community. In Canadian s o c i e t y , the u l t i m a t e g o a l of the v a s t m a j o r i t y of households i s home ownership. T h i s i s a r e s u l t of two f a c t o r s : i t i s a commonly h e l d b e l i e f t h a t "good" c i t i z e n s are home owners and home ownership i s a wise f i n a n c i a l investment. Through the p r o v i s i o n of d i r e c t s u b s i d i e s (e.g. the Canadian Home Ownership S t i m u l a t i o n Program) and tax grants (e.g. the non - t a x a t i o n of c a p i t a l gains on a p r i n c i p l e r e s i d e n c e ) , home ownership has become one of the best investments a household can make. As a r e s u l t , a s i g n i f i c a n t p r o p o r t i o n of r e n t e r s see r e n t a l housing as temporary housing: home ownership being the u l t i m a t e g o a l . T h e r e f o r e , the i n t r o d u c t i o n of r e n t e r s i n t o a s i n g l e f a m i l y area may r e s u l t i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n of households which do not have the same l e v e l of commitment t o the l o c a l community as home owners. A low l e v e l of r e n t e r commitment t o the l o c a l community i s b e l i e v e d t o t r a n s l a t e i n t o a r e d u c t i o n of the q u a l i t y and upkeep of r e n t a l housing. While t h i s argument sounds a t t r a c t i v e , one c r i t i c a l f a c t o r has been overlooked. Renters do not own t h e i r housing, and u n i t maintenance and r e p a i r s are an owner's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Furthermore, owners have the power t o e v i c t 169 d e s t r u c t i v e t e n a n t s . T h e r e f o r e , w h i l e a r e n t e r ' s commitment t o the l o c a l community may be lower than t h a t of a home owner, i t need not n e c e s s a r i l y be r e f l e c t e d i n housing q u a l i t y and upkeep. Fourth, i f a s i n g l e f a m i l y l o c a l community i s a g a i n s t the i n t r o d u c t i o n of medium to h i g h d e n s i t y housing, i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n may cause a l o s s i n r e s i d e n t c o n f i d e n c e i n the l o c a l community as a p l a c e t o i n v e s t and l i v e . T h i s l o s s i n c o n f i d e n c e may cause lower l e v e l s of l o c a l community p a r t i c i p a t i o n and housing maintenance. In the extreme, i t may a l s o r e s u l t i n an exodus of r e s i d e n t s from the l o c a l community. The s t r e n g t h of t h i s " l o s s of c o n f i d e n c e " argument i s l i m i t e d . In s i n g l e f a m i l y areas, l a n d must f i r s t be rezoned b e f o r e the c o n s t r u c t i o n of medium to h i g h d e n s i t y housing can take p l a c e . I t i s mandatory t h a t a l l r e z o n i n g p r o p o s a l s be d i s c u s s e d i n p u b l i c meetings, and m u n i c i p a l c o u n c i l s are r e s p o n s i v e to the d e s i r e s of r e s i d e n t s . Moreover, a f e a r of reduced housing p r i c e s i n the l o c a l community i s unfounded: the Vancouver P l a n n i n g Department, i n a study of the impact of the c r e a t i o n of s i x separate h i g h d e n s i t y housing complexes i n s i n g l e f a m i l y areas of the c i t y , found no evidence t o support such a c o n t e n t i o n . [ 3 2 ] The r e p o r t a l s o found " n e a r l y t h r e e q u a r t e r s of the h i g h e r d e n s i t y r e s i d e n t s had simply moved w i t h i n the neighbourhood, mostly o l d e r people t r a d i n g a s i n g l e f a m i l y house f o r an 32"Higher D e n s i t y has Minimal Impact on L o c a l House P r i c e s , " Sun [Vancouver] 18 Oct. 1985: n.p. 170 apartment".[33] However, i t was found t h a t o p p o s i t i o n to the h i g h e r d e n s i t y developments s t i l l e x i s t e d i n the l o c a l community: l o c a l community r e s i d e n t s who moved i n t o the l o c a l community a f t e r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the developments accepted the developments as a " n a t u r a l " p a r t of the l o c a l community; however, among the long term r e s i d e n t s of the l o c a l community, i t was found t h a t the same l e v e l of o p p o s i t i o n t o the developments e x i s t e d as a t the time of t h e i r c o n s t r u c t i o n . [ 3 4 ] N e v e r t h e l e s s , any use of t h i s l o s s of c o n f i d e n c e argument must be h e a v i l y q u a l i f i e d . Some people m a i n t a i n one can i n c r e a s e the amount of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n i n a l o c a l community through the m a n i p u l a t i o n of the p h y s i c a l and f u n c t i o n a l d i s t a n c e between l o c a l community r e s i d e n t s . P h y s i c a l d i s t a n c e i s measured through one's senses, whereas f u n c t i o n a l d i s t a n c e i s a measurement of the p r o p e n s i t y f o r i n a d v e r t e n t c o n t a c t s between i n d i v i d u a l s as they perform r o u t i n e a c t i v i t i e s . I t seems l o g i c a l t o assume when d e n s i t y i s i n c r e a s e d these d i s t a n c e s are decreased which may l e a d to an i n c r e a s e i n s u p e r f i c i a l c o n t a c t s , which i n t u r n p r o v i d e the seed f o r the development of more meaningful i n t e r a c t i o n . However, the r e i s not a d i r e c t c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between s u p e r f i c i a l c o n t a c t s t h a t occur between i n d i v i d u a l s and the f o r m a t i o n of 33"Higher D e n s i t y has Minimal Impact on L o c a l House P r i c e s , " Sun [Vancouver] 18 Oct. 1985: n.p. 34"Higher D e n s i t y has Minimal Impact on L o c a l House P r i c e s , " Sun [Vancouver] 18 Oct. 1985:n.p. 171 h i g h e r order r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; t h e r e are i n t e r v e n i n g f a c t o r s . In f a c t where s u p e r f i c i a l c o n t a c t i s i n c r e a s e d between in c o m p a t i b l e i n d i v i d u a l s , f r i c t i o n between i n d i v i d u a l s may i n c r e a s e . K e l l e r s t a t e s "time [ l e n g t h of r e s i d e n c e ] , l a y o u t , e c o l o g i c a l p o s i t i o n , s o c i a l s i m i l a r i t y , and compatible moral and s o c i a l standards are the c h i e f i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s " . [ 3 5 ] Information on the v a l u e s of these v a r i a b l e s i n r e l a t i o n t o market- and s o c i a l - w e l f a r e p r o j e c t s i s not a v a i l a b l e . MEDIUM TO HIGH DENSITY AREAS The impact of c o n s t r u c t i n g medium t o h i g h d e n s i t y r e n t a l u n i t s i n an area of medium to h i g h d e n s i t y i s normally not d e s t a b i l i z i n g t o the l o c a l community u n l e s s new c o n s t r u c t i o n occurs at the c o s t of the d e m o l i t i o n of o l d e r u n i t s . Normally i n such s i t u a t i o n s , the r e s i d e n t s of the demolished r e n t a l u n i t s are d i s p l a c e d , because they u s u a l l y cannot a f f o r d the h i g h r e n t s of new r e n t a l housing. In such cases, the l o c a l community impacts of h i g h e r income households would apply. 3 5 K e l l e r , 79. 172 AREAS OF GENTRIFICATION D e f i n i t i o n Two types of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n ex is t . [36] An organic form of g e n t r i f i c a t i o h occurs when l o c a l and new res idents of the same socio-economic c lass work together to upgrade the housing of an inner c i t y area.[37] With the second type of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , p r i m a r i l y pr iva te market forces cause an older and often rundown inner c i t y area to undergo a p r o c e s s of change where the end r e s u l t i s socio-economic and phys i ca l upgradingt38], through renovation or new construct ion . "The process i s complex and may vary according to pecu l iar l o c a t i o n a l , s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , economic and environmental circumstances."[39] For example, i f the houses i n a l o c a l community undergoing g e n t r i f i c a t i o n are i n good phys i ca l condi t ion and are a r c h i t e c t u r a l l y p l eas ing , i t i s u n l i k e l y the houses w i l l be changed to any great extent. Instead, the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n process w i l l cons i s t p r i m a r i l y of a change i n the socio-economic status of l o c a l community res idents . 36Joe R. Feagin, "Urban Real Estate Speculat ion i n the United States: Implicat ions for S o c i a l Science and Urban Planning," C r i t i c a l Perspectives on Housing, ed. Rachel G. B r a t t , Chester Hartman and Ann Meyerson (Phi lade lphia: Temple Un ivers i ty Press , 1986) 109. 37Feagin, 109. 38Robert Bruce Buchan, " G e n t r i f i c a t i o n ' s Impact on Neighbourhood Publ ic Service Usage," masters t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1985, 20-21. 39Buchan, 21. 173 T h i s t h e s i s d e a l s w i t h programs t h a t produced p r i m a r i l y new, developer c o n s t r u c t e d , r e n t a l housing; t h e r e f o r e , i t i s the second type of g e n t r i f I c a t i o n which i s of i n t e r e s t and which w i l l be h e r e a f t e r d e s c r i b e d . The s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c change i n v o l v e d i n the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n process proceeds i n f o u r stages.[40] In stage one, households p r i m a r i l y comprised of a r t i s t s and homosexuals w i t h a p r o f e s s i o n a l o c c u p a t i o n s e t t l e i n o l d e r i n n e r c i t y s e c t i o n s of the c i t y . They are a t t r a c t e d by low housing p r i c e s , s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l h e t e r o g e n e i t y , a non-chic area s t a t u s and convenient l o c a t i o n . The second stage i s a l s o comprised p r i m a r i l y of p r o f e s s i o n a l s ; but i n t h i s stage, they are more a t t r a c t e d by low housing c o s t s . In stage t h r e e , younger p r o f e s s i o n a l s and managers who p l a c e c o n s i d e r a b l e emphasis on a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t i e s move i n t o the area. At t h i s time, the p u b l i c s e c t o r may i n c r e a s e the q u a l i t y of i t s s e r v i c e s and f a c i l i t i e s i n the area i n order to complement i n c r e a s e d p r i v a t e s e c t o r investment and r e i n f o r c e the growing c o n f i d e n c e i n the area. In the f i n a l stage, young p r o f e s s i o n a l s and other white c o l l a r workers pay top market p r i c e s f o r u n i t s i n a completely renovated and/or r e c o n s t r u c t e d area. As t h i s s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c process u n f o l d s , a number of s o c i o -economic v a r i a b l e s change. The o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s and f i n a n c i a l 40For the i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s paragraph, I am in d e b t e d t o Buchan, 19. 174 resources of the g e n t r i f i e r s s t e a d i l y increases . Ley describes t h i s we l l : The e a r l y stages of the cyc le might begin with the a r r i v a l of students and economically marginal profess ionals i n the ar t s and media. They are jo ined by members of the soft professions inc lud ing design and teaching, and l a t e r by lawyers, doctors and buisinessnen [ s ic ] . [41] This increase i n the f i n a n c i a l resources of the g e n t r i f i e r s i s matched by increases i n housing p r i c e s . A l s o , . a s the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n process develops, the concern of households for the protec t ion and enhancement of t h e i r f i n a n c i a l stake i n the l o c a l community increases . L a s t l y , while households i n the f i r s t stage of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n are a t trac ted by s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l heterogeneity, the same may not be true for households i n the l a t e r stages. In an area undergoing g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , three stages of p h y s i c a l change occur.[42] In the f i r s t stage, the l e v e l of r i s k involved i n inves t ing i n the area i s highest because the area has not yet es tabl i shed i t s e l f as an area of upgrading. Commonly, the f i r s t stage i s dominated by owners of propert ies undertaking renovations. T y p i c a l l y , i n t h i s stage, owners provide a great deal of "sweat equity"; the use of tradesman i s l i m i t e d . Once higher income households s t a r t to become res idents of the area, small development firms may enter the market, but the l e v e l of 41David Ley, " G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : A Ten Year Overview," C i t y  Magazine Winter 1986/1987: 15. 42For the information contained i n t h i s paragraph, I am indebted to Ley, 1986/1987, 15. 175 r i s k i s s t i l l too great for the large development f i rms . U s u a l l y , large development firms only begin to operate i n the area once small firms prove the area i s r i p e for investment. This pr ivate market process of s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l upgrading need not be sparked by the pr ivate sector. [43] The pub l i c sector i s w i l l i n g to invest i n higher r i s k locat ions than the pr iva te sector . Often publ ic sector investment i n an area provides a focus of improvement, which lowers the r i s k of subsequent investment thereby sparking the involvement of the pr iva te sector . A good example of t h i s i s the pr ivate sector redevelopment of Fairview Slopes once pub l i c i n i t i a t i v e resu l ted i n the crea t ion of the innovative False Creek r e s i d e n t i a l development, which i s adjacent to the Fairview Slopes. G e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s associated with the seeking of environmental and c u l t u r a l s t i m u l i , and t h i s i s one of the reasons for the inner c i t y l oca t ion of areas of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . G e n t r i f i e r s have the des ire and f i n a n c i a l resources necessary to enjoy the environmental and c u l t u r a l amenities of inner c i t y loca t ions . Some see g e n t r i f i c a t i o n as a t r a n s i t o r y phenomenon. G e n t r i f i e r s are seen as cons i s t ing of s ingles or two income c h i l d l e s s f a m i l i e s , and i t i s assumed that as these households go through the l i f e c y c l e , they w i l l move in to the suburbs. "But i n Canadian inner c i t i e s the p r o f i l e of the new middle c lass 43For the information contained i n th i s paragraph, I am indebted to Ley, 1986/1987, 13-15. 176 household [the g e n t r i f i e r s ] . . . [has] a l r e a d y broadened beyond t h i s sub-market to i n c l u d e e l d e r l y empty n e s t e r s , and a l s o some f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n " . [ 4 4 ] Furthermore, t h e r e i s evidence which p o i n t s t o a degree of permanency i n the l o c a t i o n of g e n t r i f i e r s . In Ottawa's Centretown 72 percent of i n t e r v i e w e d home owners and 65 percent of r e n t e r s s t a t e d they d i d not i n t e n d t o move.[45] Justification G e n t r i f i c a t i o n must be d e a l t w i t h i n t h i s t h e s i s . In the C i t y of Vancouver hi g h l e v e l s of middle c l a s s demand [ f o r i n n e r c i t y housing] eroded a s u b s t a n t i a l stock of a f f o r d a b l e i n n e r c i t y housing. . . . between 1973 and 1976, over 2400 r e n t a l u n i t s were l o s t through d e m o l i t i o n alone i n s i x i n n e r c i t y neighbourhoods; from 1976-81 l o s s e s of 1000 r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s a year were recorded, p r i m a r i l y i n the i n n e r c i t y d i s t r i c t s . [ 4 6 ] Research by David Ley has shed some l i g h t on the l o c a t i o n of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n w i t h i n the Greater Vancouver Area.[47] Ley determined the degree of s o c i a l s t a t u s change from 1971 t o 1981 i n i n n e r c i t y census t r a c t s of the Vancouver Census M e t r o p o l i t a n 44Ley, 1986/1987, 14. 45Ley, 1986/1987, 15. 46Ley, 1986/1987, 17. 47David Ley, " S o c i a l Upgrading i n S i x Canadian Inner C i t i e s , " The Canadian Geographer 32.1 (1988): 31-45. 177 Area[48] (see Figure 11). S o c i a l status change re fers to housing "renovation by the middle c lass . . . , pr iva te redevelopment of e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l areas, and the development for housing of former non-res ident ia l areas" prov id ing these processes are "associated with the removal of lower-status households" by the middle c lass . [49] Tracts with the highest increase i n s o c i a l status form a s o l i d block on the c i t y ' s west s ide , with impressive view s i t e s and adjacent to the False Creek waterfront ( t rac t 49), the K i t s i l a n o beaches ( tracts 45-48), and the fores t of the Univers i ty Endowment Lands ( tracts 24, 25, 43). This sector i s a lso wedged between the e l i t e d i s t r i c t s of Shaughnessy ( t rac t 21) and West Point Grey ( tract 44).[50] Furthermore, i t has been es tabl i shed that " g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i n Vancouver has tended to take the form of redevelopment rather than renovation."[51] This fac t i s e s s en t ia l to the v a l i d i t y of d i scuss ing g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i n t h i s the s i s , because i t i s concerned with the l o c a l community impacts of new r e n t a l cons truct ion . Local Community Impacts of Gentrification While no empir i ca l information has been presented to show that the market- and soc ia l -we l fare programs were ac t ive i n areas 48The determination of which census t r a c t s were inner c i t y census t r a c t s was based upon census t r a c t housing stock age and distance from the c e n t r a l business d i s t r i c t ; i t was not required that inner c i t y census t r a c t s be wi th in C i t y of Vancouver boundaries. 49Ley, 1988, 32. 50Ley, 1988, 40. 5 lCaro l ine A. M i l l s , " L i f e s t y l e and Landscape on the Fairview Slopes," C i t y Magazine Winter 1986/1987: 20. 178 SOCIAL STATUS CHANGE IN VANCOUVER INNER CITY CENSUS TRACTS SOURCE: David Ley, "Soc ia l Upgrading i n Six Canadian Inner C i t i e s , " The Canadian Geographer 32.1 (1988): 36. figure 11 179 of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n w i t h i n the Greater Vancouver Area, i t i s a s a f e and commonly h e l d assumption t h a t such housing was b u i l t i n these areas. The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n assumes t h i s assumption i s t r u e . MURB and CRSP, because they housed moderate to h i g h income households, a i d e d Greater Vancouver Area g e n t r i f i c a t i o n [ 5 2 ] ; however, the r a m i f i c a t i o n s of the s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs, which housed low t o moderate income households, are not so simple. Investment under the s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs i n l o c a l communities which were i n a s t a t e of decay r e s u l t e d i n l o c a l community r e v i t a l i z a t i o n , not g e n t r i f i c a t i o n ; however, t h i s r e v i t a l i z a t i o n c o u l d have and, i n one case a t l e a s t , d i d spark g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . In areas of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , t o the extent t o which s o c i a l housing r e s i d e n t s were drawn from the l o c a l community, s o c i a l - w e l f a r e housing p r e s e r v e d the s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r of the l o c a l community. Even i f s o c i a l - w e l f a r e housing r e s i d e n t s were not drawn from the l o c a l community, s o c i a l - h o u s i n g i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the l o c a l community r e s i d e n t s of the same economic c l a s s as those who l i v e d i n the l o c a l community b e f o r e g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . Moreover, i n those cases where s o c i a l - w e l f a r e housing was c r e a t e d through the r e n o v a t i o n of e x i s t i n g housing, s o c i a l - w e l f a r e housing a l s o p r e s e r v e d the p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r of the l o c a l community. Socio-economic and p h y s i c a l change are the fundamental l o c a l community impacts of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n through redevelopment. T h i s 52The g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i m p l i c a t i o n s of ARP cannot be d i s c u s s e d , as the income l e v e l of ARP households has not been determined. 180 change means the displacement of the o r i g i n a l res idents of the l o c a l community. In descr ib ing the e f fects of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n on Vancouver from the ear ly 1970's to e a r l y 1980's, David Ley notes the demolit ion of e x i s t i n g uni t s was concentrated i n areas of condominium redevelopment, not affordable to many d isp laced tenants. Indeed by 1981 less than ten percent of renters could a f ford the economic (non-subsidized) rent on a new one-bedroom apartment i n Vancouver.[53] Thus what happens i s inner c i t y l o c a l communities, many of which are i n a state of phys i ca l decay, are renewed; however, t h i s i s achieved at the expense of s o c i a l j u s t i c e : p r e - g e n t r i f i c a t i o n res idents lose t h e i r housing and community, and the affordable housing stock of inner c i t y areas i s eroded. Who i s t y p i c a l l y d i sp laced through g e n t r i f i c a t i o n ? In dea l ing with t h i s quest ion, Ley re fers to a Canadian "study of neighbourhoods which moved s u b s t a n t i a l l y up-market i n the 1970's";[54] the study " i d e n t i f i e d g e n t r i f i c a t i o n with areas of average income, s ing le persons, the e l d e r l y and students".[55] While i n the ear ly stages, g e n t r i f i e r s are a t trac ted by s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l heterogeneity: they only want d i f f e r e n t groups wi th in perceptual d i s tance , they do not want to i n t e r a c t with them. 53Ley, 1986/1987, 17. 54Ley, 1986/1987, 14. 55Ley, 1986/1987, 16. 181 In f a c t a c l a s h of c u l t u r e , v a l u e s and l i f e s t y l e s occurs between g e n t r i f i e r s and long-term r e s i d e n t s . T h i s corresponds to f i n d i n g s t h a t g e n t r i f i e r s are not o v e r l y concerned about the r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s found i n t h e i r l o c a l community; they have the f i n a n c i a l means t o use r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s o u t s i d e of the l o c a l community. T h i s i s i n d i r e c t c o n t r a s t t o p r e v i o u s l o c a l community r e s i d e n t s who tend t o be v e r y l o c a l community-based i n terms of t h e i r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n and use of r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s . However, g e n t r i f i e r s are more i n v o l v e d w i t h the p o l i t i c a l p r ocesses and i n s t i t u t i o n s of t h e i r l o c a l community i n comparison t o urban r e s i d e n t s as a whole.[56] T h i s i s l i k e l y a r e s u l t of the h i g h e r e d u c t i o n l e v e l s of the g e n t r i f i e r s ; they are more knowledgeable of the workings of the p o l i t i c a l system and more aware of the b e n e f i t s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Support f o r t h i s view comes from the f a c t t h a t i t appears g e n t r i f i e r s may be more l i k e l y t o take a p r o a c t i v e , r a t h e r than r e a c t i v e , stance t o l o c a l community changes.[57] 5 6 S h i r l e y Bradway Laska and Daphne Spain, " A n t i c i p a t i n g Renovators' Demands: New O r l e a n s , " Back t o the C i t y : Issues i n  Neighbourhood Renovation, ed. S h i r l e y Bradway Laska and Daphne Spain (New York: Pergamon P r e s s , 1980) 121. 57Laska and Spain, 121. 182 CONCLUSION The strength of a l o c a l community i s dependent on how wel l the a t t r ibutes of the l o c a l community meet the needs and des ires of residents[58] (see Appendix D) . Such analys i s i s beyond the scope of t h i s research, which i s only able to examine some of the l o c a l community impacts of the market- and soc ia l -we l fare programs, not determine whether they strengthen or weaken the l o c a l community. This chapter makes f i v e important ins ights in to the l o c a l community impacts of the market- and soc ia l -we l fare programs from 1975 to 1985. F i r s t , on the basis of household income, MURB and CRSP households had more l o c a l community re la t ionsh ips and a c t i v i t i e s , but they were less meaningful than those of s o c i a l -welfare households. For soc ia l -we l fare households, l o c a l community i n t e r a c t i o n was more important, and neighbourly r e l a t i o n s were more intense . Again on the basis of household income, MURB and CRSP households were more s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r l o c a l community i n comparison to soc ia l -we l fare households. Second, on the basis of household housing tenure, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of 34.18 and 56.1 co-operat ive households encouraged (1) wi th in-co-operat ive s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , (2) l o c a l community s t a b i l i t y , (3) res ident housing s a t i s f a c t i o n , and (4) the in tegra t ion of d i sabled and new res idents in to wi th in -co -58Ahlbrandt, 190-191. 183 o p e r a t i v e s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . T h i r d , on the b a s i s of household f a m i l y s t a t u s , ARP, CRSP, the 34.18 program and the n o n - p r o f i t component of the 56.1 program had the h i g h e s t c o n c e n t r a t i o n of households who neighbour more f r e q u e n t l y and p a r t i c i p a t e more i n l o c a l community-based o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n emerging areas of the Greater Vancouver Area. The c o - o p e r a t i v e component of the 56.1 program was n e u t r a l i n t h i s area. Fourth, the t h r e a t of condominium c o n v e r s i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o market-welfare u n i t s i s g r e a t . Condominium c o n v e r s i o n would r e s u l t i n household displacement and the i n t r o d u c t i o n of ownership households w i t h h i g h e r incomes i n t o a l o c a l community. On the b a s i s of household tenure and income, these new households would have a lower p r o p e n s i t y t o move and an i n c r e a s e d l e v e l o f l o c a l community s a t i s f a c t i o n , l o c a l community attachment and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n l o c a l community r e l a t i o n s h i p s and a c t i v i t i e s . However, while the frequency of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n l o c a l community r e l a t i o n s h i p s and a c t i v i t i e s would i n c r e a s e , t h e i r meaning t o r e s i d e n t s would decrease, because l o c a l community i n t e r a c t i o n would become l e s s important and ne i g h b o u r l y r e l a t i o n s l e s s i n t e n s e . F i f t h , assuming t h a t MURB, CRSP and s o c i a l - w e l f a r e housing was b u i l t i n areas of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i n the Greater Vancouver Area, c e r t a i n c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g the impact the programs had on Grea t e r Vancouver Area g e n t r i f i c a t i o n can be made. MURB and CRSP accentuated g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , i n areas of 184 g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , MURB and CRSP i n c r e a s e d socio-economic and p h y s i c a l change r e s u l t i n g i n the displacement of l o c a l community r e s i d e n t s and a r e d u c t i o n i n the a f f o r d a b l e i n n e r c i t y housing s t o c k . G e n t r i f i e r s have h i g h e r incomes than p r e v i o u s r e s i d e n t s , and the l o c a l community impacts of the i n t r o d u c t i o n of g e n t r i f i e r s f a l l i n l i n e w i t h those of hi g h e r income households: i n d i c a t i o n s o f a l a r g e r s p a t i a l area of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n and more l o c a l community a c t i v i t y than p r e v i o u s lower income r e s i d e n t s . The g e n t r i f i c a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e a l s o notes g e n t r i f i e r s are not i n t e r e s t e d i n i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h other s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l groups. T h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s not d i s c u s s e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e on the l o c a l community impacts of household income. The p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r of areas of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n was upgraded by MURB and CRSP housing. In c o n t r a s t , the s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs worked t o r e v i t a l i z e l o c a l communities w h i l e p r e s e r v i n g or augmenting the befor e g e n t r i f i c a t i o n s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r of the l o c a l community; however, the l o c a l community r e v i t a l i z a t i o n d i d i n a t l e a s t one case spark g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . 185 CONCLUSION T h i s chapter i s d i v i d e d i n t o two p a r t s : a summary of the analyzed economic and l o c a l community impacts of the market- and s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs and r e s e a r c h areas which r e q u i r e f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 187 ECONOMIC AND LOCAL COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF THE MARKET- AND SOCIAL-WELFARE HOUSING PROGRAMS There has been a dramatic dec l ine i n the health of the pr iva te r e n t a l housing market i n the western world. In Canada the dec l ine s tarted i n the e a r l y 1970's and continues to t h i s day. There are two reasons for the Canadian dec l ine : (1) a reduct ion i n the a b i l i t y of tenants to a f ford rent increases and (2) condominium conversion f u e l l e d by increased demand for owner occupied uni ts has been a dra in on the r e n t a l housing stock. As t h i s dec l ine progressed, the Federal Government responded with a host of r e n t a l supply programs. Some of the programs were i n keeping with market-welfare housing theory while others were outgrowths of soc ia l -we l fare housing theory. The years 1975 to 1985 saw large scale market-welfare Government subsidies prop up the a i l i n g pr iva te r e n t a l housing sector . Soc ia l -wel fare housing d i d not receive the same p r i o r i t y and was relegated to secondary r o l e . An i n d i c a t i o n of the re su l t s of market- and soc ia l -we l fare housing theory i n prac t i ce has been obtained by examining some of the economic and l o c a l community impacts of the market- and soc ia l -we l fare programs i n the Greater Vancouver Area from 1975 to 1985. The fo l lowing summary of those economic and l o c a l community impacts of the market- and s o c i a l welfare programs i s s p l i t into a comparative ana lys i s of the impacts of the market-versus the soc ia l -we l fare programs and a d i scuss ion of the 188 combined impacts of the market- and s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs. Before proceeding, c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s r e s e a r c h must be r e i t e r a t e d . Only a sample of the economic and l o c a l community impacts of the programs have been analyzed. I t i s from t h i s sample t h a t s u ggestions, not c o n c l u s i o n s , are made as to the t o t a l economic and l o c a l community i m p l i c a t i o n s of the programs. Furthermore, i t i s beyond the scope of t h i s r e s e a r c h t o d e l v e i n t o the monetary c o s t of the programs and between program e f f i c i e n c y . L a s t l y , n a t i o n a l averages and r e s e a r c h based on areas other than the Greater Vancouver Area are used i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . I t i s assumed t h a t the r e s u l t i n g e r r o r s are minimal. ECONOMIC AND LOCAL COMMUNITY IMPACTS: THE MARKET-WELFARE PROGRAMS VERSUS THE SOCIAL-WELFARE PROGRAMS On the b a s i s of the t o t a l number of u n i t s c o n s t r u c t e d , the market-welfare programs had a much l a r g e r economic impact than the s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs. The market-Welfare programs produced 23,169 u n i t s which t r a n s l a t e s i n t o a d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t of over $600 m i l l i o n and 20,284 man-years of employment. S o c i a l - w e l f a r e u n i t p r o d u c t i o n was equal t o o n l y 55 per c e n t of market-welfare u n i t p r o d u c t i o n . The s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs produced 12,662 u n i t s and 2,653 beds. The u n i t s alone r e s u l t e d i n a d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t of over $550 m i l l i o n and 11,055 man-years of employment. ( M u l t i p l i e r v a l u e s are not g i v e n i n constant d o l l a r s and t h e r e f o r e cannot be compared.) 189 The market-welfare f i g u r e s drop d r a s t i c a l l y once displacement i s f a c t o r e d out. In c o n t r a s t , the s o c i a l - w e l f a r e f i g u r e s remain unchanged. Only between 15,489 and 17,793 e x t r a market-welfare u n i t s were c o n s t r u c t e d f o r a d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t of between approximately $434 and $484 m i l l i o n and an employment g e n e r a t i o n e f f e c t o f between 13,561 and 15,578 man-yea r s . As a r e s u l t s o c i a l - w e l f a r e u n i t p r o d u c t i o n jumps t o between 71 and 82 percent of market-welfare p r o d u c t i o n , and the percentage f o r employment g e n e r a t i o n i n c r e a s e s from 54 perc e n t t o between 71 and 82 pe r c e n t . Moreover, market-welfare r e n t a l u n i t p r o d u c t i o n i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y t h r e a t e n e d by condominium c o n v e r s i o n throughout the Greater Vancouver Area. The l o c a l community impacts of the programs are much more q u a l i t a t i v e and don't p r o v i d e as h o l i s t i c a p i c t u r e as the economic impacts. On the b a s i s of household income, MURB and CRSP households have more l o c a l community r e l a t i o n s h i p s and a c t i v i t i e s than s o c i a l - w e l f a r e households. However, the meaning of these r e l a t i o n s h i p s and a c t i v i t i e s are l e s s f o r MURB and CRSP households because l o c a l community i n t e r a c t i o n i s l e s s important, and n e i g h b o u r l y r e l a t i o n s are l e s s i n t e n s e . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , household income r e s e a r c h a l s o i n d i c a t e s MURB and CRSP households are more s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r l o c a l community than s o c i a l - w e l f a r e households. The l o c a l community i m p l i c a t i o n s of condominium c o n v e r s i o n are s i g n i f i c a n t and have t o be d e a l t w i t h i n l i g h t of the t h r e a t 190 of c o n v e r s i o n hanging over a l l market-welfare housing. Condominium c o n v e r s i o n would r e s u l t i n the displacement of pr e -c o n v e r s i o n r e s i d e n t s and the i n t r o d u c t i o n of ownership households w i t h h i g h e r incomes. On the b a s i s of household tenure and income, these households have a lower p r o p e n s i t y t o move, h i g h e r l o c a l community s a t i s f a c t i o n and attachment, and p a r t i c i p a t e more i n l o c a l community r e l a t i o n s h i p s and a c t i v i t i e s . The meaning of t h e i r l o c a l community r e l a t i o n s h i p s and a c t i v i t i e s however are lower, as the importance these new households p l a c e on l o c a l community i n t e r a c t i o n and the i n t e n s i t y of n e i g h b o u r l y r e l a t i o n s i s l e s s . G e n t r i f i c a t i o n was accentuated where MURB or CRSP housing was b u i l t i n l o c a l communities undergoing g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . MURB and CRSP housing i n c r e a s e d the socio-economic and p h y s i c a l change o c c u r r i n g i n these l o c a l communities, which r e s u l t e d i n r e s i d e n t displacement and d e s t r u c t i o n of a segment of the i n n e r c i t y , a f f o r d a b l e housing stock. The new MURB and CRSP r e s i d e n t s , which i n t h i s case were a l s o g e n t r i f i e r s , had hi g h e r incomes than p r e v i o u s r e s i d e n t s , and f i n d i n g s on the l o c a l community impacts of g e n t r i f i e r s p a r a l l e l s f i n d i n g s on the l o c a l community impacts of h i g h e r income households: i n d i c a t i o n s are t h a t s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n o ccurs over a l a r g e r s p a t i a l area and t h a t l o c a l community a c t i v i t y i s i n c r e a s e d . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , MURB and CRSP g e n t r i f i e r s o n l y want other s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l groups w i t h i n p e r c e p t u a l d i s t a n c e : they do not want t o i n t e r a c t w i t h them. 191 P h y s i c a l l y , MURB and CRSP housing i n areas of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n added to l o c a l community upgrading. The impacts of the construct ion of soc ia l -we l fare housing i n l o c a l communities undergoing g e n t r i f i c a t i o n was quite d i f f e r e n t . Soc ia l -wel fare housing achieved l o c a l community r e v i t a l i z a t i o n through new investment while preserving or augmenting the pre-g e n t r i f i c a t i o n s o c i a l character of the l o c a l communities. However, i n one case at l ea s t , r e v i t a l i z a t i o n d i d spark g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . Co-operative households had t h e i r own unique l o c a l community impacts. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of 34.18 and 56.1 co-operat ive households promoted with in-co-operat ive s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , l o c a l community s t a b i l i t y , co-operat ive res ident housing s a t i s f a c t i o n and the in tegra t ion in to wi th in-co-operat ive s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n of d i sabled and new res idents . Two s p a t i a l patterns were found i n the economic and l o c a l community impacts of the programs. For the market and s o c i a l -welfare programs, t o t a l program product ion, displacement and extra uni t /bed production was s trongly concentrated i n the es tabl i shed areas of the Greater Vancouver Area (Burnaby, New Westminster, North Vancouver C i t y , Richmond and Vancouver) as opposed to the emerging areas (Coquitlam, D e l t a , North Vancouver D i s t r i c t , Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and West Vancouver). A l s o , household family status data indicates ARP, CRSP, the 34.18 program and the non-prof i t component of the 56.1 program had a larger port ion of households who neighboured more and p a r t i c i p a t e d more i n l o c a l community-based o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n emerging, r a t h e r than e s t a b l i s h e d , areas. In t h i s r egard, the c o - o p e r a t i v e component of the 56.1 program was n e u t r a l . What e x a c t l y does a l l t h i s mean i n terms of the market- versus s o c i a l - w e l f a r e debate? In comparison to the s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs, the performance of the market-welfare programs appears t o have had an extremely h i g h economic and s o c i a l c o s t . The market-welfare economic e f f e c t s are a t f i r s t extremely i m p r e s s i v e . They overwhelm the economic impacts of the s o c i a l -w e l f a r e programs. But once displacement i s taken i n t o account, the market-welfare programs r e t a i n o n l y a s m a l l advantage. Consequently, s o c i a l - w e l f a r e p r o d u c t i o n i s q u i t e i m p r e s s i v e g i v e n the low p r i o r i t y which the F e d e r a l Government has g i v e n s o c i a l housing programs i n r e l a t i o n t o market housing programs. Furthermore, condominium c o n v e r s i o n i s a s e r i o u s t h r e a t t o the market-welfare u n i t s . The f i n d i n g s on l o c a l community impacts have b u i l t on t h i s t h r e a t of change. For the most p a r t , the l o c a l community impacts d i s c u s s e d have been n o n c o n t r o v e r s i a l , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n t h a t (1) i n areas of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , the market-welfare programs have r e s u l t e d i n household displacement and the d e s t r u c t i o n of a f f o r d a b l e housing and (2) w i t h the market-welfare programs, t h e r e i s the p o t e n t i a l f o r mass household displacement through condominium c o n v e r s i o n . The economic displacement e f f e c t and the n e g a t i v e l o c a l community impacts of the market-welfare programs are d i r e c t l y t i e d t o MURB, which produced the v a s t m a j o r i t y of market-welfare 193 u n i t s . MURB i s a tax expenditure, the subsidy of choice of the business sector . Tax expenditures are d i s c r e t e , receive l i m i t e d publ i c and p o l i t i c a l input and h i s t o r i c a l l y have been the method by which r i c h i n d i v i d u a l s and corporations have received ass is tance . The r e s u l t i s a program which (1) ass i s ted 19,199 uni ts but which had a displacement rate of between 28 and 40 percent , (2) appears to have had a high s o c i a l cost and (3) has the p o t e n t i a l for even more s o c i a l hardship i n the future . ECONOMIC AND LOCAL COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF THE MARKET- AND SOCIAL-WELFARE PROGRAMS COMBINED Even once displacement has been factored out, the economic and l o c a l community impacts of the market- and soc ia l -we l fare programs combined on the Greater Vancouver Area have been massive. Between 1975 and 1985, the market- and soc ia l -we l fare programs combined produced 28,151 to 30,455 extra rental units and 2,653 extra beds. Each of these uni t s impacted the soc io -economic and p h y s i c a l character of t h e i r l o c a l communities as described i n the previous sec t ion . The d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t m u l t i p l i e r e f f ec t of extra spending under the programs was approximately one b i l l i o n dollars. Estimates of the extra man-years of employment generated by un i t construct ion i s 24,615 to 26,633 man-years. On the negative s ide , however, condominium conversion threatens a l l market-welfare u n i t s , which account for between 15,489 and 17,793 of the between 28,151 and 30,455 extra un i t s produced under both the market- and soc ia l -we l fare programs. 194 RESEARCH AREAS WHICH REQUIRE FURTHER INVESTIGATION T h i s d i s c u s s i o n i s l i m i t e d t o f o u r r e s e a r c h areas which would b u i l d d i r e c t l y on r e s e a r c h conducted i n t h i s t h e s i s . F i r s t , much more c o u l d be done i n d e t a i l i n g p r o v i n c i a l v a r i a t i o n s i n how the programs were implemented, i n c l u d i n g p r o v i n c i a l government programs which impacted on the economic and l o c a l community impacts of the market- and s o c i a l - w e l f a r e programs. Second, the r e s e a r c h c o u l d be repeated f o r other major m e t r o p o l i t a n areas and expanded t o d i s c u s s p r o v i n c i a l impacts. T h i r d , the monetary economic c a l c u l a t i o n s c o u l d be redone u s i n g c o n s t a n t d o l l a r s , which would permit between program comparisons. L a s t l y , r e s e a r c h c o u l d be conducted t o determine how many r e n t a l u n i t s , a c c o r d i n g to intended use, have been converted i n t o condominiums. Using CMHC and Land T i t l e O f f i c e f i l e s , one c o u l d i d e n t i f y which intended use r e n t a l u n i t s were r e g i s t e r e d as condominiums a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r address. Then, on the b a s i s of how many of these u n i t s r e c e i v e d p r o v i n c i a l home owner tax c r e d i t s , [ 1 ] the number of r e n t a l u n i t s which were converted i n t o condominiums c o u l d be determined. l P r o v i n c i a l home owner tax c r e d i t s are o n l y g i v e n f o r primary r e s i d e n c e s . 195 BIBILIOGRAPHY Iii Adams, Thomas. "City D i a r y . " C i t y Magazine 13.4 (1978): 18. Ahlbrandt J r . , Roger S . . Neighbourhoods, People, and Community. New York: Plenum Press , 1984. Applebaum, Richard P . , and John I . Gilderbloom. "Supply-Side Economics and Rents: Are Rental Housing Markets T r u l y Competitive?" Ed. Rachel G. B r a t t , Chester Hartman and Ann Meyerson. Ph i lade lph ia : Temple Un ivers i ty Press , 1986. 165-179. . "Toward a Sociology of Rent: Are Rental Housing Markets Competitive?" S o c i a l Problems 34.3 (1987): 261-276. Arthur Andersen & Co. Federal and P r o v i n c i a l Government Expenditures to A s s i s t and Promote Rental Housing i n Canada. n . p . : [Housing and Urban Development Assoc ia t ion of Canada?], 1984. Bacher, John C. "Canadian Housing "Policy" In Perspect ive ." Urban His tory Review XV.1 (1986): 3-18. Beam, R . E . , and S.N. Laiken , Introduct ion to Federal Income Taxation In Canada. Don M i l l s , Ont . : CCH Canadian L imi ted , 1987. Bentham, Graham. "Soc io-Tenuria l P o l a r i z a t i o n i n the United Kingdom, 1953-83: The Income Evidence." Urban Studies 2 (1986): 157-162. Bowen, Beverly . "Much Federal Money Aids Few Tenants." Globe and M a i l 9 Feb. 1984: 3. 197 Buchan, Robert Bruce. " G e n t r i f i c a t i o n 1 s Impact on Neighbourhood Publ ic Service Usage." Masters Thes i s . Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1985. Burnaby. Burnaby Planning and B u i l d i n g Inspection Department. Compaction Strategy for Burnaby Res ident ia l Neighbourhood Evironment Study 6. n . p . : Burnaby Planning and B u i l d i n g Inspection Department, 1984. Byers, James. "Metro Gets i t s F i r s t Federal Apartment Rental Loan." Toronto Star 2 Aug. 1982, f i r s t e d . : A6. CCH Canadian L imi ted . Canada Income Tax Guide. 4 v o l s . Don M i l l s , O n t . : CCH Canadian L imi ted , 1986. V o l . 1. Canada. Consultat ion Paper on Housing. [Ottawa]: [Canada?], 1985. . Department of Finance. Government of Canada Tax Expenditure Account. Ottawa: Department of Finance, 1979. . Revenue Canada. Your 1986 T l Guide for Rental Income. [Ottawa?]: Canada, [1986]. . Revenue Canada, Taxat ion. Income Tax Act : C a p i t a l Cost Allowance - M u l t i p l e - U n i t R e s i d e n t i a l B u i l d i n g s . In terpreta t ion B u l l e t i n No. IT-367R2 [Ottawa?]: Canada, 1981. . . Rental Income. Income Tax Business Ser i e s . [Ottawa?]: Canada, 1986. . . Spec ia l Release: C a p i t a l Cost Allowance - M u l t i p l e - U n i t R e s i d e n t i a l B u i l d i n g s . In terpreta t ion B u l l e t i n No. IT-367R2 [Ottawa?]: Canada, 1983. . Task Force on CMHC. Report on Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion . [Ottawa]: [Canada], 1979. 198 Task Force on Program Review. Housing Programs i n Search of  Balance. [Ottawa]: Supply and Services Canada, 1986. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion. An Analys i s of the Rental Market, n . p . : Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1984. . B u i l d e r s ' B u l l e t i n (Adminis trat ive) : Canada Rental Supply P lan . Ottawa?: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion , 1982. . Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s . Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion , 1983. . Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s . Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1985. . Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s . Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion , 1987. . Federal Housing Funds W i l l Create More Jobs. News Release, Ottawa?: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, n . d . Housing and the Economy, n . p . : Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1985. . Housing i n B r i t i s h Columbia: A S t a t i s t i c a l P r o f i l e . Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1984. . Sect ion 56.1 Non-Prof i t and Cooperative Housing Program Evaluat ion . [Ottawa]: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1983. . Semi Annual Vacancy Survey. Vancouver: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, various years . 199 . "Soc ia l Housing Eva luat ion ." Unpublished d r a f t repor t , t s . 1983. — - . Market Forecasts and Analys i s D i v i s i o n . An Analys i s of the Market Factors Behind the High ARP Default Experience. [Ottawa]: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion , 1980. The Canadian Counci l on S o c i a l Development. A Review of Canadian S o c i a l Housing P o l i c y . Ottawa: The Canaian Counci l on S o c i a l Developnment, 1977. Centra l Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion. Annual Report, 1974. [Ottawa?]: Centra l Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion , 1975. . Annual Report, 1975. [Ottawa?]: Centra l Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1976. . Annual Report, 1976. [Ottawa?]: Centra l Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1977. . Annual Report, 1977. [Ottawa?]: Centra l Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion , 1978. . Annual Report, 1978. [Ottawa?]: Centra l Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1979. . New Nat ional Housing Act Programs: R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Assistance Program. [Ottawa]: Centra l Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1973. Clay , P h i l l i p L . At Risk of Loss: The Endangered Future of Low- Income Rental Housing Resources. Washington, D . C : Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporat ion, 1987. 200 Clayton Research Associates L imi ted . The Growing Rental Housing  Shortage i n Canada - Causes and Solut ions , n . p . : The Canadian I n s t i t u t e of Publ ic Real Estate Companies?, 1980. . A Longer-Term Rental Housing Strategy for Canada, n . p . : The Housing and Urban Development Assoc ia t ion of Canada, 1984. Co-operative Housing Foundation of Canada. Response to the  Federal Government's Consultat ion Paper on Housing. Ottawa: Co-operative Housing Foundation of Canada, 1985. Davis , Cra ig H. "Income and Employment M u l t i p l i e r s for Seven B r i t i s h Columbia Regions." Canadian Journal of Regional Science IX:1 (1986): 103-15. Downs, Anthony. "The Coming Crunch i n Rental Housing." Annals of  the American Academy of P o l i t i c a l and S o c i a l Science 465 (1983): 76-85. F a l l i s , George. Housing Economics. Toronto: Butterworths, 1985. Feagin, Joe R . . "Urban Real Estate Speculat ion i n the United States: Implicat ions for S o c i a l Science and Urban Planning." C r i t i c a l Perspectives on Housing. Ed. Rachel G. B r a t t , Chester Hartman and Ann Meyerson. P h i l a d e l p h i a : Temple Un ivers i ty Press , 1986. 99-118. Fosset , James W., and Gary O r f i e l d . Market F a i l u r e and Federal P o l i c y : Low Income Housing i n Chicago 190-1983. Chicago: Leadership Counci l for Metropol i tan Open Communities, 1986. Frazer , Debra. Who Benefits from Tax Shelters? n . p . : The Canadian Counc i l on S o c i a l Development, 1979. 201 G a l , Paulet te . Telephone interview. 26, 27 Jan. and 5, 12 Feb. 1988. Gau, George W., and Anne P. Wicks, Impact of the ARP and MURB Programs on the Vancouver Housing Market, n . p . : CMHC?, 1982. Goldberg, Michael A. The Housing Problem: A Real C r i s i s ? Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Press , 1983. Grieve , Beverly Jean. "Continuity and Change: P r o v i n c i a l Housing P o l i c y i n B r i t i s h Columbia 1945-1985." Masters Thes i s . Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1985. Gross, Len. Telephone interview. 1 Dec. 1988. Hamilton, Gordon. "Tories K i l l A i d to C i t y Developers." Vancouver Sun 10 Nov. 1984: A l . Hansen, L . Labour Requirements for the R e s i d e n t i a l Construct ion Industry. Ottawa: Centra l Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion , 1976. Harloe , Michae l . Pr ivate Rented Housing i n the United States and Europe. London: Croom Helm, 1985. Hazelton, Don. Telephone interview. 22, 23 March 1989. Higginson, A l i s o n . Telephone interview. 1 Dec. 88. "Higher Density has Minimal Impact on Loca l House P r i c e s . " Sun [Vancouver] 18 Oct . 1985: n .p . Hulchanski , David. The Ass i s t ed Rental Program (ARP), 1975-1978: An Eva luat ion . Co-operative Housing Foundation of Canada Research B u l l e t i n 3. n . p . : Co-operative Housing Foundation of Canada, Dec. 1982. 202 . "The 1935 Dominion Housing Act : Set t ing the Stage for a Permanent Federal Presence i n Canada's Housing Sector ." Urban  Hi s tory Review XV.1 (1986): 19-39. . Interest -Free Loans as a Method of St imulat ing Pr ivate Rental Housing Construct ion. Research Memo 2. Ottawa: Co-operative Housing Foundation of Canada, n . d . . Market Imperfections and the Role of Rent Regulations i n the R e s i d e n t i a l Rental Market Research Study No. 6. Toronto: Commission of Inquiry in to R e s i d e n t i a l Tenancies, 1984. —•- . "Social Welfare versus Market Welfare." C i t y Magazine F a l l (1985): 28-31. Hulchanski , J . D . and Glen Drover. "Housing Subsidies i n a Period of Res tra in t : The Canadian Experience." Housing Markets and P o l i c i e s Under F i s c a l A u s t e r i t y . Ed. W. van V l i e t . New York: Greenwood Press , 1987. 51-70. Hulchanski , David, and Je f f rey Patterson. "CMHC's Evaluat ion of i t s Non-prof i t and Co-op Housing Programs: Is i t an Evaluation?" Plan Canada 24.1 (1984): 28-31. Janowitz, M o r r i s . The Community Press i n an Urban Set t ing: The S o c i a l Elements of Urbanism. Glencoe, I l l i n o i s : The Free Press , Publ i shers , 1952. Jones, Andrew E r i c . The Beginnings of Canadian Government Housing P o l i c y , 1918-1924. Occasional Paper #1/78. Ottawa: Centre for S o c i a l Welfare Studies , Carleton U n i v e r s i t y , 1978. K e l l e r , Suzanne. The Urban Neighborhood: A S o c i o l o g i c a l Perspect ive . New York: Random House, I n c . , 1968. 203 Knutter , Robert. "The Poverty of Economics." The A t l a n t i c Monthly February 1985: 74-84. Land T i t l e O f f i c e . Various f i l e s . New Westminster and Vancouver. Laska, S h i r l e y Bradway, and Daphne Spain. "Ant ic ipat ing Renovators' Demands: New Orleans ." Back to the C i t y : Issues i n Neighbourhood Renovation. Ed . S h i r l e y Bradway Laska and Daphne Spain. New York: Pergamon Press , 1980. 116-137. League of Nations, Health Committee. Urban and Rural Housing. Geneva: League of Nations, 1939. Lewinberg Consultants L t d . In Your Neighbourhood, n . p . : Ontario M i n i s t r y of Munic ipal A f f a i r s and Housing, 1984. Ley, David. " G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : A Ten Year Overview." C i t y Magazine Winter 1986/1987: 12-19. . A S o c i a l Geography of the C i t y . New York: Harper & Row, Publ i shers , 1983. . "Socia l Upgrading i n Six Canadian Inner C i t i e s . " The Canadian Geographer 32.1 (1988): 31-45. L ipsey , Richard G . , Gordon R. Sparks, and Peter O. S te iner , Economics 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row Publ i shers , 1979. Li thwick , Irwin. An Evaluat ion of the Federal Ass i s ted Rental Program (1976-77). [Ottawa]: Centra l Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1978. Li thwick , N. Harvey. "The Decl ine and F a l l of the Housing Market." How Ottawa Spends 1985. Ed. A . M . Maslove. Toronto: Methuen, 1985. 30-57. 204 Lowe, J e f f . " G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : E d i t o r i a l Overview." E d i t o r i a l . C i t y Magazine Winter 1986/1987: 10-11. Marchant, Edward D. "Murbs, The Great Canadian Tax She l ter : P r o f i t From Your Losses." CA Magazine 110.9 (1977): 28-33. M i l l s , Carol ine A . . " L i f e s t y l e and Landscape on the Fairview Slopes." C i t y Magazine Winter 1986/1987: 20-24. M i t c h e l l , Ted. Personal interview. 1 March 1988 and 3 March 1989. N i c k l i n , Robert. Telephone interview. 13 A p r i l 1988. "Nobody Mourns Death of Compaction," Burnaby Now 19 Nov. 1984: 1. Olsen, Edgar O. "A Competitive Theory of the Housing Market." American Economic Review 59 (1969): 612-622. Ontario Housing Committee. "Report of the Ontario Housing Committee." Ontario L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly Sess ional Papers. 80 v o l s . Toronto: A . T . Wilgress , 1867-1948. V o l . 51 Part 10. 1-187. "Opposition K i l l s Burnaby High-Density Zoning P l a n . " Sun [Vancouver] 8 Aug. 1984, T h i r d e d . : F12. "Ottawa's Housing Schemes Cost Taxpayers $7.3 B i l l i o n , " Globe and M a i l 9 A p r i l 1983, N. pag. P a r i s , C h r i s . "Housing Issues and P o l i c i e s i n A u s t r a l i a . " B u i l t Environment 11 (1985): 97-116. . "Private Rental Housing i n A u s t r a l i a . " Environment and Planning A 16 (1984): 1079-98. Pomeroy, Stephen. Lecture . Course on Housing and Community Planning. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia School of Community and Regional Planning. Vancouver, 24 Feb. 1988. 205 . Telephone interview. 1 Dec. 1988. Revenue Canada Vancouver Information L i n e . Telephone interview. Various dates. Runge, D a l l a r d . Study D i r e c t o r , Interdepartmental Study Team on Housing and Rents. A Comprehensive S o c i a l Housing P o l i c y for  B r i t i s h Columbia. [ V i c t o r i a ? ] : [ B r i t i s h Columbia?], 1975. Rydenfelt , Sven. "The Rise , F a l l , and Reviva l of Swedish Rent C o n t r o l . " Rent Contro l : Myths and R e a l i t i e s . Ed. Walter Block and Edgar Olsen. Vancouver: The Fraser I n s t i t u t e , 1981. 199-230. Selby, J . , and A. Wilson. "Canada's Housing Co-operatives: An A l t e r n a t i v e Approach to Resolving Community Problems." UBC  Planning Papers: Canadian Planning Issues 26 (1988): 1-43. Seto, Debbie W. H. "Condominium Conversion Regulations i n B r i t i s h Columbia." Masters Thes i s . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1987. Smith, C A . , and C . J . Smith. "Locating Natural Neighbours i n the Urban Community." Area 10 (1978): 102-10. Spaner, David. "Shouting Match Erupts Over New Housing Zone." Burnaby Now 25 June 1984: 1. S t r i e c h , P a t r i c i a , Louise C larke , and Michele Harding, M u l t i - Family Federal Rental Housing Assistance Programs i n Canada  and the United States: A Comparative Study. [Ottawa]: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion , 1980. S u t t l e s , Gerald D. The S o c i a l Construct ion of Communities. Chicago: The Univers i ty of Chicago Press , 1972. 206 Vancouver. Planning Department. C i t y of Vancouver Planning  Department Reports to Counc i l : Federation of Canadian  M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Housing I n i t i a t i v e s . Vancouver: C i t y of Vancouver, 30 A p r i l 1985. Wade, J i l l . "Wartime Housing L imi ted , 1941 - 1947: Canadian Housing P o l i c y at the Crossroads." Urban His tory Review XV.1 (1986):,41-59. Warner, J r . , Sam Bass. The Urban Wilderness: A His tory of the American C i t y . New York: Harper & Row, 1972. Whitehead, C h r i s t i n e M . E . , and Mark P. Kleinman. Pr ivate Rented Housing i n the 1980's and 1990's Occasional Paper 17. Cambridge: Granta Edi t ions L t d . , 1986. Whitehead, C . M . E . , M. Harloe , and A. Bovairds . "Prospects and Strategies for Housing i n the Pr ivate Rented Sector ." Journal of S o c i a l P o l i c y 14:2, 151-174. Wicks, Anne P a t r i c i a . "An Analys i s of the Ef fec t of M . U . R . B . L e g i s l a t i o n on Vancouver's Rental Housing Market." Masters Thes i s . Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1982. Wireman, Peggy. Urban Neighbourhoods, Networks, and Fami l i e s : New Forms for Old Values . Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1984. Woods Gordon Management Consultants . Evaluat ive Study of Non- P r o f i t and Cooperative Housing i n Ontar io , n . p . : Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion and Ontario M i n i s t r y of Munic ipal A f f a i r s and Housing, 1981. 207 Woodside, Kenneth. "The P o l i t i c a l Ecoonomy of P o l i c y Instruments: Tax Expenditures and S u b s i d i e s i n Canada." The P o l i t i c s of  Canadian P u b l i c P o l i c y . Ed. M i c h a e l M. A t k i n s o n and Marsha A. Chandler. Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1983. 173-197. 208 APPENDIX A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF FEDERAL RENTAL SUPPLY PROGRAMS 1975-85 Appendix A describes the fo l lowing Federal r e n t a l housing programs i n d e t a i l : 1) M u l t i p l e Unit Res ident ia l B u i l d i n g , 2) Ass i s ted Rental Program, 3) Canada Rental Supply P lan , 4) Section 15.1 Non-Prof i t and 34.18 Co-op Programs, and 5) Section 56.1 Non-Prof i t and Co-operative Program. The program descr ipt ions are accurate up to December 31, 1985. 210 MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING While research was not s p e c i f i c a l l y done on changes to MURB af ter December 31, 1985, some information on post-1985 changes have come to l i g h t . A minimum tax was i n s t i t u t e d for MURB owners i n 1986. In the summer of 1987, Finance M i n i s t e r , Michael Wilson proposed changes to the Canadian tax system i n a white paper on tax reform. These changes included changes to MURB, some of which are noted i n t h i s program d e s c r i p t i o n . As of December 31, .1987, d i scuss ion was s t i l l taking place on Michael Wilson's proposed tax changes. P r i o r to 1972, the tax system allowed investors to use the c a p i t a l cost a l lowanced] (CCA) on r e n t a l r e s i d e n t i a l propert ies to she l ter income obtained from other sources. On January 1, 1972, a new Canadian Income Tax Act came into e f f e c t , introducing two key changes. The f i r s t change dea l t with CCA c lasses . Assets which q u a l i f y for CCA deductions are grouped in to s p e c i f i c c lasses ; each c las s has i t s own CCA ra te . P r i o r to 1972, the general r u l e was i f one owned a number of assets a l l of which lUnder the Income Tax Act c e r t a i n assets which create income are seen as deprec iat ing with time; t h e i r value i s sa id to d iminish over time due to normal use, obsolescence, e t c . . The tax system allows a taxpayer to reduce taxable income by deducting the expense of deprec iat ion on c e r t a i n assets . A deduction of t h i s nature i s re ferred to as a c a p i t a l cost allowance. 211 were i n the same CCA c l a s s , the c a p i t a l cost[2] of the assets were summed, and the CCA rate appl ied to the sum to ca lcu la te the CCA. The 1972 act introduced an exception to th i s r u l e : each r e n t a l property acquired af ter 1971 with a c a p i t a l cost of $50,000 or more i s placed i n i t s own separate CCA c l a s s . I t s CCA rate i s equal to that of the CCA c lass i n which the property would have been c l a s s i f i e d i f not for the "$50,000 r u l e " . I f a r e n t a l r e s i d e n t i a l property cons is ts of two or more condominiums located i n the same b u i l d i n g , the condominiums are treated as a s ing le property , and the $50,000 ru le comes in to e f f e c t . The second key change introduced i n the 1972 act was that investors could only use the CCA ca l cu la ted on the c a p i t a l cost of r e n t a l r e s i d e n t i a l propert ies i n a p a r t i c u l a r CCA c lass to she l ter income obtained from sa id r e s i d e n t i a l proper t i e s . This e l iminated the a b i l i t y of investors to use the CCA on r e n t a l r e s i d e n t i a l property to she l ter income from other sources. However, t h i s ru le "does not apply, except i n l i m i t e d circumstances, to (1) a l i f e insurance corporat ion; (2) a corporat ion whose p r i n c i p a l business throughout the year was the l eas ing , r e n t a l , development or sa l e , or any combination thereof , of r e a l property owned by i t ; or (3) a partnersh ip , each member of which was a corporat ion described i n 1 or 2 [hereafter these three types of e n t i t i e s w i l l be re ferred to as development 2The c a p i t a l cost of a r e n t a l property i s the complete cost of a c q u i s i t i o n along with the cost of any addit ions or improvements. Land costs , however, are not inc luded. 212 corporations]."[3] This exemption does not apply " i f the corporat ion or partnership held a leasehold i n t e r e s t i n a b u i l d i n g which was treated as [CCA] Class 3 or 6 property . . . and that b u i l d i n g was leased by the taxpayer or partnership to the owner of the land on which the b u i l d i n g was s i tuated or to a person who had an i n t e r e s t i n that land or ah option i n respect thereof."[4] In arrangements such as the one jus t descr ibed, the leasehold i n t e r e s t i s c l a s s i f i e d in to a separate CCA c l a s s . MURB was introduced i n the November, 1974 Federal budget. To a c e r t a i n extent, MURB re ins ta ted the a b i l i t y of individual investors, investors which are not development corporat ions , to she l ter income from any source under the CCA ava i lab l e for r e n t a l r e s i d e n t i a l property . [5] For a b u i l d i n g to q u a l i f y under MURB CMHC had to c e r t i f y (1) construct ion on the b u i l d i n g was s tarted wi th in s p e c i f i c time periods[6] and (2) according to b u i l d i n g plans and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s the b u i l d i n g was to contain at l eas t two uni t s with a minimum of 80 percent of the gross f l o o r area of the development devoted to r e s i d e n t i a l use. Furthermore, the c e r t i f i c a t e had to be issued 3CCH Canadian L imi ted , Canada Income Tax Guide. 4 v o l s . (Don M i l l s , O n t . : CCH Canadian L imi ted , 1986) 1:746. 4CCH Canadian L imi ted , 1:746. 5Even though the program d i d not apply d i r e c t l y to them, development corporations reg i s tered t h e i r developments under the MURB program i n order to obtain a higher p r i c e i f a development was so ld to an i n d i v i d u a l inves tor . 6The time periods are noted l a t e r i n t h i s program d e s c r i p t i o n when CCA Class 31 and 32 assets are discussed. 213 "on or before the l a t e r of December 31, 1981 and the day that i s 18 months af ter the day on which the i n s t a l l a t i o n of footings or other base support of the b u i l d i n g was commenced".[7] Hereafter , bu i ld ings which have received such c e r t i f i c a t i o n w i l l be re ferred to as MURB buildings. Not a l l uni ts i n a MURB b u i l d i n g q u a l i f y for MURB benef i t s . An example w i l l help c l a r i f y t h i s po in t . Suppose an i n d i v i d u a l owns a MURB b u i l d i n g . To determine the CCA on the b u i l d i n g the CCA rate i s only appl ied to the c a p i t a l cost of the true MURB units i n the b u i l d i n g . To be a true MURB unit, the ownership of the u n i t , or i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n , has to be for the purpose of gaining or producing income from (1) the un i t or (2) from a business. In short , the owner has to put the un i t up for rent or use i t for business purposes; the owner cannot use the u n i t for personal use. As a r e s u l t , uni ts i n a MURB b u i l d i n g which are rented out or used for commercial uses q u a l i f y as true MURB u n i t s , but owner occupied u n i t s , while allowed, do not q u a l i f y as true MURB u n i t s . I f a c e r t i f i e d MURB b u i l d i n g no longer meets necessary q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , a l l propert ies i n the b u i l d i n g lose t h e i r MURB s tatus . For example, i f a un i t i s converted from r e s i d e n t i a l to commercial use i n a MURB b u i l d i n g which prev ious ly had 20 percent of i t s f l o o r space used for commercial purposes, a l l uni t s i n the 7Canada, Revenue Canada, Taxat ion, Income Tax Act: C a p i t a l  Cost Allowance - M u l t i p l e - U n i t Res ident ia l B u i l d i n g s , In terpre ta t ion B u l l e t i n No. IT-367R2 ([Ottawa?]: [Canada], 1981) 3. 214 b u i l d i n g cease t o be tr u e MURB u n i t s ; the 20 p e r c e n t non-r e s i d e n t i a l l i m i t has been exceeded. A l l t r u e MURB u n i t s except those c l a s s i f i e d under the $50,000 r u l e are grouped i n t o two CCA a s s e t c l a s s e s : C l a s s 31 and C l a s s 32. C l a s s 32 a s s e t s are t r u e MURB u n i t s w i t h i n " B u i l d i n g s made of frame, l o g s t u c c o on frame, or g a l v a n i z e d or co r r u g a t e d iron" [ 8 ] ( h e r e a f t e r , r e f e r r e d t o as framed b u i l d i n g s ) ; they q u a l i f y f o r a 10 p e r c e n t annual CCA. To be a C l a s s 32 a s s e t the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the b u i l d i n g housing the t r u e MURB u n i t s must have begun between November 19, 1974, and December 31, 1977, i n c l u s i v e . A l l t r u e MURB u n i t s i n non-framed b u i l d i n g s are c l a s s i f i e d C l a s s 31 a s s e t s . These a s s e t s q u a l i f y f o r an annual CCA r a t e of 5 p e r c e n t . C o n s t r u c t i o n of the b u i l d i n g s i n which the t r u e MURB u n i t s are l o c a t e d had t o commence d u r i n g the f o l l o w i n g two pe r i o d s t o r e c e i v e C l a s s 31 c l a s s i f i c a t i o n : between November 19, 1974, and December 31, 1979, i n c l u s i v e and between October 29, 1980, and December 31, 1981, i n c l u s i v e . There are thr e e ways i n which what would appear t o be a C l a s s 32 a s s e t i s c l a s s i f i e d a C l a s s 31 a s s e t . True MURB u n i t s i n framed MURB b u i l d i n g s on which c o n s t r u c t i o n s t a r t e d d u r i n g 1978 are c l a s s i f i e d C l a s s 31 a s s e t s . True MURB u n i t s i n b u i l d i n g s which a t the time of c e r t i f i c a t i o n as MURB b u i l d i n g s were e l i g i b l e f o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as C l a s s 32 a s s e t s are c l a s s i f i e d 8Canada, Revenue Canada, Your 1986 T l Guide f o r R e n t a l  Income ([Ottawa?]: Canada, [1986]) 4. 215 Class 31 assets , i f they underwent conversion from personal to r e n t a l use af ter 1979, or i f they underwent a t rans fer of ownership af ter 1979. The r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a Class 32 asset to a Class 31 asset upon transfer of ownership i s the only change which can happen i n MURB status due to a change i n ownership; once a un i t i s c l a s s i f i e d as a true MURB u n i t , i t remains so regardless of changes i n ownership. A n o n - o r i g i n a l purchaser of a true MURB un i t i s e l i g i b l e for a CCA which can be used to she l ter income from any source. This tax benef i t i s ca l cu la ted by applying the CCA rate to the purchase p r i c e minus land costs . The CCA rate i s not appl ied to (1) the value to which the true MURB u n i t had been depreciated i n the s e l l e r ' s tax accounting records , or (2) the o r i g i n a l purchase p r i c e of the true MURB u n i t . The a p p l i c a t i o n of the CCA.rate to the purchase p r i c e minus land costs to ca l cu la te the CCA has important rami f i ca t ions , which w i l l be discussed l a t e r i n t h i s program d e s c r i p t i o n . Now that the ru les of MURB c l a s s i f i c a t i o n have been discussed, the d e t a i l s of how the MURB program allows investors to she l ter income under CCA deductions w i l l be examined. "The owner of a . . . [MURB asset , a c lass 31 or 32 asset or a c lass 31 or 32 asset to which the $50,000 ru le has been appl i ed , ] i s allowed to create or increase r e n t a l losses from such property through c a p i t a l cost allowance claims and to deduct the losses from income from other 216 sources",[9] thereby, lowering taxable income, which, i n t u r n , reduces the amount of tax owed to the Government. These losses need not be r e a l losses . They can be "paper losses" a r i s i n g from tax accounting procedures. Thus, MURB assets present an a t t r a c t i v e investment to i n d i v i d u a l s i n the higher tax brackets . MURB assets o f fer t h e i r larges t tax she l ter i n the i n i t i a l years of ownership. For the owner of MURB assets which have been c l a s s i f i e d in to a number of CCA classes the CCA deduction ava i lab le on the MURB assets i n each CCA c lass i s ca l cu la ted separate ly . For example, suppose an i n d i v i d u a l has two Class 31 assets each with a c a p i t a l cost of less than $50,000, thereby p lac ing them i n the same CCA c l a s s . To ca l cu la te the CCA deduction on these assets i n a given year the CCA rate (5 percent) i s appl ied to the undepreciated value of the assets . The undepreciated value of the assets i s ca l cu la ted by deducting deprec iat ion deductions of previous years from the o r i g i n a l cost of the assets . Because the undepreciated value of the assets dec l ines with time, the CCA deduction i s highest i n the i n i t i a l years and decreases over time, eventual ly reaching zero. The d e c l i n i n g nature of the CCA deduction af fects the tax s i t u a t i o n of the owner of a MURB asset . What happens i s that i n the i n i t i a l years of ownership of a MURB asset , the CCA deduction r e s u l t s i n the crea t ion or increase of a paper loss on the investment. This means the CCA deduction along with a l l other 9Canada, Revenue Canada, Taxat ion, 1981, 1. 217 appl icable tax deductions i s large enough to she l ter revenue received from the asset ( renta l payments) and some non-rental income. As the CCA deduction becomes smal ler , so does the amount of income which can be shel tered u n t i l the CCA deduction reaches zero. There i s one way to ensure continued high l eve l s of tax deductions: annually increase the l e v e l of investment i n a p a r t i c u l a r asset c lass by a constant, or i n c r e a s i n g , amount. However, the ru le that r e n t a l property acquired af ter 1971 and whose c a p i t a l cost i s $50,000 or more i s placed i n i t s own CCA c lass l i m i t s the a b i l i t y of investors to do t h i s . I f the CCA deduction overestimates the deprec ia t ion of the assets i n a CCA c l a s s , taxes are appl ied on the amount of overestimation upon the sale of the l a s t asset i n the c l a s s . I f , upon the sale of the l a s t asset i n a CCA c l a s s , i t i s found that the market value of the assets , as determined by t h e i r s e l l i n g p r i c e , exceeds t h e i r o r i g i n a l cost , the d i f ference between these two values i s treated as a c a p i t a l gain and i s taxed accordingly . [10] Furthermore, i f , at th i s time, the lOPrevious to 1985, 50 percent of any c a p i t a l gains was included i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of taxable income. A $1,000 deduction could be appl ied against i n t e r e s t income, dividends and c a p i t a l gains . In 1985, the ru les changed; a maximum of $20,000 i n c a p i t a l gains was exempt from taxat ion; 50 percent of any c a p i t a l gains over t h i s amount was treated as taxable income. In 1986, the exemption was increased to $50,000; however, i f an amount was claimed under the c a p i t a l gain exemption a f ter 1984, the 1986 maximum exemption would be reduced by an i d e n t i c a l amount. This r e s t r i c t i o n was a lso placed on a l l future maximum exemptions. The maximum exemption i s $100,000 for 1987, $200,000 for 1988, $300,000 for 1989, and $500,000 for 1990 and beyond. 218 undepreciated value of the assets i n the CCA c lass i s less than the lower of the market value or o r i g i n a l cost of the assets , the d i f ference i s treated as taxable income.[11] Consequently, i f the CCA overestimates deprec ia t ion , the investor i s provided with an i n t e r e s t free loan u n t i l the asset i s s o l d . An overestimate of deprec iat ion of X d o l l a r s means the investor i s able to reduce h i s taxable income by X d o l l a r s . I f the investor i s i n the 50 percent tax bracket , t h i s trans la tes in to an income tax reduct ion , or i n t e r e s t free loan, of 1/2X. This loan i s not due u n t i l the l a s t asset i n the CCA c lass i s so ld and tax i s accessed on the overestimation of deprec ia t ion . This loan i s commonly c a l l e d a tax d e f e r r a l ; one postpones paying tax on a por t ion of one's income through the CCA deduction u n t i l the l a s t asset i n the CCA c lass i s disposed of . Res ident ia l bu i ld ings r a r e l y decrease i n value; they usua l ly appreciate , not depreciate . Consequently, investors i n MURB assets expect to be able to defer taxes, under the MURB prov i s ions . The a b i l i t y to defer taxes i s an important factor when evaluat ing the f i n a n c i a l a t tract iveness of a MURB asset . llWhen an investor s e l l s a r e n t a l property , i t must be determined how much was paid for the land versus the b u i l d i n g . Any p r o f i t s r e a l i z e d on the sale of the land are treated as c a p i t a l gains; the amount paid for the b u i l d i n g i s use to determine i f deprec ia t ion was overestimated. Because a c a p i t a l gain i s treated more favourably from the view point of the taxpayer than an overestimation of deprec ia t ion , i t i s i n the s e l l e r s best i n t e r e s t to have the highest amount poss ib le a l l oca ted by Revenue Canada to the s e l l i n g p r i c e of the land , versus the b u i l d i n g . 219 I f the CCA underestimates the d e p r e c i a t i o n of the MURB a s s e t s i n a g i v e n CCA c l a s s , the taxpayer i s i n a l o s s s i t u a t i o n . D e p r e c i a t i o n on MURB a s s e t s i n a gi v e n CCA c l a s s i s underestimated i f , upon the s a l e of the l a s t a s s e t i n the c l a s s , the u n d e p r e c i a t e d v a l u e of the a s s e t s i s g r e a t e r than t h e i r market v a l u e . The i d e a behind the income tax system i s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s should be taxed on t h e i r p r o f i t s . D e p r e c i a t i o n i s an expense of doing b u s i n e s s and, t h e r e f o r e , should be deducted from t a x a b l e income. Underestimation of d e p r e c i a t i o n r e s u l t s i n an " u n f a i r " i n c r e a s e i n the amount of tax p a i d ; an i n d i v i d u a l i s de p r i v e d of the use funds which should be a v a i l a b l e t o him/her u n t i l the l a s t a s s e t i n the CCA c l a s s i s s o l d and the amount of und e r e s t i m a t i o n i s c a l c u l a t e d and r e t u r n e d t o the i n d i v i d u a l , v i a a tax de d u c t i o n . A s i m p l i f i e d example w i l l h e l p t o c l a r i f y how the MURB program works. The year i s 1975, and Mr. X i s c o n s i d e r i n g i n v e s t i n g i n a MURB a s s e t . The MURB program was designed t o i n c r e a s e r e n t a l apartment s t a r t s ; consequently, f o r the sake of r e a l i s m , Mr. X i s convinced t o i n v e s t i n the MURB a s s e t o n l y once he takes i n t o account MURB. Assume, Mr. X has $10,000 i n a f t e r tax income which he wishes to i n v e s t f o r a p e r i o d of 3 y e a r s , and the o p p o r t u n i t y cost[12] of such an investment i s $3,000. A l s o , the p r o j e c t e d r e n t a l 12The o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t of an investment i s the r e t u r n p o s s i b l e , i f the investment money was used t o purchase the best a l t e r n a t i v e investment. 220 income for the MURB asset which Mr. X i s dea l ing with ($20,000 over 3 years) i s equal to operating costs . The projected s e l l i n g p r i c e of the asset i n 3 years i s $12,500. F i r s t , Mr. X examines the at tract iveness of the asset without cons ider ing the MURB program. The return on the investment i s equal to the s e l l i n g p r i c e of the asset plus r e n t a l income minus operating costs and the purchase cost of the asset for a sum of $2,500 (12,500+$20,000-$20,000-$10,000=$2,500).[13] The $2,500 projected p r o f i t i s less than the $3,000 opportunity cost of the investment; therefore , Mr. X decides an investment i n the MURB asset i s unwise. Mr. X learns of the MURB program and reanalyses the p o t e n t i a l of an investment i n the MURB asset (Table 73). Assume, the CCA on the asset would depreciate i t to a value of $0 at the end of 3 years . In year 1, the CCA deprec iat ion on the MURB investment would be $5,000. This $5,000 CCA would t rans la te in to a tax savings of $2,500. How i s th i s poss ible? The $5,000 CCA would reduce Mr. X' s taxable income by $5,000. Mr. X i s i n the 50 percent tax bracket; consequently, he would have paid $2,500 i n tax on the $5,000. Mr. X would be free to invest the $2,500 i n tax savings. Mr. X would invest a l l tax savings i n bonds which have a 10 percent i n t e r e s t r a t e . The i n t e r e s t on the bonds would not be compounded. Thus, the $2,500 i n tax savings would r e a l i z e a 13For the sake of s i m p l i c i t y , the c a p i t a l gains tax was not included i n t h i s equation. 221 return of $250 per year . The t o t a l p r o f i t s to be derived from inves t ing a l l of the tax savings which would accrue to Mr. X over the 3 years would be $1,150. TABLE 73 EXAMPLE OF A MURB INVESTMENT UNDEPRECIATED YEAR VALUE 1 $10,000 2 $5,000 3 $2,000 CCA TAX DEPRECIATION SAVINGS $ 5,000 $2,500 $ 3,000 $1,500 $ 2,000 $1,000 $10,000 $5,000 INVESTMENT PROFIT ON TAX BENEFIT ($250)(3)=$ 750 ($150)(2)=$ 300 ($100)(1)=$ 100 $1,150 Investment c a p i t a l = $10,000 Term of investment = 3 years Opportunity cost = $3,000 Rental income = b u i l d i n g operating costs = $20,000 over 3 years S e l l i n g p r i c e of mul t ip le un i t r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g = $12,500 Investment p r o f i t without MURB program -$12,500 + $20,000 - $20,000 - $10,000 = $2,500 Investment p r o f i t with MURB program = $12,500 + $20,000 - $20,000 - $10,000 + 1,150 = $3,650 Mr. X i s only looking for a 3 year investment; therefore , at the end of the t h i r d year, he would s e l l the MURB asset for a projected p r i c e of $12,500. Assuming that the b u i l d i n g was the only asset i n i t s CCA c lass the sale of t h i s asset would r e s u l t i n the Government determining that the CCA overestimated ac tua l deprec iat ion by $10,000. A 50 percent tax on t h i s amount would be l ev i ed against Mr X. Remember, he i s i n the 50 percent tax bracket . Thus, the Government would demand $5,000 from Mr. X, thereby, e l iminat ing the $5,000 i n tax savings accumulated over 222 the three year per iod . Consequently, the only benef i t Mr. X would receive from the MURB program i s the $1,150 p r o f i t he made by inves t ing the temporary tax savings. The p r o f i t Mr. X would receive from the investment i n the MURB asset would be equal to the s e l l i n g p r i c e of the asset plus r e n t a l income minus operating costs and the purchase cost of the asset plus the p r o f i t der ived from inves t ing the temporary tax savings under the MURB program for a t o t a l of $3,650 ($12,500+$20,000-$20,000-$10,000+$1,150=$3,650). This i s greater than the $3,000 opportunity cost of the investment; therefore , MR. X would proceed with an investment i n the MURB asset once the MURB program was taken in to account. Now that i t has been explained exact ly how the MURB program works, the s ign i f i cance of the 5 percent d i f ference i n the CCA rate of Class 31 (5 percent) and Class 32 (10 percent) assets can be discussed. A 10 percent CCA rate allows an investor to receive the f u l l tax she l ter advantage at an e a r l i e r date than a 5 percent CCA rate ; therefore , the investor i s free to re inves t the money made on the tax she l ter at an e a r l i e r date. This i s c l e a r l y stated by Edward D. Marchant, a Chartered Accountant, i n an a r t i c l e on MURB: I f the investor can obtain the larges t poss ib le income tax deferment as qu ick ly as p o s s i b l e , he w i l l get the best re turn on h i s investment. This theory i s based on the assumption that every d o l l a r of taxes deferred w i l l u l t imate ly be p a i d . The only gain i s the a f t er - tax 223 increment reta ined as a r e s u l t of invest ing the deferred tax.[14] As a r e s u l t , the 10 percent CCA given on Class 32 assets i s a better tax break than the 5 percent given on Class 31 assets . Another point which deserves comment at t h i s time i s the a b i l i t y to "restart" MURB. As stated prev ious ly , the MURB benef i ts of an investment i n a MURB asset are greatest i n the i n i t i a l years , d e c l i n i n g with time u n t i l they reach zero. Once the MURB benef i ts reach zero, the worth of a MURB asset to i t s owner i s the present day value of future rents minus future operating cos ts . However, to a p o t e n t i a l buyer of the asset the worth of the asset i s equal to the present day value of future rents and MURB benef i ts minus future operating cos ts . Future MURB benef i ts are included i n t h i s equation, because when a MURB asset i s s o l d , the new owner i s able to apply the CCA rate appl icable to the asset (5 or 10 percent) against h i s / h e r purchase p r i c e . Thus, the MURB asset i s worth more to the p o t e n t i a l buyer than the owner. The owner can cash i n on the extra worth of the asset to the p o t e n t i a l buyer by s e l l i n g the asset . The extra worth of the MURB asset i s incorporated in to the market value of the asset . The a b i l i t y to r e s t a r t MURB has three major i m p l i c a t i o n s . F i r s t , i t encourages the sale of MURB assets a f ter a c e r t a i n amount of time. Second, with the sale of a MURB asset the owner 14Edward D. Marchant, "Murbs, The Great Canadian Tax She l ter : P r o f i t From Your Losses," CA Magazine 110.9 (1977): 29. 224 can, i n e f f e c t , receive the benef i ts of a double MURB subsidy; the f i r s t subsidy comes from the Government through the tax system and the second through the r e a l estate market upon sale of the asset . T h i r d , the Federal Government can end up subs id iz ing a b u i l d i n g more than once. One of Michael Wilson's proposed tax changes i s to remove the a b i l i t y of owners of MURB assets to r e s t a r t MURB. He has proposed that the transfer of asset ownership as of June 17, 1987, r e s u l t i n the asset no longer being e l i g i b l e for MURB benef i ts and that those who purchased a MURB asset p r i o r to t h i s date have a maximum of 6 years over which to c o l l e c t MURB benef i t s . Analysts have stated that the motivation behind the construct ion of housing under the MURB program was with prov id ing a tax she l ter and not a home. The i m p l i c a t i o n i s that MURB housing may be of substandard q u a l i t y . Debra Frazer writes that the MURB asset owner i s merely in teres ted with i t as a tax she l ter "with l i t t l e or no regard for the projec t as a place i n which people w i l l eventual ly make t h e i r home."[15] Thomas Adams describes a meeting with a MURB owner who only knew that the MURB lowered h i s tax payments; "as far as he's concerned i t makes no d i f ference whether the b u i l d i n g r e a l l y ex i s t s or i s a figment of someone's imagination."[16] 15Debra Frazer , Who Benefits from Tax Shelters? ( n . p . : The Canadian Counci l on S o c i a l Development, 1979) 52. 16Thomas Adams, "City D i a r y , " C i t y Magazine 13.4 (1978): 18. 225 The c o n s t r u c t i o n q u a l i t y of a MURB a s s e t i s of such importance t h a t a t some p o i n t i n the investment d e c i s i o n making process i t should be taken i n t o account. The p r o f i t a b i l i t y of a MURB a s s e t depends not o n l y on MURB but a l s o on the r e n t s o b t a i n e d and the market r a t e of a p p r e c i a t i o n / d e p r e c i a t i o n . New r e n t a l u n i t s are expensive t o c o n s t r u c t ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e i r r e n t s are a l s o expensive. Thus, r e n t e r s expect h i g h q u a l i t y housing when r e n t i n g a new u n i t . I f one i n v e s t s i n a low q u a l i t y MURB a s s e t one w i l l not be ab l e t o r e n t i t a t a h i g h r e n t ; r e n t a l income w i l l be t h e r e f o r e r e l a t i v e l y low. Furthermore, housing t h a t i s not p r o p e r l y c o n s t r u c t e d d e p r e c i a t e s a t a hi g h e r r a t e , or a p p r e c i a t e s a t a lower r a t e , than housing which i s p r o p e r l y c o n s t r u c t e d . Thus, the q u a l i t y of a MURB a s s e t i s an important c o n s i d e r a t i o n . While i t may w e l l be t h a t MURB i n v e s t o r s who sought p r o f e s s i o n a l h e l p i n d e c i d i n g what t o i n v e s t i n are not aware of the importance of the q u a l i t y of MURB a s s e t s , whether or not the q u a l i t y aspect i s c o n s i d e r e d depends on the competency of the investment p r o f e s s i o n a l s c o n s u l t e d . Marchant notes t h a t i n v e s t o r s are o f t e n i g n o r a n t of the v a r i o u s aspects of the MURB investment: "The i n v e s t o r i s not u s u a l l y i n p o s s e s s i o n of a l l of the f a c t s r e g a r d i n g the p r o j e c t ' s c o s t s , nor the assumptions being made i n a r r i v i n g at i t s p r o j e c t e d cash flow. . . . The i n v e s t o r w i l l u s u a l l y t u r n t o h i s lawyer, accountant and investment c o u n s e l l o r f o r advic e i n a s s e s s i n g the 226 investment."[17] He a l s o notes t h a t f o r investment p r o f e s s i o n a l s t o p r o p e r l y assess a MURB investment a t t e n t i o n should be p a i d t o the q u a l i t y of the housing b e i n g c o n s t r u c t e d . [ 1 8 ] 17Marchant, 29. 18Marchant, 30. 227 ASSISTED RENTAL PROGRAM S u b s i d i e s under ARP were i n i t i a t e d from 1975 t o 1978. Once i n i t i a t e d , ARP p r o v i d e d a subsi d y stream, which i n many cases continues t o t h i s day. The program p r o v i d e s d i r e c t s u b s i d i e s t o p r i v a t e s e c t o r developers of r e n t a l housing. ARP changed i n each year of o p e r a t i o n ; consequently, the program d e s c r i p t i o n i s org a n i z e d on a y e a r l y b a s i s . 1975 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION CMHC i n i t i a t e d ARP i n A p r i l , 1975. The program i n v o l v e s annual grants t o p r i v a t e s e c t o r d e v e l o p e r s . In exchange f o r the grant, r e s t r i c t i o n s and c o n d i t i o n s are p l a c e d on f i r s t mortgages, housing form, f i n a n c i a l a ccounting, r e n t s , t e n a n t s , and development s a l e s . In r e t u r n , developers were, i n g e n e r a l ; t o r e c e i v e a 5 t o 10 perce n t r a t e of r e t u r n on t h e i r e q u i t y . ARP p r o v i d e s annual g r a n t s , d i s b u r s e d over 5, 10 or 15 y e a r s . I n i t i a l l y , the f i r s t year grant was $600 per r e n t a l u n i t . In the June 1975 budget, the amount was i n c r e a s e d t o $900.[19] The amount of the grant decreases each year by a cons t a n t amount u n t i l the val u e of the grant equals zero. I t was the i n t e n t i o n of CMHC t h a t s u b s i d y decreases and cor r e s p o n d i n g r e n t i n c r e a s e s c o i n c i d e w i t h tenants' 19Clayton Research A s s o c i a t e s L i m i t e d , The Growing R e n t a l  Housing Shortage i n Canada - Causes and S o l u t i o n s (n.p.: The Canadian I n s t i t u t e of P u b l i c Real E s t a t e Companies?, 1980) 5. 228 increas ing a b i l i t y to pay u n t i l no further subsidy was needed.[20] For 1975-77 ARP, the goal of a 5 to 10 percent re turn on equity i s used to ca l cu la te the ARP subsidy for a development. When c a l c u l a t i n g the subsidy based on t h i s rate of r e t u r n , the fo l lowing sources of revenue are not taken in to account: (1) MURB, (2) CCA regulat ions for development corporat ions , and (3) c a p i t a l gains . Thus, developers when they began to p a r t i c i p a t e i n ARP were a n t i c i p a t i n g a re turn i n excess of 5 to 10 percent on equi ty . Under 1975-78 ARP, developers can take advantage of both ARP and MURB; i n f a c t , most ARP developments have a lso been reg i s tered under MURB.[21] In general , l i f e insurance corporat ions , corporations whose primary business i s r e a l property l eas ing , r e n t a l , development or sa le , and partnerships i n which the partners are corporations of the two types described above receive the same benef i ts other investors i n r e n t a l housing receive under MURB, through CCA regula t ions . Furthermore, i n almost a l l s i tua t ions these corporations obtained MURB c e r t i f i c a t i o n on t h e i r r e n t a l bu i ld ings to allow them to receive a higher p r i c e i f a 20Dallard Runge, Study d i r e c t o r , Interdepartmental Study Team on Housing and Rents, A Comprehensive S o c i a l Housing P o l i c y  for B r i t i s h Columbia ( [ V i c t o r i a ? ] : [ B r i t i s h Columbia?], 1975) 140. 21Paulette G a l , telephone interview, 26, 27 Jan. and 5, 12 Feb. 1988. 229 development i s so ld to investors which are not corporations or partnerships of the type described above. C a p i t a l gains , or losses , are not taken in to account under ARP. In 1975-78 ARP r e s t r i c t i o n s are placed on f i r s t mortgages, housing form and development sales . [22] The f i r s t mortgage can be e i ther from a pr ivate company or CMHC. Most ARP mortgages are p r i v a t e l y funded; CMHC only issued loans i n communities where there was a r e n t a l housing need but no w i l l i n g pr iva te lenders . P r i v a t e l y funded mortgages have to be (1) obtained from an approved lender, (2) insured by a pr iva te mortgage insurer[23] or CMHC, (3) for a maximum of 90 percent of projec t cost as determined by CMHC,[24] (4) at a market i n t e r e s t rate approved by CMHC and (6) for a minimum 5 year term.[25] Mortgages obtained from CMHC are (1) for a maximum of 90 percent of cost as determined by CMHC, (2) at the current CMHC market i n t e r e s t r a t e , (3) amortized over a minimum per iod of 25 years and a maximum of 35 years , and (4) for a minimum term of 5 years . 22Gal, telephone interview, 26, 27 Jan. and 5, 12 Feb 1988. 23Marchant, 30. 24Gal, telephone interview, 26, 27 Jan. and 5, 12 Feb 1988. 25Except where noted, for the information contained i n t h i s sentence and subsequent paragraph, I am indebted to P a t r i c i a S t r i e c h , Louise Clarke , and Michele Harding, Mul t i -Fami ly Federal  Rental Housing Assistance Programs i n Canada and the United  States: A Comparative study ([Ottawa]: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1980) 13 and 42. 230 A number of r e s t r i c t i o n s were placed on housing form. Only-new housing q u a l i f i e d and normally bui ld ings had to have a minimum of 8 un i t s (see Table 74). A l s o , ARP uni t s had to be moderately p r i c e d . In descr ib ing the 1976-77 program, Irwin Lithwick notes that to ensure that ARP uni t s were modest i n p r i c e , "the average lending value per uni t [ in a projec t had to] be below the AHOP p r i c e l i m i t s . " (see Table 75).[26] Furthermore, to q u a l i f y the average s ize of uni t s wi th in a projec t had to be wi th in s ize maximums, thereby, reducing the r i s k of luxury housing being b u i l t under the program, (see Table 76). A l l sales of ARP developments have to be approved by CMHC. CMHC only agrees to sales to q u a l i f i e d purchasers, purchasers under which a development remains v i a b l e . Under 1975-77 ARP, CMHC requires developers to submit annual audited f i n a n c i a l statements.[27] If the audited statements are not submitted, ARP assistance i s terminated. The fo l lowing three r e s t r i c t i o n s are i n place only under the 1975 program. The f i r s t r e s t r i c t i o n deals with rents . Rents were set i n i t i a l l y by CMHC so developers received a 5 to 10 percent rate of return on t h e i r equity af ter the grant; the exact amount depended on l o c a l market condi t ions . Developers can only 26Irwin Li thwick , An Evaluat ion of the Federal Ass i s ted  Rental Program (1976-77) ([Ottawa]: Centra l Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1978) 35. 27For the information contained i n t h i s paragraph, I am indebted to G a l , telephone interview, 26, 27 Jan. and 5, 12 Feb 1988. 231 TABLE 74 ASSISTED RENTAL PROJECTS DISTRIBUTION BY PROJECT SIZE Number of Units in Project Per Cent of Projects Per Cent of Units Under 8 3.7 0.3 8-14 16.4 4.1 15-24 29.4 12.3 25-49 24.0 18.8 50 - 99 14.8 23.4 100 - 149 5.9 15.6 150 - 199 3.3 12.0 200 + 2.6 13.4 Source: CMHC S t a t i s t i c a l Services D i v i s i o n computer f i l e N953N953 revised to July 31, 1977. F i l e contains 971 projects 598 of which are 1976 approvals. As referenced by Irwin Lithwick, An Evaluation of the Federal Assisted Rental  Program (1976-77) ([Ottawa]: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1978) 149. 232 TABLE 75 COMPARISON OF ASSISTED IttE OWNI-RailP H\XIMUM HOUSE TRICES AND LENDINC VALUES UNDER TliE ASSISTED RENTAL PROGRAM, l!)7o A1DP Maximum Median Lending 90th Percentile Kunber of , I louse Prices, Value per Unit Lending Value Projects on Location September, 1976 per Unit F i l e Dollars Dollars Dollars Canary 41,000 33,000 39,000 14 Montreal 33,500 19,000 29,000 214 Quebec City 33,000 19,000 25,000 35 Saint John, New Brunswick 34,500 21,000 23,000 IS •Vancouver 47,COO 33,000 39,000 44 Victoria 45,000 27,000 31,000 37 Winnipeg 37,500 29,000 33,000 11 Slierbroofce 31,000 19,000 21,000 10 Quoboc Centres, Population 10,000-39,000 n.a. 1U.O0O 21,000 2b (Quebec Centres, Population under 10,000 ii.a. ii.ooo 23,000 lb Siiskbtchewun Centres, Population 10,000-39,999 n.a. 23.000 27,000 IS S.-i$katchcwnn Centres, r e f l a t i o n under 10,000 n.a. 21,000 23,000 1!> b r i t i f h Columbia Centres, Population 10,000-39,999 n.a. 27,000 37,000 14 Source; CMHC Computer File, Special Tabulation. As referenced by Irwin Lithwick, 37. 1 Selection based on centres with 10 or more ARP projects to the end of January, 1977; values rounded to mean of size class,- the latter are in $2,000 i n t e r v a l s . TABLE 76 ASSISTED RENTAL PROGRAM MAXIMUM UNIT SIZE CRITERIA Unit Apartment Sq. Ft. Other Sq. Ft. Studio 400 — 1 Eedroom 600 650 2 Bedroom 800 900 3 Bedroom 1000 1100 4 Bedroom 1200 1300 Source: CMHC General Memorandum B1067, March 30, 1976. As r e f e r e n c e d by I r w i n L i t h w i c k , 36. 234 ra i se rents to o f f se t grant reductions and increases i n v e r i f i a b l e operating costs; therefore , over time i t was bel ieved developers could maintain a constant l e v e l of re turn on t h e i r equi ty . Second, a r e s t r i c t i o n was placed on the maximum tenant income when uni t s were f i r s t l e t : a tenant's income could not exceed f i v e times the rent . T h i r d , sale of an ARP development re su l t s i n the termination of ARP ass is tance . I f a project ass i s ted under the 1975 program came into f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t y , CMHC could change the form of assistance to that received under the 1976 program.[28] 1976 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION In 1976, the grant was replaced with a CMHC in teres t reduct ion loan. In add i t ion to those continuing r e s t r i c t i o n s noted i n the 1975 program d e s c r i p t i o n , the fo l lowing two r e s t r i c t i o n s were introduced: (1) CMHC and a developer had to agree on f i r s t year rents and operating costs , and (2) a f ter the f i r s t year, the developer i s free to set rents without CMHC r e s t r i c t i o n s ; however, increases i n net revenues r e s u l t i n equal reductions i n loan subsidies . [29] No longer are there any r e s t r i c t i o n s on p o t e n t i a l renters . 28Gal, telephone interview, 26, 27 Jan. and 5, 12 Feb 1988. 29Marchant, 30. 235 1 The i n t e r e s t reduct ion loan i s an annual loan of up to $1,200 per r e n t a l u n i t . The exact l e v e l of assistance received by a developer i s dependent on the fo l lowing: (1) the t o t a l number of u n i t s , (2) construct ion costs , (3) the f i r s t mortgage i n t e r e s t r a t e , (4) operating costs , (5) a t ta inable rents , [30] and (6) the rate of re turn on equity as negotiated between the developer and CMHC. CMHC continued to be l ieve that the rate of re turn on equity achieved by developers p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n ARP should be competitive with the rate a t ta inable on a l t e r n a t i v e investments. "As a gu ide l ine , t h i s would range from 5% to 10%, depending on l o c a l market condit ions."[31] The amount of the loan i s decreased annually by 10 percent of the o r i g i n a l loan amount; however, t h i s can be modified: i f a borrower receives less than the projected 5 to 10 percent re turn on equi ty , the loan w i l l decrease by less than 10 percent. I f , on the other hand, the rate of re turn i s more than the projected r a t e , the annual loan reduct ion i s increased. The loan disbursement per iod i s 10 to 15 years . The i n t e r e s t reduct ion loan i s "interest free for the greater of 10 years or for the per iod of disbursement up to 15 years."[32] 30Frazer, 59. 3lMarchant, 30. 32Marchant, 30. 236 I f , when the term on the f i r s t mortgage expires , i n t e r e s t rates are lower than the rate o r i g i n a l l y appl ied to the f i r s t mortgage, further ARP loan assistance may not be necessary. However, the amount already loaned remains i n t e r e s t free for a minimum of 10 years . Conversely, however, i f the i n t e r e s t rate i s higher upon exp ira t ion of the mortgage term, problems of defaul t and arrears may r e s u l t , because usua l ly loan payments cannot increase over time. Loan payments can only increase i f a development i s i n f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t y and the developer i s w i l l i n g to enter in to a new agreement with CMHC, the terms of which grea t ly r e s t r i c t the owner's power.[33] The program was devised with strong incent ives to ensure that rents would be kept to a minimum. F i r s t , when rents r e s u l t i n a net p r o f i t , that p r o f i t i s taxable , the i n t e r e s t reduct ion loan i s non-taxable. Second, as noted above, the annual loan amount cannot increase over time with one exception; consequently, to minimize r i s k i t i s better for owners to minimize rents . In order to give CMHC s e c u r i t y i n i t s investment, CMHC holds a second mortgage on ARP developments. The second mortgage, becomes due 1 year af ter the end of ARP loan payments. At t h i s time, an i n t e r e s t charge, equal to the lending rate under Sect ion 58 of the Nat ional Housing Ac t , i s appl ied to the amount of the second mortgage. The Sect ion 58 lending rate i s the i n t e r e s t rate charge by CMHC i n i t s d i r e c t lending a c t i v i t i e s ; the Section 33Gal, telephone interview, 26, 27 Jan. and 5, 12 Feb 1988. 237 58 rate r e f l e c t s current market i n t e r e s t rates . [34] The borrower has a maximum of 10 years to pay of f the second mortgage. I f there i s a premature termination of the ARP agreement ( i . e . due to the sale of the development or mortgage re f inanc ing at a higher va lue ) , the t o t a l subsidy to date becomes due. I f the t o t a l subsidy to date i s not promptly paid to CMHC, i n t e r e s t i s charged on the t o t a l amount according to the Sect ion 58 i n t e r e s t rate recorded when the developer f i r s t got involved i n ARP, and l ega l ac t ion i s i n i t i a t e d to r e t r i e v e the t o t a l subsidy and any accrued in teres t . [35 ] Upon sale of a development, CMHC forgives a l l or part of the i second mortgage i f the s e l l i n g p r i c e i s not high enough to coverj the f i r s t mortgage, the sales cost and the equity l e v e l of the i mortgagor. As a r e s u l t , i n s i tua t ions were the s e l l e r w i l l receive an amount less than the t o t a l of these three costs , the normal incent ive to attempt to get top d o l l a r for the development no longer a p p l i e s , thereby, increas ing the cost to CMHC. I f , upon sale of a development, a por t ion or a l l of the ARP loan i s forg iven , the amount i s c l a s s i f i e d by the tax department as a debtor's ga in . Under Sect ion 80 of the Income Tax Ac t , the amount of a debtor's gain i s used to reduce s p e c i f i c tax deductions for the year i n which the gain occurred. 34Gal, telephone interview, 26, 27 Jan. and 5, 12 Feb. 1988. 35For the information up to th i s point i n t h i s paragraph, I am indebted to G a l , telephone interview, 26, 27 Jan. and 5, 12 Feb. 1988. 238 Under the 1976-78 ARP, when an ARP development i s s o l d , i t i s poss ib le for the remaining ARP assistance to be trans ferred to the new owner. However, the new owner must agree to abide by ARP regu la t ions . The switch from a grant to a loan has p o s i t i v e impl icat ions for p a r t i c i p a n t s i n MURB. These impl icat ions are not an oversight by CMHC. In a report on the 1976-77 ARP program, Irwin Lithwick states "the CCA [MURB subsidy] i s considered an i n t e g r a l part of the [ARP] program."[36] A grant reduces the c a p i t a l cost of a r e n t a l r e s i d e n t i a l development. MURB benef i ts are based on the c a p i t a l cost allowance, an income tax deduction, ava i l ab l e on r e n t a l r e s i d e n t i a l developments, which i s ca l cu la ted by taking a percentage of the c a p i t a l cost of a development. Because a grant reduces the c a p i t a l cost of a development, i t a lso reduces the c a p i t a l cost allowance on a development. Thus a grant negat ive ly impacts an i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n MURB and those corporations described e a r l i e r which receive MURB benef i ts regardless of whether they p a r t i c i p a t e i n MURB. The loan provided under the 1976-78 program i s non-taxable and does not reduce the c a p i t a l cost of a development; consequently, i t does not negat ive ly impact the tax status of a development. 36lrwin Li thwick , 51-52. 239 1977 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION In 1977 the year ly maximum loan l e v e l Was reduced to $900 per r e n t a l un i t except i n Vancouver and Toronto where, due to the condi t ion of t h e i r r e n t a l markets, the l e v e l remained at $1,200 per r e n t a l uni t . [37] In October of 1977, the p r o v i n c i a l governments of B r i t i s h Columbia and Ontario announced they would augment Federal ARP ass istance. [38] The adminis trat ion of ARP remained i n the hands of the Federal Government, and p r o v i n c i a l ass istance was condit ioned on the meeting of the Federal ARP gu ide l ines . In B r i t i s h Columbia Federal ARP assistance by i t s e l f was usua l ly not high enough to st imulate r e n t a l housing construct ion due to high land and labour costs . Consequently, the p r o v i n c i a l government got involved . A p r o v i n c i a l grant of a maximum of $600 per un i t i n the f i r s t year was appl ied before Federal ARP ass is tance . P r o v i n c i a l ass istance was removed f i r s t ; the amount of the grant decreased at an annual rate of 10 percent of the t o t a l F e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l subsidy i n year one. The p r o v i n c i a l grant d i d not have to be repaid provid ing the development was not ref inanced or converted in to a non-res ident ia l use during the time per iod i n which the grants were being suppl ied . 37Frazer, 64. 38Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, Ass i s ted Rental  Program P r o v i n c i a l Stacking B u i l d e r ' s B u l l e t i n No. 274 (N .p . : Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1977) N.pag. as referenced by Frazer , 63. 240 The p r o v i n c i a l assistance was i n e f fec t a free grant; therefore , there was an incent ive to only apply for p r o v i n c i a l ass i s tance . Federal assistance had to be repa id , and i n t e r e s t accrued on the loan one year a f ter the end of the ARP disbursement p e r i o d . In c e r t a i n cases, where the d i f ference between year ly economic and market rents[39] before the F e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l ARP subsidy was i n excess of $1,800 and less than $3,000, the province a lso provided a loan, the maximum value of which was $1,200. On May 8, 1978, the government of B r i t i s h Columbia announced i t would no longer augment ARP.[40] Developers were e l i g i b l e for Ontario ARP assistance i f a f ter the maximum Federal assistance for the year ($1,200 per unit ) a gap not i n excess of $600 per un i t remained between economic and market rent . Consequently, the Ontario program i n no way reduced the amount of Federal ARP ass is tance . The Ontario assistance was a maximum grant of $600 per un i t i n the f i r s t year . Lithwick notes "in the second year, assistance decl ines by one-tenth with the amount prorated between CMHC and the province , i n proport ion to i n i t i a l assistance."[41] I t i s assumed the reference to "one-3 9Economic rent i s equal to the rent necessary for an owner to recoup costs and r e a l i z e an acceptable l e v e l of p r o f i t . 4 0 B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of Munic ipal A f f a i r s and Housing, News Release (N .p . : B r i t i s h Columbia, 18 May 1978) N.pag. as referenced by F r a z e r , 63. 41Irwin Li thwick , 69. 241 tenth the amount" means an annual dec l ine of one-tenth of the o r i g i n a l t o t a l F e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l ass istance.[42] 1978 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION In May of 1978, the i n t e r e s t reduct ion loan was replaced with a payment reduct ion loan.[43] New commitments under ARP were stopped i n 1978; however, some assistance advances were made to 1995. Under 1978 ARP, a 10 year contract was entered in to by developers and CMHC.[44] Loan disbursement began at the beginning of the contract date. Repayment of the loan could commence at anytime i n the 10 year per iod . In the f i r s t year , maximum loan payments were $2.25 per month on each $1,000 on the f i r s t mortgage.[45] The l e v e l of assistance decreases annually to ensure the borrower r e a l i z e s a constant f i ve percent increase i n annual net p r i n c i p a l and i n t e r e s t payments.[46] 42Irwin Li thwick , w r i t i n g i n 1978, noted that the 10 percent rate of dec l ine i n assistance under the f e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l assistance package i n both provinces may have to be modified so that ass istance i s provided over a 15 and not 10 year per iod . 43Frazer, 65. 44For the information contained i n t h i s paragraph, I am indebted to G a l , telephone interview, 26, 27 Jan. and 5, 12 Feb. 1988. 45Frazer, 65. 46Frazer, 65. 242 The loan i s secured with a second mortgage. Interest began accruing on the second mortgage when the f i r s t loan instalment was made. The i n t e r e s t rate was set at the Sect ion 58 in teres t rate i n e f fec t when the developer began to p a r t i c i p a t e i n ARP.[47] At the end of the 10 year assistance term, the outstanding balance owed CMHC becomes due. At t h i s time, CMHC and the developer negotiate another contract to determine the d e t a i l s of repayment.[48] No longer are loans forg ivab le . DEVELOPER BENEFITS 1975 - 1978 Now that the general d e t a i l s of the ARP program have been out l ined , i t i s time to review the f i n a n c i a l benef i ts under ARP. Under the 1975 program, the benef i t i s equal to the cash value of the grants . For 1976-77 ARP the benef i t i s the prov i s i on of a loan and the non-ca lcu la t ion of i n t e r e s t on the loan for a minimum of 10 years . Furthermore, there i s the p o s s i b i l i t y of the loan being forg iven . Under 1978 ARP the benef i t i s the loan. 47Gal, telephone interview, 26, 27 Jan. and 5, 12 Feb. 1988. 48For the information contain up to t h i s point i n t h i s paragraph, I am indebted to G a l , telephone interview, 26, 27 Jan. and 5, 12 Feb. 1988. 243 CANADA RENTAL SUPPLY PLAN CRSP was announced i n the November 1981 budget speech. The program cons is t s of i n t e r e s t free loans to developers of pr ivate r e n t a l housing. The CRSP termination date var ied among the provinces . In B r i t i s h Columbia CRSP ended i n November 1984. CRSP was terminated on the f edera l l e v e l on December 31, 1984. The CRSP loan was based on the number of uni t s i n a development. When the program was f i r s t announced the loan maximum was $7,500 per u n i t ; however, by 1982 the p o l i c y was for "CMHC . . . to consider requests for assistance exceeding t h i s amount where i t . . . [could] c l e a r l y be demonstrated that the cash flow d e f i c i t for a projec t during i t s i n i t i a l years of operation would be p r o h i b i t i v e even when considering longer term prospects for projec t v i a b i l i t y . " [ 4 9 ] Loans as high as $15,000 per un i t had been recorded by A p r i l 1983. The loans were disbursed i n two payments. One-half of the loan was dispensed once CMHC determined the work completed on the development const i tuted 15 percent of the t o t a l development cost . The second h a l f of the loan was disbursed on the i n t e r e s t adjustment date of the f i r s t mortgage provided that c e r t a i n precondit ions were met (e .g . CMHC had to f i r s t receive a c e r t i f i c a t e of the f i n a l development c o s t ) . The i n t e r e s t 49Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, B u i l d e r s '  B u l l e t i n (Adminis trat ive) : Canada Rental Supply Plan ([Ottawa?]: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1982) N. pag. adjustment date of a mortgage i s the date upon which i n t e r e s t s tar t s accruing on the t o t a l amount of the mortgage. This occurs a f ter development construct ion i s complete. CMHC uses a second mortgage to secure the CRSP loan. The loan i s i n t e r e s t free u n t i l the second mortgage becomes due and payable. "The loan w i l l become due and payable on the e a r l i e r Of: - the 15th anniversary of the i n t e r e s t adjustment date of the f i r s t mortgage. - the projec t being used other than as r e s i d e n t i a l r e n t a l . - defaul t under the f i r s t mortgage, or defaul t under the second mortgage. - s e l l i n g or t r a n s f e r r i n g the t i t l e or b e n e f i c i a l i n t e r e s t or ass igning the ground lease[50] i f a p p l i c a b l e , without the wr i t ten approval of the Corporat ion. - fragmenting or demanding the fragmention [ s ic ] of the f i r s t mortgage or the second mortgage.[51] - f a i l i n g to complete construct ion of the r e n t a l housing projec t to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the Corporation."[52] Owners could r e g i s t e r t h e i r CRSP uni ts as condominiums; however, i f one of the uni t s i n a development i s so ld as a condominium, the CRSP loan becomes due. I f a CRSP loan reaches maturi ty , "the 15th anniversary of the i n t e r e s t adjustment date of the f i r s t mortgage,"[53] the borrower 50Assignment of a ground lease i s the transfer of a lease on a piece of land to another e n t i t y (e .g . a person or corporat ion) . When deal ing with a long term lease i t becomes a form of sa l e . 51Fragmentation of a mortgage i s a mortgage form where a separate loan i s given for each i n d i v i d u a l un i t i n a development or a un i t i n a development i s so ld and a s ing le loan i s given for the res t of the u n i t s . 52Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1982, N. pag. 53Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1982, N. pag. 245 has 30 days t o e i t h e r pay the f u l l amount of the second mortgage or e n t e r i n t o an agreement w i t h CMHC t o pay o f f the second mortgage by means of new mortgage w i t h CMHC a t the c u r r e n t S e c t i o n 58 i n t e r e s t r a t e . The a m o r t i z a t i o n p e r i o d of t h i s new mortgage cannot exceed the o u t s t a n d i n g a m o r t i z a t i o n p e r i o d on the f i r s t mortgage. I f the premature t e r m i n a t i o n of a CRSP l o a n o c c u r s , the borrower has 30 days from the date of t e r m i n a t i o n t o pay o f f the mortgage. A f t e r the 30 days, i n t e r e s t i s charged on the mortgage a t the r a t e l i s t e d on the second mortgage document. I f necessary, l e g a l a c t i o n i s taken t o secure repayment. In exchange f o r the lo a n , developers had t o agree t o a number of requirements and r e s t r i c t i o n s i n a d d i t i o n t o those noted i n the d i s c u s s i o n on premature t e r m i n a t i o n of the CRSP l o a n . Developers were r e q u i r e d t o o f f e r u n i t s f o r p r o v i n c i a l r e n t s u b s i d y and t o ensure housing s u i t a b i l i t y f o r the d i s a b l e d . P r i o r t o r e n t up, developers had t o o f f e r 33 perc e n t of the u n i t s i n each CRSP development t o the p r o v i n c e f o r use i n housing r e n t supplement[54] tenants. T h i s o p t i o n e x p i r e d once a development was s u b s t a n t i a l l y l e t . Furthermore, CRSP developments had to be 54A r e n t supplement i s a r e n t subsidy which i s t i e d t o a housing u n i t . Consequently, i f a household t h a t l i v e s i n a r e n t supplement u n i t wishes t o move t o a new l o c a t i o n , the household w i l l l o s e i t s r e n t subsidy i f i t i s unable t o f i n d another r e n t supplement u n i t a t the new l o c a t i o n . In c o n t r a s t , a s h e l t e r allowance i s a r e n t s u b s i d y which i s t i e d t o the household; t h e r e f o r e , households who p a r t i c i p a t e i n a s h e l t e r allowance program are f r e e t o move i n t o a d i f f e r e n t u n i t and depending on the r e n t of the new u n i t , s t i l l q u a l i f y f o r a s h e l t e r allowance. 246 p h y s i c a l l y access ib le to the d i sab led , and a minimum of f i ve percent of the uni t s i n a CRSP development had to be designed for the d i sab led . The f i ve percent l i m i t , however, could be changed i f the developer could prove to CMHC that the market could not absorb a l l of the u n i t s . R e s t r i c t i o n s were placed on the t o t a l number of uni t s f inanced under CRSP, development form and the rece ip t of a d d i t i o n a l government funding. As w e l l , further r e s t r i c t i o n s were placed on the second mortgage. The November 1981 budget speech announced that CRSP loans would be provided for 15,000 uni t s i n t i g h t r e n t a l markets. In March 1982 the number of uni ts was increased to 30,000. Once again the uni t s were targeted at t i g h t r e n t a l markets. Two r e s t r i c t i o n s were placed on development form. F i r s t , only new r e n t a l construct ion s tar ted on or l a t e r than June 1, 1982, was e l i g i b l e for CRSP loans. Second, while a CRSP development may have n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t i e s [ 5 5 ] (e .g . such as commercial space), these f a c i l i t i e s may not exceed 20 percent of the t o t a l f l o o r area of the p r o j e c t , and they must be f i n a n c i a l l y s e l f -support ing. Developments were e l i g i b l e to receive CRSP prov id ing they d i d not q u a l i f y for MURB, the owners were not e l i g i b l e to receive an 55"Non Res ident ia l [ s ic ] f a c i l i t i e s are defined as any space located wi th in the boundaries of a predominantly r e s i d e n t i a l housing projec t exclus ive of dwel l ing u n i t s , amenity area and parking and other area associated with and e s s e n t i a l to the e f f i c i e n t operation of the r e s i d e n t i a l component." Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1982, N. pag. 247 accelerated soft cost deduction under the Income Tax Act[56] and the owners d i d not receive ass istance s i m i l a r to CRSP from the p r o v i n c i a l government.[57] There are two further r e s t r i c t i o n s on the second mortgage. F i r s t , the second mortgage cannot be paid o f f prematurely. This i s to ensure CRSP uni t s remain as r e n t a l uni t s for 15 years . Second, a f ter the i n t e r e s t adjustment date of the f i r s t mortgage, CMHC w i l l not allow the second mortgage to be postponed to enable an increase i n the amount of the f i r s t mortgage unless i t i s b e n e f i c i a l to CMHC. 56Developments s tar ted af ter November 12, 1981, are not e l i g i b l e for an accelerated soft cost deduction. 57Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1982, N. pag. 248 SECTION 15.1 NON-PROFIT AND 34.18 CO-OP PROGRAMS The s t a r t date for the Sect ion 15.1 Non-Prof i t and 34.18 Co-op Programs was June, 1973. These programs are named af ter t h e i r enabling l e g i s l a t i o n , Sections 15.1 and 34.18 of the Nat ional Housing A c t . The programs provide f i n a n c i a l ass istance to non-prof i t and co-operat ive groups for the p r o v i s i o n of moderate to low cost housing through the construct ion of new housing or the a c q u i s i t i o n of e x i s t i n g housing. The Sect ion 56.1 Non-Prof i t and Co-operative Housing Program replaced the 1.5.1 and 34.18 programs as of J u l y 31, 1978. The Sect ion 15.1 Non-Prof i t and 34.18 Co-op Programs were designed to work i n conjunction with a number of other Federal housing programs. As a r e s u l t , th i s program d e s c r i p t i o n i s d iv ided in to two sect ions . The f i r s t deals with the d e t a i l s of the 15.1 and 34.18 programs. The second deals with r e l a t e d programs. Before d i scuss ing the programs and those that r e la t e to them, i t i s important that the concept of co-operat ive housing i n B r i t i s h Columbia be mentioned. In B r i t i s h Columbia co-operat ive housing produced under the 34.18 and subsequent 56.1 program i s perceived more as form of home ownership housing than r e n t a l housing. This i s an outcome of two fac tors : (1) the marketing of co-operat ive housing as home ownership housing by the co-operative sector i n B r i t i s h Columbia, and (2) nuances p a r t i c u l a r to Government funded co-operatives i n the province . For example, 249 i n B r i t i s h Columbia, u n l i k e i n O n t a r i o , h i s t o r i c a l l y the c o s t t o households of p u r c h a s i n g shares i n a c o - o p e r a t i v e has been h i g h , t h e r e f o r e , c r e a t i n g an experience s i m i l a r t o home owners paying a down payment. SECTION 15.1 AND 34.18 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION T h i s s e c t i o n i s composed of f o u r p a r t s : p r o j e c t sponsors, a s s i s t a n c e form, housing occupants, and program r e g u l a t i o n s . P r i v a t e , p r o v i n c i a l and m u n i c i p a l n o n - p r o f i t c o r p o r a t i o n s c o u l d p a r t i c i p a t e i n the 15.1 program. Q u a l i f y i n g p r i v a t e non-p r o f i t c o r p o r a t i o n s c o u l d be c r e a t e d by a number of e n t i t i e s . The most common of these e n t i t i e s were i n f o r m a l community-based groups and s e r v i c e c l u b s . Examples of s e r v i c e s c l u b s i n c l u d e the Kiwanis, the L i o n s Club and the U n i t e d Church. E l i g i b l e sponsors of 34.18 housing were i n c o r p o r a t e d , n o t - f o r -p r o f i t , c o n t i n u i n g c o - o p e r a t i v e s . The c o - o p e r a t i v e had t o be i n c o r p o r a t e d under a p p l i c a b l e l e g i s l a t i o n (e.g. i n B r i t i s h Columbia, the B r i t i s h Columbia Cooperatives A c t ) . Under t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n , c o - o p e r a t i v e s had to be c o l l e c t i v e l y owned: each household i n a i n c o r p o r a t e d c o - o p e r a t i v e owns shares i n a co-o p e r a t i v e c o r p o r a t i o n which owns the c o - o p e r a t i v e . In a n o t - f o r -p r o f i t c o - o p e r a t i v e , a household l e a v i n g the c o - o p e r a t i v e i s o n l y e n t i t l e d t o funds i n v e s t e d i n the c o - o p e r a t i v e by the household. The household cannot s e l l i t s u n i t . T h e r e f o r e the household, u n l i k e a home owner s e l l i n g a house, cannot r e a l i z e a c a p i t a l g a i n . The term c o n t i n u i n g c o - o p e r a t i v e r e l a t e s t o the f o l l o w i n g 250 CMHC requirement: i f a co-operat ive i s d i s s o l v e d , i t s assets must be trans ferred to a char i tab le or non-prof i t organizat ion whose object ive i s the prov i s ion of housing to low and moderate income households. The assistance given under the 15.1 and 34.18 programs f a l l s in to two categor ies . F i r s t , there i s Federal ass is tance: composed of a loan, an i n t e r e s t reduct ion grant , a grant of 10 percent of the loan amount or the prov i s i on of leased land, and l a s t l y , s tar t -up funding for sponsoring groups. The second form of assistance i s the poss ib le crea t ion of an i n t e r n a l rent subsidy system. The loan under the 15.1 program i s for 100 percent of the lending value of a projec t i f the sponsor was a pr iva te or municipal non-prof i t corporat ion . P r o v i n c i a l corporations received a loan for 95 percent of projec t lending va lue . In both cases the loan i s amortized over the lesser of 50 years or the l i f e of the p r o j e c t . Under the 34.18 program, the Federal loan i s for 100 percent of the lending value of a p r o j e c t . The amortizat ion per iod can extend over a per iod of up to 50 years . For both programs, the i n t e r e s t rate on the loan was set at the current , Government, lending ra te . In conjunction with the f edera l loan, an i n t e r e s t reduct ion grant was provided under both programs, i n order , to reduce the i n t e r e s t rate to e ight percent. 251 Sponsors of 15.1 and 34.18 projects received a grant for 10 percent of the Federal loan amount minus other grants and subs id ies . Community housing projects could receive the 10 percent grant or the prov i s i on of leased land at favourable terms. A 1977 report notes the land lease option was soon to be implemented, and " i t w i l l reportedly make community housing projects e l i g i b l e for lease write-downs on Federally-owned land equivalent on average to $600 per year per un i t and up to $1,000 i n urban centres with high land costs."[58] Toronto, Hamilton, Vancouver and V i c t o r i a were designated for the $1,000 lease write-down as of J u l y 1976. The land lease option was not exercised i n B r i t i s h Columbia. "Start-up" funds were ava i lab l e under both programs. These funds were a grant to cover a v a r i e t y of costs associated with get t ing a projec t under way (e .g . non-prof i t soc ie ty incorporat ion cos t s , profes s iona l fees, and the cost of obtaining land opt ions ) . Under 15.1 s tar t -up funds of a maximum of $10,000 per projec t were ava i lab le to community groups.[59] The 34.18 program provided s tar t -up funds to a l l e l i g i b l e sponsors of up to $10,000 per p r o j e c t . The crea t ion of an i n t e r n a l rent subsidy was a r e s u l t of the p o s i t i v e benef i ts of having a project occupied by households with 58The Canadian Counci l on S o c i a l Development, A Review of  Canadian S o c i a l Housing P o l i c y (Ottawa: The Canadian Counci l on S o c i a l Development, 1977) 119. 59lt i s assumed the term community groups re fers to pr iva te non-prof i t organizat ions . 252 a range of incomes. In the la te s i x t i e s and e a r l y seventies , a general consensus was reached; i t was undesirable to construct large sca le , s o c i a l l y segregated, s o c i a l housing pro jec t s : such projects had a negative e f fec t on the people l i v i n g i n the project and on the surrounding neighbourhood. Furthermore, projects with a tenant Income mix required less Federal funding than those devoted s o l e l y to low income households. Rents i n 15.1 and 34.18 projects are set to ensure the recovery of operating and amortizat ion costs . The Federal assistance discussed up to t h i s point allows non-prof i t s and co-ops to serve only moderate income f a m i l i e s . However, non-p r o f i t s and co-ops, i f they break even f i n a n c i a l l y , can place a surcharge on the rents of households whose income exceeded a "speci f ied mul t ip le of breakeven [s ic ] rents."[60] The funds from the surcharge are used to subsidize households paying more than 25 percent of t h e i r income on rent . [61] A 1977 program evaluat ion , however, found the surcharge was not frequent ly invoked. O r i g i n a l l y , an income l i m i t was placed on households entering non-prof i t or co-op p r o j e c t s . A c l i e n t could not have an income 60Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion , S o c i a l Housing  Evaluat ion "Social Housing Evaluat ion", Unpublished d r a f t report , t s . , 1983, 19. A d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the surcharge mechanism i n 34.18 co-operatives can be found i n the fo l lowing source: Runge, 126. 61Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, S o c i a l Housing  Eva luat ion , 1983, 19. 253 greater than four times the before subsidy break-even rent of a u n i t . Af ter 1973 t h i s p o s i t i o n was modified; incomes could be higher than the l i m i t provided the i n t e r n a l rent surcharge was appl ied against the c l i e n t . [ 6 2 ] As stated prev ious ly , the i n t e r n a l surcharge was seldom enforced. C u r r e n t l y , to occupy a non-prof i t un i t a household must have a low or moderate income. Occupants of co-op uni t s must be drawn from the membership of the co-op group or corporat ion . " P r i o r i t i e s for funding were f i r s t , fami l i e s of low and moderate income, with a high p r i o r i t y to areas needing new construct ion; second, senior c i t i z e n s of low and moderate income; and t h i r d , s p e c i a l needs groups such as the handicapped."[63] Some a d d i t i o n a l 15.1 and 34.18 regulat ions should be mentioned. The charter of the corporat ion or cb-operat ive must have met with CMHC approval , and i t can not be changed unless the changes are approved by CMHC. The corporat ion or co-operat ive must have entered in to an agreement with CMHC which spec i f i e s the maximum income of c l i e n t s enter ing the p r o j e c t . "New construct ion must . . . [have met] required standards; e x i s t i n g bui ld ings must . - . [have met] Minimum Property Standards for r e s i d e n t i a l bui ldings ."[64] 62Str iech, Clarke and Harding, 32. 63Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, S o c i a l Housing  Eva luat ion , 1983, 18. 64Str iech, Clarke and Harding, 40-41. 254 I t i s a lso important to note that 34.18 co-operatives were general ly developed by t h e i r i n i t i a l tenants. RELATED PROGRAMS The programs which re la t e to the 15.1 and 34.18 programs are composed of Federal and p r o v i n c i a l programs. The Federal programs have been broken down in to two categories: programs r e l a t e d to both the 15.1 and 34.18 programs, and programs re la ted to the 34.18 program. Federal Programs Programs Related to the 15.1 Non-Profit and 34.18 Co-op Programs The Section 44(1)(b) Rent Supplement Program, the R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Assistance Program and the Community Resource Organizat ion Program augment the 15.1 and 34.18 programs. The 44(1)(b) program allows the creat ion of rent-geared-to-income c uni t s : uni ts whose rent i s t i e d to the income of the occupying household. The 44(1)(b) program requires F e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l cost sharing; consequently, for the program to operate i n a province , the Federal and p r o v i n c i a l governments must s ign an agreement. The cost of the program i s s p l i t on a 50/50 basis between the two l eve l s of government. Program adminis trat ion i s handled by the P r o v i n c i a l government. The province however may require m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to make f i n a n c i a l contr ibut ions to the operation 255 of the program, i n which case, the p r o v i n c i a l cost of the program i s decreased i n accordance with municipal contr ibut ions . While the program was l e g i s l a t e d i n 1973, i t s implementation d i d not occur u n t i l 1975. In 1975 the Federal Government entered i n t o the necessary F e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l agreements with approximately h a l f of the provinces . Federal funding for the program was not announced u n t i l March 4, 1975. The 44(1)(b) program i s targeted at low income households who q u a l i f y under guidel ines drawn up by the Federa l , p r o v i n c i a l and municipal governments. The program i s d i rec ted p r i m a r i l y at households with c h i l d r e n . I t i s poss ib le for rent supplement households to be se lected from the wait ing l i s t of a co-op, or n o n - p r o f i t , i n accordance with the regulat ions of the organizat ion . The ass istance provided to households under the program i s based on household income. Households are expected to pay 25 percent of t h e i r income for rent . The di f ference i s covered under the rent supplement program. Assistance i s appl ied for the usefu l l i f e of the projec t as determined by CMHC. This per iod cannot exceed 50 years . R e s t r i c t i o n s have been placed on program costs and the percentage of uni t s i n a projec t which can receive 44(1)(b) ass i s tance . The "projected subsidy must not exceed that of s i m i l a r new publ i c housing accommodation i n [the] area."[65] 65Striech, Clarke and Harding, 43-44. 256 Furthermore, an agreement must be entered in to by the province and the sponsoring organizat ion which states the number of uni ts to be subsidized and the r e n t a l ra te s , which must not be greater than the area market rates for comparable u n i t s . O r i g i n a l l y , a set l i m i t was placed on the percentage of uni t s i n a projec t which could receive rent supplement ass i s tance . Subsequent changes resu l ted i n 100 percent of the uni t s i n senior c i t i z e n projects and 25 percent of the uni t s i n family project being e l i g i b l e for rent supplement ass is tance . "Some exceptions are made for family projects such as small projects or scattered houses, low-income i n - s i t u tenants i n a c q u i s i t i o n schemes, or those projects located i n low-income areas."[66] A 1981 Ontario study noted, i n 15.1 and 34.18 housing, the maximums were general ly 25 percent for family housing and 50 percent for seniors housing.[67] Non-prof i ts and co-operatives can take advantage of the R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Assistance Program (RRAP). The fo l lowing RRAP d e s c r i p t i o n i s accurate for 1973 to mid-1978. A post-78 RRAP d e s c r i p t i o n can be found i n the 56.1 Non-Prof i t and Cooperative Housing Program d e s c r i p t i o n . 66Str iech, Clarke and Harding, 17. 67Woods Gordon Management Consultants , Evaluat ive Study of  Non-Prof i t and Cooperative Housing i n Ontario ( n . p . : Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Ontario M i n i s t r y of Munic ipal A f f a i r s and Housing, 1981) Appendix B, 2. 257 RRAP funds could be obtained by e x i s t i n g non-prof i t s and co-operatives and those being formed through the purchase of e x i s t i n g housing to do the fo l lowing: 1) r e h a b i l i t a t e e x i s t i n g housing, 2) increase the number of family uni ts i n e x i s t i n g housing, 3) create hos te l or dormitory accommodation wi th in e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s , and 4) increase the number of uni t s i n hoste l or dormitory accommodation. RRAP funds were not jus t a l l oca ted for the i n t e r i o r of b u i l d i n g s . RRAP would a lso provide funds for b u i l d i n g ex ter iors and landscaping. A 1973 report states CMHC devised a p r i o r i t y l i s t of poss ib le r e p a i r s ; at the top of the l i s t were s t r u c t u r a l r e p a i r s , and the improvement of plumbing and e l e c t r i c a l and heating systems.[68] RRAP assistance came i n the form of a loan , a por t ion of which was forg iven . The exact amount forgiven depended upon r e c i p i e n t income and renovation expenditures. In 1973 non-prof i t s and co-operatives could receive a maximum loan of $5,000 per family u n i t , of which a maximum of $2,500 was forg ivab le . In 1975 the i n t e r e s t rate on RRAP loans for family uni t s was e ight percent. The 1973 loan l i m i t for the crea t ion or expansion of hos te l or 68Central Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, New Nat ional  Housing Act Programs: R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Assistance  Program ([Ottawa]: Centra l Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion , 1973) 1. 258 dormitory accommodation was $1,000 per bed. A maximum of $500 per bed could be forg iven . The nature and q u a l i t y of renovations under RRAP had to r e s u l t i n a minimum usefu l b u i l d i n g l i f e of approximately 15 years . In mid-1974 resource groups with the exception of municipal resource groups became e l i g i b l e for funding under the Community Resource Organizat ion Program (CROP). The resource group had to provide t echn ica l and developmental support to l o c a l community housing groups. The purpose of CROP was to get the resource groups s tar ted; consequently, CROP funding had a maximum term of 3 years . S imi lar assistance was ava i l ab l e from several provinces . Programs Related to the 34.18 Co-op Program Co-ops b u i l t under the 34.18 program could receive CMHC annual grants or loans under Sect ion 34.9 of the Nat ional Housing Act . [69] The funds could be used to a s s i s t i n f i r s t mortgage or municipal tax payments. Provincial Programs P r o v i n c i a l governments are free to a s s i s t 15.1 and 34.18 p r o j e c t s . In the past , p r o v i n c i a l assistance has frequently 69Str iech, Clarke and Harding, 41. 259 taken the form of a front-end c a p i t a l grant.[70] 70A d i scuss ion of p r o v i n c i a l assistance for non-prof i t s and co-ops i n B r i t i s h Columbia can be found i n the fo l lowing source: Beverly Jean Grieve , "Continuity and Change: P r o v i n c i a l Housing P o l i c y i n B r i t i s h Columbia 1945-1985," Masters the s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1985, 86-87, 89, and 126. SECTION 56.1 NON-PROFIT AND COOPERATIVE HOUSING PROGRAM The Section 56.1 Non-Prof i t and Cooperative Housing Program was named af ter i t s enabling l e g i s l a t i o n : Sect ion 56.1 of the Nat ional Housing Act (NHA). The program was introduced i n 1978, as a replacement for the Sect ion 15.1 Non-Prof i t and 34.18 Co-op Programs. In 1986 changes were made to the 56.1 program. This program d e s c r i p t i o n i s d iv ided in to two sect ions: the f i r s t deals with the 56.1 program and the l a t t e r with re la ted Federal housing i n i t i a t i v e s . SECTION 56.1 NON-PROFIT AND COOPERATIVE HOUSING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The 56.1 program has three main components: pr iva te and publ i c non-prof i t housing, co-operative housing, and s p e c i a l purpose housing. Under the s p e c i a l purpose housing component, the fo l lowing types of projects were constructed: "senior c i t i z e n s care f a c i l i t i e s (such as nursing homes), homes for v ic t ims of family v io l ence , the mentally and p h y s i c a l l y handicapped, emotionally d is turbed c h i l d r e n , reformed a l c o h o l i c s and parolees."[71] Note, housing constructed under the non-prof i t and co-operat ive components of the program also house many d i sab led i n d i v i d u a l s . 7lCanada, Task Force on Program Review, Housing Programs i n  Search of Balance ([Ottawa]: Supply and Services Canada, 1986) 63. 261 Private and Public Non-Profit Housing E l i g i b l e sponsors of private n o n - p r o f i t housing are p r i v a t e n o n - p r o f i t c o r p o r a t i o n s . P r i v a t e n o n - p r o f i t c o r p o r a t i o n s were formed by many d i f f e r e n t e n t i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g , i n f o r m a l community based groups and s e r v i c e c l u b s (e.g. the Kiwanis and the Un i t e d Church). E l i g i b l e sponsors of public n o n - p r o f i t housing are p r o v i n c i a l and m u n i c i p a l n o n - p r o f i t housing c o r p o r a t i o n s . P r i v a t e and m u n i c i p a l n o n - p r o f i t housing c o r p o r a t i o n s r e c e i v e d p r i v a t e market loans f o r a maximum val u e of 100 pe r c e n t of the CMHC accepted, p r o j e c t c a p i t a l c o s t . P r o v i n c i a l n o n - p r o f i t housing c o r p o r a t i o n s were e l i g i b l e f o r a maximum p r i v a t e market l o a n of 90 perc e n t of the CMHC accepted, p r o j e c t c a p i t a l c o s t . The loans were made a t the market i n t e r e s t r a t e . Where necessary, NHA loan insurance was pr o v i d e d . I f no w i l l i n g p r i v a t e market lender c o u l d be found, CMHC p r o v i d e d the lo a n . The F e d e r a l Government s u b s i d i z e s o p e r a t i n g c o s t s . CMHC pays a maximum of the d i f f e r e n c e between the c o s t of the lo a n from the p r i v a t e l e n d e r a t the market i n t e r e s t r a t e and a loan f o r 100 perce n t of p r o j e c t c o s t a t a 2 perc e n t r a t e of i n t e r e s t amortized over 35 ye a r s . The s u b s i d y i s used f o r two purposes. F i r s t , p r o j e c t r e n t s are reduced from the break-even l e v e l t o the lower end of market r e n t f o r each type of u n i t (LEMs) (see F i g u r e 12). LEMs are the lower l e v e l of market r e n t i n a market area f o r s i m i l a r types of accommodation. CMHC and the p r o v i n c i a l government a n n u a l l y determine LEMs. In B r i t i s h Columbia an a p p r a i s e r determines the 262 average market r e n t f o r each u n i t type; the f i g u r e s are then reduced by f i v e p ercent t o determine the LEMs. Rents i n non-p r o f i t s are a d j u s t e d a n n u a l l y t o r e f l e c t changes i n the LEMs. The remaining subsidy funds are used t o c r e a t e r e n t geared t o income u n i t s (RGI u n i t s ) . In a RGI u n i t tenants who would pay more than 25 percent of t h e i r income f o r a u n i t whose r e n t was s e t a t the LEM have the d i f f e r e n c e between 25 percent of t h e i r income and the u n i t r e n t s u b s i d i z e d . The subsi d y i s o n l y s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w a p r o p o r t i o n of the u n i t s i n a p r o j e c t t o become RGI u n i t s . CMHC has not s e t a minimum l e v e l of RGI u n i t s f o r n o n - p r o f i t s , but i f a n o n - p r o f i t does not c r e a t e RGI u n i t s , p r e s s u r e w i l l be a p p l i e d by CMHC f o r them t o do so. Consequently, without a d d i t i o n a l a i d n o n - p r o f i t s house tenants w i t h a mix of incomes. For those p r o j e c t s where CMHC and not the p r o v i n c e d e l i v e r s the program, a maximum of $500 per u n i t e x c l u d i n g accumulated i n t e r e s t can be put i n t o a subsi d y s u r p l u s account. Funds i n a subsid y s u r p l u s account are used t o absorb f u t u r e d e f i c i t s where the maximum CMHC subsi d y i s i n s u f f i c i e n t . Only once the subsi d y s u r p l u s account i s d e p l e t e d , can a n o n - p r o f i t apply f o r more f i n a n c i a l a i d . I f , a f t e r d e p o s i t i n g the allowed maximum i n a su b s i d y s u r p l u s account, a n o n - p r o f i t s t i l l has excess funds, the c a p i t a l must be r e t u r n e d t o CMHC. Because RGI funding i s a s e t amount of c a p i t a l , the hi g h e r the percentage of RGI u n i t s i n a p r o j e c t the shallower the RGI 263 FIGURE 12 HYPOTHETICAL ILLUSTRATION OF SECTION 56.1 SUBSIDY ASSISTANCE TOTAL ACCEPTED CAPITAL COSTS $1,500,000 MONTHLY PAYMENTS TO AMORTIZE OVER 35 YEARS AT 18% ' $21,740 PER UNIT MORTGAGE PAYMENTS IF 40 UNITS = $544 MONTHLY MAXIMUM SECTION 56.1 ASSISTANCE = $16,780 MONTHLY PAYMENT AT 2% » $4,960 OPERATING COSTS = $150 ECONOMIC RENT = $694 GAP = $244 PER UNIT OR $9,760 MARKET RENT = $450 GAP » RESIDUAL ASSISTANCE OR $7,020 RENT-TO-INCOME RENTS SUBSIDY SURPLUS ACCOUNT (MAXIMUM $500 PER UNIT) Source: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Section 56.1 Non-profit Cooperative Program Evaluation ([Ottawa]: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1983) 15. per u n i t subsidy. T h i s i s assuming t h a t a l l a v a i l a b l e RGI f u n d i n g i s used to c r e a t e RGI u n i t s . C o - o p e r a t i v e Housing E l i g i b l e sponsors of c o - o p e r a t i v e housing are i n c o r p o r a t e d , n o t - f o r - p r o f i t , c o n t i n u i n g c o - o p e r a t i v e s . [ 7 2 ] Co-operatives r e c e i v e d p r i v a t e market loans from approved l e n d e r s f o r 100 percent of accepted c a p i t a l c o s t s . The c u r r e n t market i n t e r e s t r a t e was charged on the l o a n s . NHA insurance was p r o v i d e d i f necessary. CMHC assumed the r o l e of l e n d e r where no w i l l i n g , approved, p r i v a t e market lender c o u l d be found. The F e d e r a l subsidy i s f o r a maximum of the d i f f e r e n c e between the c o s t of the l o a n a t the market i n t e r e s t r a t e and the c o s t of a l o a n f o r 100 percent of t o t a l p r o j e c t c o s t a t a 2 p e r c e n t i n t e r e s t r a t e amortized over 35 y e a r s . The subsidy i s f i r s t used t o reduce per u n i t r e n t s t o the LEMs f o r the i n i t i a l 3 y e a r s . During t h i s p e r i o d , any changes i n per u n i t r e n t i s based s o l e l y on changes i n o p e r a t i n g c o s t s which are u n r e l a t e d t o mortgage payments. "In the f o u r t h and subsequent y e a r s , occupancy charges r e l a t e d t o mortgage payments i n c r e a s e by 5 p e r c e n t per year compounded u n t i l such time as f u l l mortgage 72 l n c o r p o r a t e d , n o t - f o r - p r o f i t , c o n t i n u i n g c o - o p e r a t i v e s are d e f i n e d i n the Appendix A program d e s c r i p t i o n of the S e c t i o n 15.1 N o n - P r o f i t and 34.18 Co-op Programs. 265 payments are reached."[73] This gradual increase i n mortgage costs allows co-operatives to overcome the t i l t e f fec t of constant payment mortgages,[74] thereby, i d e a l l y , a l lowing housing costs to increase i n accordance with r i s i n g res ident incomes. The d i s t i n c t i o n which i s made between mortgage costs and other operating expenses provides the co-op with an incent ive to keep increases i n other operating costs to a minimum. I f a co-operative i s able to decrease i t s operating costs below those provided for i n the subsidy arrangement, i t can keep the savings. The remaining assistance i s used to create RGI uni t s which operate i n an i d e n t i c a l manner to those funded under the non-p r o f i t component of the 56.1 program. Under the 35 year operating agreement between each co-operat ive and CMHC, each co-operative must have a minimum of 15 percent RGI u n i t s . Once a co-operat ive has 15 percent of i t s uni t s as RGI u n i t s , the co-operative can deposit a maximum of $500 per un i t in to a subsidy surplus pool to o f f se t future funding s h o r t f a l l s for RGI u n i t s . Spec ia l Purpose Housing E l i g i b l e sponsors of s p e c i a l purpose housing are incorporated, n o t - f o r - p r o f i t , cont inuing co-operatives and p r i v a t e , p r o v i n c i a l 73Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, Sect ion 56.1 Non- P r o f i t and Cooperative Housing Program Evaluat ion ([Ottawa]: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1983) 16. 74A constant payment mortgage has a high i n i t i a l r e a l cost , which gradual ly decreases with time. 266 and m u n i c i p a l n o n - p r o f i t c o r p o r a t i o n s . As w i t h the other components of the 56.1 program, sponsors, under the s p e c i a l purpose housing component, r e c e i v e d p r i v a t e market loans a t the market i n t e r e s t r a t e w i t h NHA insurance i f necessary. The sub s i d y maximum i s the d i f f e r e n c e between the a c t u a l c o s t of the lo a n and the c o s t of a l o a n a t a 2 perc e n t i n t e r e s t r a t e . The subsidy i s used t o lower mortgage payments. The maximum subsidy p o s s i b l e i s u s u a l l y g i v e n without the amount being based on occupant income because of the t r a n s i t o r y and/or low income nature of the c l i e n t a l . Other o p e r a t i n g c o s t s are covered by per diem f i n a n c i n g by p r o v i n c i a l h e a l t h or s o c i a l s e r v i c e s departments. T h i s p r o v i n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n i s a c t u a l l y c o s t shared by the F e d e r a l Government through the Canada A s s i s t a n c e P l a n or E s t a b l i s h e d Program F i n a n c i n g . Help i n the fund i n g of o p e r a t i n g c o s t s i s a l s o sometimes g i v e n by other F e d e r a l Government sources and through m u n i c i p a l grants and c h a r i t a b l e d o n a t i o n s . In g e n e r a l o p e r a t i n g c o s t s are c o s t shared by the F e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l government on a 50/50 b a s i s . Per U n i t Cost L i m i t s The c o s t of 56.1 housing was c o n t r o l l e d through the use of maximum u n i t p r i c e s (MUPs). MUPs are the maximum a l l o w a b l e per u n i t c o s t l i m i t s f o r 56.1 housing. They are c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g t o d w e l l i n g type, and bed or bedroom count. MUPs are s e t by CMHC and the p r o v i n c e f o r each market area. 267 Housing Forms Both the construct ion of new housing and the purchase and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of e x i s t i n g housing were financed under the 56.1 program.[5] The fo l lowing housing types were funded under the program: s ing le family housing, mul t ip le family housing, care f a c i l i t i e s , group homes, and hos te l accommodation. In some cases, Spec ia l Purpose Housing i s provided i n the same or connected f a c i l i t y as uni t s without heal th or s o c i a l service support. P a r t i c u l a r l y for the e l d e r l y , t h i s permits a "continuum of care" that reduces the necess i ty for people to move as t h e i r health de ter iorates . [6 ] Housing Occupants No income l i m i t was placed on households entering 56.1 p r o j e c t s , and no income l i m i t was es tabl i shed for continued occupancy. However, 56.1 housing accommodates mainly low and moderate income fami l i e s with approximately one - th ird of the uni t s housing those i n core housing need. Core housing need re fers to renter households who would have to pay more than 30 percent of t h e i r income for a dwell ing i n t h e i r l o c a l i t y which has bas ic f a c i l i t i e s and which i s large enough so as not to r e s u l t i n crowded l i v i n g condi t ions , more than one person per room. Households which pay more than 30 percent of t h e i r income for housing when they could obtain 5Generally, where e x i s t i n g housing was purchased, r e s i d i n g tenants were permitted to s tay. 6Canada, Task Force on Program Review, Housing Programs i n  Search of Balance ([Ottawa]: Supply and Services Canada, 1986) 65. 268 s u i t a b l e housing f o r 30 percent or l e s s are not d e f i n e d as being i n core housing need. The occupants of 56.1 p r o j e c t s can a l s o be c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g t o s o c i a l groupings. Residents i n c l u d e f a m i l i e s , s e n i o r c i t i z e n s , and persons w i t h s p e c i a l housing needs. Co-o p e r a t i v e s c h i e f l y p r o v i d e housing f o r f a m i l i e s and are mainly ground o r i e n t a t e d . The Duties of Housing Sponsors Housing sponsors are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r (1) l a n d purchase i f necessary (2) p r o j e c t development which i n c l u d e s the c r e a t i o n of f i n a l p l a n s and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s and d e s i g n a t i o n of a procurement technique, (3) on-going p r o j e c t management/administration and (4) the p r o v i s i o n of an annual a u d i t e d f i n a n c i a l statement t o CMHC. Variations i n the Program Between 1978 and 1979 the F e d e r a l Government si g n e d g l o b a l f u n d i n g agreements wi t h each p r o v i n c e except Newfoundland. A l l s o c i a l housing programs except the R u r a l and N a t i v e Housing Program were a f f e c t e d by the g l o b a l agreements. As a r e s u l t , p r o v i n c i a l and even m u n i c i p a l v a r i a t i o n s i n 56.1 program d e s i g n and d e l i v e r y have o c c u r r e d . "In some i n s t a n c e s , p r o v i n c i a l 269 guidel ines have been i n s t i t u t e d which are incons i s tent with Federal program parameters."[7] RELATED FEDERAL HOUSING INITIATIVES Six Federal housing i n i t i a t i v e s were d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the 56.1 program: Non-Prof i t R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Assistance Program, Start-Up Program, Community Resource Organizat ion Program, Urban Native Housing Program, On-Reserve Housing Program, and Sect ion 44(1)(B). Non-Profit Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program The Res ident ia l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Assistance Program (RRAP) had f i ve subcomponents, one of which was Non-Prof i t RRAP. Non-Prof i t RRAP was ava i l ab l e for 56.1 housing s t a r t i n g i n 1979. The program funded the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of e x i s t i n g housing or i t s conversion to higher dens i ty . Non-Prof i t RRAP was appl ied to both e x i s t i n g non-prof i t s and co-operat ives , and those i n the process of crea t ion through the purchase of e x i s t i n g housing. "To q u a l i f y for r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ass i s tance , a dwel l ing . . . [had to] be d e f i c i e n t i n one or more of the fo l lowing categories: e l e c t r i c a l , f i r e safety , plumbing, 7Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, Sect ion 56.1 Non- p r o f i t and Cooperative Housing Program Evaluat ion ([Ottawa]: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1983) 22. 270 s t r u c t u r a l , heating or l i v a b i l i t y for a d i sabled occupant."[8] Family housing, and hos te l and dormitory accommodation were e l i g i b l e for conversion funding. Non-Prof i t RRAP assistance came i n the form of two separate loans. Sponsors received a loan from an approved pr iva te lender with NHA insurance i f necessary, which would have to be repa id . In conjunction with t h i s pr iva te sector loan, the sponsor received a forg ivable loan from CMHC. A 1983 report notes "a maximum of $5,000 [per un i t ] ($6,500 for d i sabled c l i e n t s ) , depending on t o t a l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n [ / c o n v e r s i o n ] costs , i s forg ivable and i s earned over a ten-year period."[9] A 1985 task force report on housing programs notes maximum forgiveness values for the f i r s t three hos te l beds of $1,750 per bed for r e h a b i l i t a t i o n work and $2,250 per bed for r e h a b i l i t a t i o n and d i sabled a c c e s s i b i l i t y work. The maximum forgiveness value for ' each a d d i t i o n a l bed was $2,500 and $3,000 respect ive ly . [10] The d e t a i l s regarding the use of RRAP funding var i ed according to whether one was dea l ing with an e x i s t i n g projec t or a projec t which was i n the process of being created through the a c q u i s i t i o n 8Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, Sect ion 56.1 Non- p r o f i t and Cooperative Housing Program Evaluat ion ([Ottawa]: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1983) 24. 9Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, Section 56.1 Non- P r o f i t and Cooperative Housing Program Evaluat ion ([Ottawa]: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1983) 24. lOCanada, Task Force on Program Review, Housing Programs i n  Search of Balance ([Ottawa]: Supply and Services Canada, 1986) 73. 271 of e x i s t i n g housing. S tar t ing i n 1979 RRAP assistance could be used to fund the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n or conversion of e x i s t i n g non-p r o f i t s and co-operatives produced under the 15.1 Non-Prof i t Program, the 34.18 Co-op Program and 56.1 program. This option was fazed out over time. The use of RRAP funding for projects being created through the purchase of e x i s t i n g housing depended upon whether the project cost was equal to or below the maximum allowable cost as determined by MUPs. I f the cost was equal to the maximum allowable cos t , the t o t a l 56.1 subsidy i s used to o f f se t the purchase cos t , and Non-Prof i t RRAP was used to fund r e h a b i l i t a t i o n or conversion a c t i v i t i e s . This was allowed from 1979 to approximately 1983. I f the a c q u i s i t i o n cost was below the maximum allowable cost , the 56.1 program and Non-Prof i t RRAP together produce a double subsidy. In t h i s s i t u a t i o n t o t a l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n costs,- inc lud ing those funded through the forg ivable loan, were included i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of t o t a l c a p i t a l costs on which the 56.1 subsidy i s based; consequently, the same costs are subsidized twice, and the sponsor receives a Non-Prof i t RRAP subsidy i n addi t ion to a 56.1 subsidy, which i s adequate to fund project a c q u i s i t i o n and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n or conversion (see Table 77). The excess subsidy gives sponsors the a b i l i t y to increase t h e i r percentage of RGI uni t s and/or the depth of the RGI subsidy. Two Non-Prof i t RRAP regulat ions should be discussed. In order that Non-Prof i t RRAP could be administered i n an area, the 272 TABLE 77 Calculation of Section 56.1 Subsidy (?) Including Without Including RRAP RRAP Forgiveness Forgiveness Acquisition Cost Rehabilitation Cost (RRAP forgiveness of §5,000) Total Cost Annual Section 56.1 Subsidy* Estimated Present Value of Section 56.1 Subsidy (over 35 years) Total Subsidy, including RRAP 40,000 20,000 60,000 4,940 40,380 45,320 40,000 15,000 55,000 4,530 37,000 41,530 Estimated at the difference between a 12% and 2% interest' rate. Source: Canada, Task Force on Program Review, Housing Programs i n Search of Balance ([Ottawa]: Supply and S e r v i c e s Canada, 1986) 77. m u n i c i p a l i t y o r p r o v i n c e had t o have Maintenance and Occupancy standards w i t h which CMHC agreed. A l s o , r e h a b i l i t a t i o n work done under the program had t o r e s u l t i n the d w e l l i n g meeting RRAP standards. Start-Up Program The Start-Up Program p r o v i d e d f u n d i n g f o r the development of community sponsored groups t o the p o i n t where they c o u l d (1) prepare a f u l l y documented l o a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r p r o j e c t 273 c o n s t r u c t i o n or a c q u i s i t i o n and (2) pr o v i d e e f f e c t i v e p r o j e c t management. P r i v a t e n o n - p r o f i t groups, c o - o p e r a t i v e groups and Band C o u n c i l s on Ind i a n Reserves were e l i g i b l e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the program. A maximum of $75,000 was p r o v i d e d per p r o j e c t . The funds were t r e a t e d as p a r t of the c a p i t a l c o s t of a p r o j e c t ; t h e r e f o r e , they were recovered by CMHC from i n i t i a l l e n der l o a n advances. CMHC d i d not charge i n t e r e s t on the money, and i f a p r o j e c t d i d not r e s u l t i n housing c o n s t r u c t i o n , the s t a r t - u p money was t r e a t e d as a grant . x Community Resource Organization Program The Community Resource O r g a n i z a t i o n Program (CROP) f i n a n c i a l l y a s s i s t e d resource groups. Resource groups p r o v i d e t e c h n i c a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r t i s e t o n o n - p r o f i t and c o - o p e r a t i v e groups i n v o l v e d i n community housing and c r e a t e new n o n - p r o f i t and co-o p e r a t i v e housing sponsors. CROP covered new resource group o p e r a t i n g l o s s e s f o r a p e r i o d of normally 3 t o 5 ye a r s . The resource groups were expected t o r e c e i v e f u l l compensation from c l i e n t s f o r expenses which c o u l d be funded through the mortgage or Start-Up Program. In the e a r l y 1980's the average annual g r a n t t o i n d i v i d u a l r e s o u r c e groups was $50,000. 274 Urban Native Housing Program The Urban Native Housing Program began i n 1982. The program used the pr iva te non-prof i t component of the 56.1 program to f i n a n c i a l l y a s s i s t the crea t ion of a f fordable , adequate, r e n t a l housing for Native households r e s i d i n g i n urban areas. E l i g i b l e sponsors under the program cons i s t of non-prof i t groups sponsored by Native organizat ions . P r i o r to 1982, non-p r o f i t groups of t h i s type could apply for ass istance under the non-prof i t and co-operat ive components of the 56.1 program. The Federal assistance i s d iv ided in to two p a r t s . F i r s t , the standard Sect ion 56.1 subsidy i s provided: a pr iva te sector loan at the market rate of i n t e r e s t was made to the sponsor, and the Government subsidizes the d i f ference between ac tua l loan costs and the cost of a loan at 2 percent. Second, a d d i t i o n a l assistance i s provided to permit 100 percent of the uni t s to be RGI uni ts where the maximum rent i s equal to 25 percent of tenant income. The creat ion of a tenant income mix i s not poss ib l e , because most Native Canadians have a very low income. The negative e f fec ts of a lack of tenant income mix have been mit igated by ensuring that no high densi ty projects were created. On-Reserve Housing Program The On-Reserve Housing Program suppl ies housing to Native households r e s i d i n g on Indian reserves . Indian Band Counci ls are the sponsors of on-reserve housing. 275 Program assistance i s e s s e n t i a l l y the same as under the 56.1 program. The sponsor received a private market loan for a maximum of 100 percent of project costs at the market rate of int e r e s t . The difference between actual mortgage costs and a mortgage at 2 percent i s funded by the Federal Government. If a Band could not f i n d a w i l l i n g private lender, CMHC assumed the rol e . The CMHC subsidy i s usually combined with front-end grants from Indian and Northern A f f a i r s Canada (INAC). INAC grants which ranged from $19,00 to $50,000 i n the early 1980's provided the Bands with equity for use i n the provision of housing. Due to the low income of most reserve households, almost 100' percent of the units constructed under the On-Reserve Housing Program are RGI units. No income l i m i t on occupants i s enforced by CMHC. Furthermore, tenant s e l e c t i o n and unit placement are handled by INAC. S e c t i o n 44(1)(B) I t i s possible for provinces, municipalities and, for example, non-profit s o c i e t i e s to augment Federal 56.1 assistance.[11] Once p r o v i n c i a l funding matches Federal 56.1 funding, further assistance i s s p l i t on a 50/50 basis through Section 44(1)(b) of llWhen one of these e n t i t i e s f i n a n c i a l l y contributes to a 56.1 project, the money i s used to increase RGI funding; Federal financing remains the same. 276 the NHA. As of 1983, S e c t i o n 44(1)(b) had been used i n t h i s manner f o r o n l y f o u r Saskatchewan urban N a t i v e housing p r o j e c t s . 277 APPENDIX B TABLE CALCULATION %7f Some of the Chapter 3 t a b l e s c o n t a i n data o b t a i n e d d i r e c t l y from v a r i o u s sources; however, many of the t a b l e s c o n t a i n data c r e a t e d through v a r i o u s mathematical c a l c u l a t i o n s . T h i s appendix e x p l a i n s i n d e t a i l how the " c a l c u l a t e d t a b l e s " were d e r i v e d . For ease of re a d i n g , the dat a i n many of the t a b l e s were rounded t o the ne a r e s t whole number or t e n t h t h e r e o f . Except where noted, rounded data was not used i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of the data d i s p l a y e d i n the c a l c u l a t e d t a b l e s . NUMBER OF RENTAL ROW HOUSING AND APARTMENT UNITS ACCORDING TO REGISTRATION The c a l c u l a t i o n of the t a b l e e n t i t l e d Number of R e n t a l Row Housing and Apartment U n i t s A c c o r d i n g t o R e g i s t r a t i o n was q u i t e simple. CMHC has a comprehensive l i s t i n g of row housing and apartment u n i t s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r intended use, r e n t a l or condominium. Furthermore, a l l condominium row housing and apartment u n i t s must be r e g i s t e r e d as such i n a Land T i t l e O f f i c e . Thus, the t o t a l number of row and apartment u n i t s a c c o r d i n g t o intended use, r e n t a l and condominium, minus the number of row housing and apartment u n i t s r e g i s t e r e d as condominiums produces the t o t a l number of r e n t a l row housing and apartment u n i t s a c c o r d i n g t o r e g i s t r a t i o n . T h i s process r e s u l t s i n the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of a c e r t a i n degree of e r r o r i n t o the c a l c u l a t e d t a b l e . The t a b l e s on intended use are dated a c c o r d i n g t o the year when a b u i l d i n g i s ready f o r o c c u p a t i o n , which i s 1 to 1 1/2 years a f t e r the CMHC p r o j e c t 279 a p p r o v a l date. The t a b l e on condominium r e g i s t r a t i o n i s dated a c c o r d i n g t o when a u n i t i s r e g i s t e r e d as a condominium i n the Land T i t l e O f f i c e . The l a n d t i t l e r e g i s t r a t i o n date f o r MURB u n i t s u s u a l l y o c c u r r e d around the date when MURB c e r t i f i c a t e s were i s s u e d by CMHC, which u s u a l l y o c c u r r e d around the CMHC p r o j e c t a p p r o v a l date. As a r e s u l t , i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of the number of r e n t a l row housing and apartment u n i t s a c c o r d i n g t o r e g i s t r a t i o n , the intended use data was staggered back by one year t o approximate the r e g i s t r a t i o n date time s c a l e used i n the condominium r e g i s t r a t i o n t a b l e . T h i s process of attempting t o f i n d one common time s c a l e r e s u l t s i n c o n s i d e r a b l e doubt as t o the accuracy of the t o t a l number of r e n t a l row housing and apartment u n i t s a c c o r d i n g t o r e g i s t r a t i o n data f o r any s p e c i f i c y e ar. However, the f i g u r e f o r the e n t i r e 10 year time span of the r e n t a l r e g i s t r a t i o n t a b l e i s f a i r l y a c c u r a t e . A second problem i s t h a t the intended use da t a , w h i l e comprehensive, does not l i s t a l l row housing and apartment u n i t s a c c o r d i n g t o intended use. These two sources of e r r o r r e s u l t i n the appearance of nega t i v e numbers i n the Number of Re n t a l Row Housing and Apartment U n i t s A c c o r d i n g t o R e g i s t r a t i o n t a b l e . NUMBER OF DISPLACED UNITS The displacement e f f e c t of a program was c a l c u l a t e d by m u l t i p l y i n g the t o t a l number of u n i t s c r e a t e d under the program by a displacement r a t i o . For ARP and MURB a displacement r a t i o 280 of 28 and 40 percent was used . [ l ] For a l l other programs no displacement was deemed to have taken p lace . [2] NUMBER OF EXTRA UNITS/BEDS CONSTRUCTED This set of tables was ca l cu la ted by subtract ing the number of units /beds which resu l ted i n displacement from the t o t a l number of units /beds constructed. I f a program d i d not r e s u l t i n a displacement e f f e c t , the Number of Extra Units/Beds Constructed table i s simply a repeat of the data i n the T o t a l Number of Units/Beds Constructed tab le . DOLLAR VALUE OF DISPLACEMENT The d o l l a r value of displacement for a p a r t i c u l a r program was found by m u l t i p l y i n g the number of uni ts which resu l ted i n displacement by the cost per un i t for the year i n quest ion. Only MURB and ARP resu l ted i n displacement; consequently, Do l lar Value of Displacement tables were only ca l cu la ted for these two programs. lCanada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, An Analys i s of the  Rental Market ( n . p . : Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1984) 18-19, 24. Clayton Research Associates L imi ted , The Growing Rental  Housing Shortage i n Canada - Causes and Solut ions ( n . p . : [The Canadian I n s t i t u t e of Publ ic Real Estate Companies?], 1980) 12-13. Irwin Li thwick , An Evaluat ion of the Federal Ass i s ted Rental  Program (1976-77) ([Ottawa]: Centra l Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1978) 23-29. 2Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, An Analys is of the  Rental Market, 24. 281 The method used to estimate the cost per un i t under the various programs was s i m i l a r to that used by Arthur Anderson and Company.[3] I t i s assumed that the per un i t c a p i t a l cost under the various programs excluding mortgage costs but inc lud ing land costs can be estimated using Sect ion 56.1 average c a p i t a l cost per un i t data. [4] Due to problems of q u a l i t y and completeness, the data must be viewed as general ind ica tors of c a p i t a l costs , rather than as absolute values . [5] The Sect ion 56.1 average c a p i t a l cost data i s broken down into the fo l lowing categories: p r o v i n c i a l n o n - p r o f i t , municipal n o n - p r o f i t , pr iva te n o n - p r o f i t , nat ive and co-operat ive . For an est imation of the per un i t c a p i t a l cost of the market-welfare programs, an average of these various categories excluding native i s used. On the one hand, t h i s method may tend to over estimate the cost of market-welfare housing, as s o c i a l housing i s comprised of a greater proport ion of large un i t s , [ 6 ] and many s o c i a l housing 3Arthur Andersen & C o . , Federal and P r o v i n c i a l Government  Expenditures to A s s i s t and Promote Rental Housing i n Canada ( n . p . : [Housing and Urban Development Assoc ia t ion of Canada?], 1984) 7. 4Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Section 56.1 Adminis trat ive Data. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, Sect ion 56.1 Non-Prof i t and Cooperative Housing  Program Evaluat ion ([Ottawa]: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1983) 121. 5Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, Sect ion 56.1 Non- p r o f i t and Cooperative Housing Program Evaluat ion , 120. 6Data i n Chapter 4 shows that 91 percent of ARP uni t s and 94 percent of CRSP uni t s are bachelor , 1 bedroom or 2 bedroom u n i t s . MURB bedroom count data i s unavai lab le . The percentages for the 34.18 program and the non-prof i t and cooperative components of the 56.1 program are as fo l lows: 52 percent, 69 percent and 66 percent. These f igures are for u n i t production only; bed production i s not 282 projects provide uncommon f a c i l i t i e s (e .g . uni t s designed for the d i sab led ) . However, t h i s tendency i s o f f se t to a degree by the fac t that the 56.1 cost data i s based on new un i t production costs and the costs involved In the purchase of e x i s t i n g bui ld ings and t h e i r renovation. Units produced through the purchase of e x i s t i n g bu i ld ings are less expensive than those produced through new construct ion . [7] To ca l cu la t e the value of MURB and ARP displacement, un i t c a p i t a l cost data i s needed for the years 1975-79; however, v a l i d 56.1 c a p i t a l cost data ex i s t s only for 1979 to 1981.[8] As a r e s u l t the Res ident ia l B u i l d i n g Construct ion Input Pr i ce Index for B r i t i s h Columbia, a composite index which does not take in to account land costs , was used to def late the 1979 c a p i t a l cost data. [9] L e t ' s take the example of the 1975 d o l l a r value of displacement for ARP using the 28 percent displacement r a t i o . The 56.1 average c a p i t a l cost per un i t i n 1979 was $31,856.50. inc luded. Bedroom count data for the 15.1 program i s unava i lab le . 7Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, Sect ion 56.1 Non- p r o f i t and Cooperative Housing Program Eva luat ion , 122. 8While 1978, 56.1 c a p i t a l cost data i s a v a i l a b l e , i t i s based on a small number of uni t s and i s incons is tent with c a p i t a l cost trends i n l a t e r years; therefore , 1978 c a p i t a l cost data was deemed i n v a l i d . 9Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, Canadian Housing  S t a t i s t i c s (Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1983) 81. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, Canadian Housing  S t a t i s t i c s (Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion , 1985) 88. 283 This i s d iv ided by the Res ident ia l B u i l d i n g Construct ion Input Pr i ce Index for B r i t i s h Columbia for 1979 (2.111) to f i n d the average cost i n the base year of 1971. The r e s u l t i s m u l t i p l i e d by the index for 1975 (1.42) i n order to determine the per un i t housing cost i n 1975 which i s $21,428,815. This product i s m u l t i p l i e d by the number of 1975 ARP uni ts which resu l ted i n displacement (58.8) to determine the d o l l a r value of displacement ($1,260,014) for ARP i n 1975. DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF TOTAL SPENDING To ca l cu la te the d o l l a r value of the d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t m u l t i p l i e r e f fec t of t o t a l program spending, the t o t a l amount of program spending i s m u l t i p l i e d by the sum of the d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t l o c a l value added (LVA) per d o l l a r of sales r a t i o s for the Lower Mainland construct ion industry . An induced LVA r a t i o for the Lower Mainland construct ion industry was not a v a i l a b l e ; therefore , the d o l l a r value of the induced m u l t i p l i e r e f f ec t on t o t a l program spending could not be c a l c u l a t e d . The t o t a l amount of program spending i s , i n f a c t , a product of the t o t a l number of u n i t s , not beds, constructed under a program and the cost per program uni t . [10] For the market-welfare programs, the cost per un i t i s ca l cu la ted i n an i d e n t i c a l manner to that described i n the Do l lar lOBeds are not included i n the c a l c u l a t i o n , because of the d i f f i c u l t y involved i n a t t a i n i n g an est imation of the cost per bed constructed. 284 Value of Displacement sect ion of t h i s appendix. Per un i t cost i s estimated by taking an average of per un i t p r o v i n c i a l n o n - p r o f i t , municipal n o n - p r o f i t , pr iva te non-prof i t and co-operat ive housing costs for the years a v a i l a b l e , 1979 to 1981. For other years the 1979 average cost i s def la ted or the 1981 average i s i n f l a t e d using the R e s i d e n t i a l B u i l d i n g Construct ion Input Pr i ce Index for B r i t i s h Columbia. This process i s changed somewhat when deal ing with the s o c i a l -welfare programs. F i r s t , only the average cost for non-prof i t or non-native co-operat ive un i t s i s used depending on whether the average cost per un i t of non-prof i t or co-operat ive housing i s being generated. Second, an estimate of the R e s i d e n t i a l B u i l d i n g Construct ion Input Pr i ce Index for B r i t i s h Columbia for 1986 had to be c a l c u l a t e d , as the index was not compiled after 1985. In est imating the index, i t i s assumed that the r e l a t i o n s h i p which had ex is ted between the R e s i d e n t i a l B u i l d i n g Construct ion Input Pr ice Index for B r i t i s h Columbia (x) and the New Housing Pr ice Index - House Only for Canada (y) i n 1985 held true for 1986. Mathematically t h i s can be expressed as y (1985)/ x (1985) = y (1986)/x (1986) or 98.8/304.4 = 108.8/x (1986), which i n turn i s equal to x (1986) = ( 1 0 8 . 8 ) ( 3 0 4 . 4 ) / 9 8 . 8 or x (1986) = 335.2.[11] l l T h e 1986 value was l i m i t e d to 4 s i g n i f i c a n t d i g i t s i n order to be consistent with the index values used for 1975 to 1985. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, Canadian Housing  S t a t i s t i c s , 1985, 88. Canada, S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Construct ion Pr ice S t a t i s t i c s (Ottawa: Canada, 1987) Cat . No. 62-007. As quoted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion , Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s (Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1987) 90. 285 Once t o t a l program spending was c a l c u l a t e d , i t was m u l t i p l i e d by the sum of the d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t LVA per d o l l a r of sales r a t i o s for the Lower Mainland construct ion industry . The d i r e c t LVA per d o l l a r of sales i s 0.678; the i n d i r e c t LVA per d o l l a r of sales i s 0.120.[12] Use of these LVA r a t i o s requires the assumption that "there are n e g l i g i b l e feedback e f fec ts through increased government spending i n the region because of expanded tax revenues and through increased investment spending a t t r i b u t a b l e to an augmented flow of loanable funds."[13] DOLLAR VALUE OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF EXTRA SPENDING The d o l l a r value of the d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t m u l t i p l i e r e f fec t of extra program spending i s ca l cu la ted with one exception i n an i d e n t i c a l manner as the d o l l a r value of the d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t m u l t i p l i e r e f fec t of t o t a l program spending. Instead of using the t o t a l number of uni ts constructed under a program i n the c a l c u l a t i o n , the number of extra uni t s constructed i s used. I t i s once again important to note that for CRSP and the soc ia l -we l fare programs there was no displacement, and consequently the m u l t i p l i e r e f f ec t of extra spending tables for these programs contain the same values as t h e i r m u l t i p l i e r tables for t o t a l program spending. 12H. Cra ig Davis , "Income and Employment M u l t i p l i e r s for Seven B r i t i s h Columbia Regions," Canadian Journal of Regional Science IX:1 (1986): 107. 13Davis, 105. 286 TOTAL NUMBER OF MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED E s s e n t i a l l y to ca l cu la te the T o t a l Number of Man-Years of Employment Generated tab le s , one must mul t ip ly the t o t a l number of un i t s constructed under a program by an estimate of how many man-years of employment i s produced through the construct ion of a u n i t . The employment generated per un i t estimates are ava i lab le according to dwel l ing type and include on-s i t e and o f f - s i t e labour requirements.[14] No employment generated per bed estimate i s a v a i l a b l e ; consequently, only the employment generation e f fects of un i t construct ion were examined. The nature of the employment generated per un i t constructed r a t i o s used necess i tate f i ve q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . F i r s t , because the labour generation r a t i o s are based mainly upon two reports which date from 1969 and 1971,[15] the assumption has to be made that the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the various types of dwell ings under study and the production process involved in ,hous ing and input indus tr i e s have not changed s i g n i f i c a n t l y s ince the la te n ine teen- s ix t i e s , ear ly nineteen-seventies . [16] Second, the r a t i o s only look at labour generated through housing construct ion and not other sources of labour generation which are re la ted to 14L. Hansen, Labour Requirements for the Res ident ia l  Construct ion Industry (Ottawa: Centra l Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1976) 40. 15Hansen, 7. 16Hansen, 3. 287 housing construct ion (e .g . land s e r v i c i n g ) . T h i r d , the r a t i o s used are for the nat ion as a whole. Therefore, one must assume that t h e i r use for a s p e c i f i c reg ion , such as, the Greater Vancouver Area , w i l l not r e s u l t i n the production of a s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l of error . [17] Fourth , the r a t i o s assume the housing construct ion industry has no economies of scale and no constra ints on labour and mater ia ls . [18] F i f t h , the r a t i o s used are for new housing construct ion;[19] consequently, there w i l l be a tendency for the r a t i o s to overstate the labour generation e f fec t of those programs that allow the purchase and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of e x i s t i n g housing ( i . e . the soc ia l -we l fare programs).[20] For those programs for which the t o t a l number of un i t s constructed could be broken down according to dwel l ing type, man-year employment generation f igures were ca l cu la ted using a weighted average. For example, i n Surrey i n 1982, 210 row house and 237 apartment uni t s became ready for occupancy. The per u n i t man-year employment generation r a t i o for row housing and apartment uni t s are .940 and .811, respect ive ly . [21] The 17Hansen, 7. 18Hansen, 47. 19Hansen, 1. 20A more d e t a i l e d accounting of the methods used to , derive the r a t i o s and t h e i r l i m i t a t i o n s can be found i n Chapter 2 of Hansen's repor t . 21Hansen, 40. 288 mathematical equation i s as fo l lows: (210)(.940) + (237)(.811) = 389.6 man-years. In those cases where no breakdown by dwel l ing type was a v a i l a b l e , a simple average of the row housing and apartment un i t employment generation r a t i o s was used. For instance , under the 15.1 program, i n Vancouver, i n 1976, 232 uni ts were constructed. The 232 uni t s are m u l t i p l i e d by an average of the two man-year employment generation r a t i o s to determine employment generation: (232) (( .940+.81U/2) =203.1. NUMBER OF EXTRA MAN-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATED These tables were ca l cu la ted i n an i d e n t i c a l manner to the T o t a l Number of Man-Years of Employment Generated tables except that the number of extra uni t s constructed was used instead of ; the t o t a l number of uni ts constructed. I f no displacement took place under a program, the number of extra uni t s constructed i s equal to the t o t a l number of uni t s constructed, and the Number of Extra Man-Years of Employment Generated table contains , merely, a repeat of the data presented i n the Total.Number of Man-Years of Employment Generated t a b l e . I f displacement d i d occur and a breakdown of program production according to dwel l ing type was not a v a i l a b l e , the number of extra uni t s used i n the c a l c u l a t i o n i s the same as those given i n the Number of Extra Units Constructed tab les . I f a breakdown according to dwel l ing type was a v a i l a b l e , the number of extra uni t s constructed according to dwel l ing type had to be 289 calculated. The equation for t h i s was as follows: ( t o t a l number of units constructed of x dwelling type) - [ ( t o t a l number of units constructed of x dwelling type)(displacement r a t i o ) ] . a 290 APPENDIX C ACCURACY OF MURB DATA The Chapter 3 table used as a surrogate for a table on the t o t a l number of uni t s which p a r t i c i p a t e d i n MURB ( i . e . claimed MURB tax benefits) i s e n t i t l e d Murb: T o t a l Number of MURB U n i t s . This table l i s t s the number of uni t s i n bui ld ings issued a MURB c e r t i f i c a t e by CMHC. I t i s not required that a un i t i n a c e r t i f i e d b u i l d i n g p a r t i c i p a t e i n MURB (see Appendix A ) ; therefore , data on the number of uni t s which a c t u a l l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the MURB are not a v a i l a b l e . I t must a lso be noted that data on MURB c e r t i f i c a t e issuance for 1980-81 i s not a v a i l a b l e . Furthermore, duplex uni t s were not inc luded i n the Murb: T o t a l Number of MURB Units tab le ; however, they were included i n the tables of the other programs. Nevertheless , the error involved i n t h i s omission i s not great: the number of duplex uni t s as a percentage of a l l uni t s i n MURB c e r t i f i e d bui ld ings was 6.3 percent i n 1975, 10.5 percent i n 1976, 3.5 percent i n 1977, 5.3 percent i n 1978 and 7.7 percent i n 1979. The 1975 to 1978 f igures overstate the percentage of MURB duplexes, as the Ass i s ted Home-Ownership Program (AHOP) was ac t ive i n these years , and many of the duplexes i n MURB c e r t i f i e d bui ld ings probably sh i f t ed over to the AHOP program. A l l four MURB q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a f fec t a l l other MURB tables i n Chapter 3, because they are based on the data i n the Murb: T o t a l Number of MURB Units t a b l e . 292 APPENDIX D COMMUNITY: ITS MEANING In p l a n n i n g , f u n c t i o n i n g communities are seen as an e s s e n t i a l element of s o c i e t y ; communities enhance the p s y c h o l o g i c a l w e l l -b e i n g of t h e i r members. But what i s meant by the term community? In t h i s t h e s i s , community r e f e r s t o a person's s o c i a l network: e n t i t i e s w i t h whom a person i n t e r a c t s which permit " o r i e n t a t i o n and a d a p t a t i o n t o the urban s e t t i n g . " [ 1 ] The e n t i t i e s can be people (e.g. k i n , neighbours, and f r i e n d s ) or i n s t i t u t i o n s (e.g. o r g a n i z a t i o n s and p h y s i c a l communities). What i s the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the l o c a l community, or neighbourhood, i n r e l a t i o n t o an i n d i v i d u a l ' s s o c i a l network, or the l a r g e r community? The concept of community . . . c o n s i s t s of a number of d i f f e r e n t dimensions. There i s the l o c a l i t y or p l a c e t h a t serves c e r t a i n f u n c t i o n s and t h e r e i s the e x t r a l o c a l community i n t o which people's [ s o c i a l ] networks a l s o extend.[2] There i s no one d e s c r i p t i o n which i s t r u e of a l l l o c a l commun-i t i e s ; t h e r e are a v a r i e t y of l o c a l community types, which together can be seen as f a l l i n g along a continuum w i t h the t r a d i t i o n a l l o c a l community occupying one extreme and the l o c a l community of l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y occupying the o t h e r extreme.[3] lQuote taken from David Ley, A S o c i a l Geography of the C i t y (New York: Harper & Row, P u b l i s h e r s , 1983) 191. Which i s based upon C A . Smith, and C.J. Smith, " L o c a t i n g N a t u r a l Neighbours i n the Urban Community," Area 10 (1978): 102-103, 109. 2Roger S. Ahlbrandt J r . , Neighbourhoods, People, and  Community (New York: Plenum Pr e s s , 1984) 16. 3The concept of a community of l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y i s i n t r o d u c e d i n M o r r i s Janowitz, The Community Press i n an Urban  S e t t i n g : The S o c i a l Elements of Urbanism (Glencoe, I l l i n o i s : The Free P r e s s , P u b l i s h e r s , 1952) 222-225. 294 In a t r a d i t i o n a l l o c a l community, people have t o p a r t i c i p a t e due t o a l a c k of income, l i m i t e d p h y s i c a l m o b i l i t y , or r i g i d s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . In a l o c a l community of l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y , r e s i d e n t attachment i s l i m i t e d i n terms of the s o c i a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l investment i n the community. The exact nature of the attachment i s dependent t o a c e r t a i n e x t e n t on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the r e s i d e n t and those of the l o c a l community; i f a l o c a l community does not meet the needs of a r e s i d e n t , the r e s i d e n t d i s c o n t i n u e s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the l o c a l community or r e l o c a t e s . For those w i t h the a b i l i t y t o engage i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s beyond the l o c a l community, the l o c a l community does not become unimportant. While such i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l have s o c i a l networks . extending out beyond the l o c a l community, " i t does not keep [them] . . . from being i n v o l v e d and p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the l o c a l community."[4] Even when the r e s i d e n t s of a l o c a l community have e x t e n s i v e e x t e r n a l t i e s , the l o c a l community i t s e l f may be s t r o n g as long as the a t t r i b u t e s of the l o c a l community correspond t o the needs and d e s i r e s of r e s i d e n t s . [ 5 ] Conversely, even i n a l o c a l community where e x t e r n a l t i e s are not s t r o n g , i f the l o c a l community does not meet r e s i d e n t s ' needs and d e s i r e s , the l o c a l community may be weak. What i s important t o r e a l i z e i s t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l ' s community extends beyond the l o c a l community; i t i s a d i f f i c u l t t o d e f i n e 4Ahlbrandt, 4. 5For the i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s and the f o l l o w i n g sentence, I am indebted t o Ahlbrandt, 190-191. 295 web of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r to each i n d i v i d u a l . 296 APPENDIX E UNPROCESSED BEDROOM COUNT DATA J?7 T A B L E 7 8 A R P : B E D R O O M C O U N T Y E A R 1 9 7 6 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M B U R N A B Y 1 0 4 5 4 0 3 1 C O Q U I T L A M 1 9 2 0 1 4 0 0 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 2 9 1 2 2 2 9 0-N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , C I T Y 6 9 2 2 4 Q N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , D I S T R I C T 0 0 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0. 4 9 0 P O R T M O O D Y 1 9 1 3 0 R I C H M O N D 0 3 6 4 2 2 4 S U R R E Y 0 0 1 8 6 0 V A N C O U V E R 2 8 7 3 0 2 1 4 Q W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 4 4 6 8 2 0 3 5 7 5 5 N O T E : ( 1 ) 1 9 7 5 D A T A I S U N A V A I L A B L E ( 2 ) D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 298 T A B L E 7 9 A R P : B E D R O O M C O U N T Y E A R 1 9 7 7 B E D R O O M C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M C O U N T N O T A V A I L A B L E B U R N A B Y 2 1 3 0 2 5 8 5 1 0 6 0 C O Q U I T L A M 0 7 8 3 2 0 0 D E L T A 0 2 0 2 8 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 8 6 2 7 3 7 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , C I T Y 2 1 3 1 6 9 9 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , D I S T R I C T 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T M O O D Y 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 R I C H M O N D 9 0 2 7 2 3 0 1 1 0 9 1 3 5 S U R R E Y 0 6 1 2 2 1 8 7 0 V A N C O U V E R 2 6 9 1 , 3 5 7 2 2 9 0 2 7 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 3 2 8 4 3 1 0 0 T O T A L 5 1 9 2 , 7 6 3 1 , 5 9 6 3 0 2 2 8 2 N O T E : D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 299 T A B L E 8 0 A R P : B E D R O O M C O U N T Y E A R 1 9 7 8 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M B U R N A B Y 0 0 0 0 C O Q U I T L A M 1 0 3 5 0 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 0 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , C I T Y 0 0 2 1 2 0 9 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , D I S T R I C T 0 0 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 P O R T M O O D Y 0 0 Q 0 R I C H M O N D 0 3 6 4 4 6 4 S U R R E Y 0 0 0 0 V A N C O U V E R . 7 6 4 4 5 7 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 8 1 0 0 1 4 5 2 8 0 N O T E : D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 300 T A B L E 8 1 C R S P : B E D R O O M C O D N T Y E A R 1 9 8 2 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 B E D R O O M H O S T E L B U R N A B Y 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 C O Q U I T L A M 4 2 2 4 3 2 0 0 0 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 0 0 0 0 0 0. N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , C I T Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , D I S T R I C T 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T M O O D Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 R I C H M O N D 0 0 0 0 0 0 S U R R E Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 4 2 2 4 3 2 0 0 0 N O T E : D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 301 T A B L E 8 2 C R S P : B E D R O O M C O U N T Y E A R 1 9 8 3 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 B E D R O O M H O S T E L B U R N A B Y 0 1 3 1 1 4 9 8 0 0 C O Q U I T L A M 1 6 5 8 1 4 4 5 9 0 0 D E L T A 0 3 4 4 9 Q 0 Q N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 0 1 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , C I T Y 0 1 1 0 4 8 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , D I S T R I C T 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 2 4 2 6 0 0 0 P O R T M O O D Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 R I C H M O N D 0. 1 4 8 1 9 3 5 8 0 5 S U R R E Y 0 1 2 1 1 4 4 6 2 0 0 V A N C O U V E R 3 8 2 8 0 2 2 6 0 0 0 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 5 4 1 , 0 0 7 1 , 0 9 2 1 8 7 0 5 N O T E : D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 302 T A B L E 8 3 C R S P : B E D R O O M C O D N T Y E A R 1 9 8 4 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 B E D R O O M H O S T E L B U R N A B Y 0 1 1 2 1 1 8 2 7 0 0 C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 Q 0 0 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 6 1 2 1 1 8 6 4 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , C I T Y 2 4 6 4 4 4 0. Q 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , D I S T R I C T 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T M O O D Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 R I C H M O N D 0 0 0 0 0 0 S U R R E Y 3 2 1 2 1 2 8 4 0 0 V A N C O U V E R 5 3 2 8 2 1 4 3 5 0 0 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 8 6 7 9 1 6 1 9 4 0 0 0 N O T E : D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 303 T A B L E 8 4 3 4 . 1 8 C O - O P : B E D R O O M C O U N T Y E A R 1 9 7 6 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 + B E D R O O M B U R N A B Y 0 . 0 0 0 0 C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 0 1 1 2 3 8 a N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , C I T Y 0 0 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , D I S T R I C T 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T M O O D Y 0 0 0 0 0 R I C H M O N D 0 0 0 0 0 S U R R E Y Q 0 0 0 0 V A N C O U V E R Q 2 1 6 1 0 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 0 3 2 2 9 9 0 N O T E : D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E Y E A R W H E N A B U I L D I N G I S R E A D Y F O R I N I T I A L O C C U P A T I O N , W H I C H I S 1 T O 1 1 / 2 Y E A R S A F T E R T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 304 T A B L E 8 5 3 4 . 1 8 C O - O P : B E D R O O M C O U N T Y E A R 1 9 7 7 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 + B E D R O O M B U R N A B Y 0 0 Q 0 0 C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 0 0 0: 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , C I T Y Q 0 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , D I S T R I C T 0 0 2 6 2 7 1 2 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T M O O D Y 0 0 0 0 0 R I C H M O N D 0 0 0 0 0 S U R R E Y 0 0 0 0 Q V A N C O U V E R 0 4 1 1 1 6 1 1 6 5 7 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 0 4 1 1 4 2 1 4 3 6 9 N O T E : D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E Y E A R W H E N A B U I L D I N G I S R E A D Y F O R I N I T I A L O C C U P A T I O N , W H I C H I S 1 T O 1 1 / 2 Y E A R S A F T E R T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 305 T A B L E 8 6 3 4 . 1 8 C O - O P : B E D R O O M C O U N T Y E A R 1 9 7 8 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 + B E D R O O M B U R N A B Y 0 0 0 0 0. C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 0 0 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , C I T Y 0 0 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , D I S T R I C T 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T M O O D Y 0 Q 0 0 Q R I C H M O N D 0 0 0 0 0 S U R R E Y 0 0 0 0 0 V A N C O U V E R Q 2 9 9 0 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 0 2 9 9 0 N O T E : D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E Y E A R W H E N A B U I L D I N G I S R E A D Y F O R I N I T I A L O C C U P A T I O N , W H I C H I S 1 T O 1 1 / 2 Y E A R S A F T E R T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 306 T A B L E 8 7 3 4 . 1 8 C O - O P : B E D R O O M C O D N T Y E A R 1 9 7 9 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 + B E D R O O M B U R N A B Y 0 0 0 0 0 C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 0 0 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , C I T Y 0 0 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , D I S T R I C T 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0. Q 0 0 P O R T M O O D Y 0 0 0 0 0 R I C H M O N D 0 0 0 0 0 S U R R E Y 0 0 0 0 0 V A N C O U V E R 2 1 7 8 4 9 1 1 1 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 2 1 7 8 4 9 1 1 1 N O T E : D A T A . I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E Y E A R W H E N A B U I L D I N G I S R E A D Y F O R I N I T I A L O C C U P A T I O N , W H I C H I S 1 T O 1 1 / 2 Y E A R S A F T E R T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 307 T A B L E 88 56.1 H O N - P R O F I T : B E D R O O M C O U N T Y E A R 1979 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 B E D R O O M 5+ B E D R O O M H O S T E L B U R N A B Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O Q U I T L A M 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 0. 0 0 0 0 0 5 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 o P O R T M O O D Y 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 R I C H M O N D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S U R R E Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 Q 0 0 10 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 N O T E : (1) I O C C U 1 (2) D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E Y E A R W H E N A B U I L D I N G I S R E A D Y F O R I N I T I A L P A T I O N , W H I C H I S 1 T O 1 1/2 Y E A R S A F T E R T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E D U E T O D A T A L I M I T A T I O N S , N O R T H V A N C O U V E R C I T Y A N D D I S T R I C T H A V E B E E N C O M B I N E D I N T O T H E C A T E G O R Y N O R T H V A N C O U V E R S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 308 T A B L E 89 56.1 N O N - P R O F I T : B E D R O O M C O D N T Y E A R 1980 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 B E D R O O M 5+ B E D R O O M H O S T E L B U R N A B Y 0 0 0 0 Q 0 6 C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 8 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 0 0 0 0 0 0. Q N O R T H V A N C O U V E R Q 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 P O R T M O O D Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R I C H M O N D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 S U R R E Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 V A N C O U V E R 0. 0 4 32 0 0 259 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 T O T A L 0 0 4 32 0 0 . 385 N O T E : (1) D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E Y E A R W H E N A B U I L D I N G I S R E A D Y F O R I N I T I A L O C C U P A T I O N , W H I C H I S 1 T O 1 1/2 Y E A R S A F T E R T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E (2) D U E T O D A T A L I M I T A T I O N S , N O R T H V A N C O U V E R C I T Y A N D D I S T R I C T H A V E B E E N C O M B I N E D I N T O T H E C A T E G O R Y N O R T H V A N C O U V E R S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 309 T A B L E 9 0 5 6 . 1 N O N - P R O F I T : B E D R O O M C O U N T Y E A R 1 9 8 1 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 B E D R O O M 5 + B E D R O O M H O S T E L B U R N A B Y 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 4 5 C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 . 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T M O O D Y 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 R I C H M O N D 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 S U R R E Y 0 1 9 1 2 4 1 2 8 0 0 5 8 V A N C O U V E R 2 5 5 0 0 0 0 4 1 4 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 2 5 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 8 0 0 6 0 4 N O T E : ( 1 ) D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E Y E A R W H E N A B U I L D I N G I S R E A D Y F O R I N I T I A L O C C U P A T I O N , W H I C H I S 1 T O 1 1 / 2 Y E A R S A F T E R T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E ( 2 ) D U E T O D A T A L I M I T A T I O N S , N O R T H V A N C O U V E R C I T Y A N D D I S T R I C T H A V E B E E N C O M B I N E D I N T O T H E C A T E G O R Y N O R T H V A N C O U V E R S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 310 T A B L E 9 1 5 6 . 1 N O N - P R O F I T : B E D R O O M C O D N T Y E A R 1 9 8 2 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 B E D R O O M 5 + B E D R O O M H O S T E L B U R N A B Y 0 Q 0 0 0 0 2 2 C O Q U I T L A M 5 6 3 7 7 1 3 1 0 0 8 D E L T A 0 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 8 2 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 4 7 4 0 0 0 . 1 P O R T M O O D Y 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 R I C H M O N D 0 0 2 2 4 6 0 Q Q S U R R E Y 1 4 3 4 2 1 0 1 8 9 0 0 0 V A N C O U V E R 4 6 7 8 1 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 2 6 7 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 1 1 6 2 3 8 4 8 6 3 6 6 0 0 3 8 0 N O T E : ( 1 ) D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E Y E A R W H E N A B U I L D I N G I S R E A D Y F O R I N I T I A L O C C U P A T I O N , W H I C H I S 1 T O 1 1 / 2 Y E A R S A F T E R T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E ( 2 ) D U E T O D A T A L I M I T A T I O N S , N O R T H V A N C O U V E R C I T Y A N D D I S T R I C T H A V E B E E N C O M B I N E D I N T O T H E C A T E G O R Y N O R T H V A N C O U V E R S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 311 T A B L E 9 2 5 6 . 1 N O N - P R O F I T : B E D R O O M C O U N T Y E A R 1 9 8 3 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 B E D R O O M 5 + B E D R O O M H O S T E L B U R N A B Y 0 0 1 5 1 2 0 0 1 0 C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 0 D E L T A 0 4 2 6 6 2 3 0 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R Q 0 1 2 3 6 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 4 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 P O R T M O O D Y 0 0 0 3 2 2 0 Q 0 R I C H M O N D 0 3 2 7 8 5 2 Q 0 8 0 S U R R E Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 V A N C O U V E R 7 6 3 6 6 8 2 2 0 0. 1 2 9 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 7 6 1 1 0 2 9 6 1 7 7 2 0 0 3 7 9 N O T E : ( 1 ) D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E Y E A R W H E N A B U I L D I N G ' I S R E A D Y F O R I N I T I A L O C C U P A T I O N , W H I C H I S 1 T O 1 1 / 2 Y E A R S A F T E R T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E ( 2 ) D U E T O D A T A L I M I T A T I O N S , N O R T H V A N C O U V E R C I T Y A N D D I S T R I C T H A V E B E E N C O M B I N E D I N T O T H E C A T E G O R Y N O R T H V A N C O U V E R S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 312 T A B L E 9 3 5 6 . 1 N O N - P R O F I T : B E D R O O M C O U N T Y E A R 1 9 8 4 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 B E D R O O M 5 + B E D R O O M H O S T E L B U R N A B Y 0 0 9 0 1 2 2 6 0 5 C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R Q 0 0 0 0. 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R 0 Q 1 0 1 6 0 0 1 4 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 P O R T M O O D Y 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 R I C H M O N D 0 1 4 7 4 1 1 2 0 0 5 S U R R E Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V A N C O U V E R 4 3 6 6 1 6 0 4 3 0 0 4 1 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 4 3 8 0 3 3 4 2 9 3 6 0 7 6 N O T E : ( 1 ) D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E Y E A R W H E N A B U I L D I N G I S R E A D Y F O R I N I T I A L O C C U P A T I O N , W H I C H I S 1 T O 1 1 / 2 Y E A R S A F T E R T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E ( 2 ) D U E T O D A T A L I M I T A T I O N S , N O R T H V A N C O U V E R C I T Y A N D D I S T R I C T H A V E B E E N C O M B I N E D I N T O T H E C A T E G O R Y N O R T H V A N C O U V E R S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 313 T A B L E 9 4 5 6 . 1 N O N - P R O F I T : B E D R O O M C O U N T Y E A R 1 9 8 5 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 B E D R O O M 5 + B E D R O O M H O S T E L B U R N A B Y 0 2 2 0 1 6 0 0 Q C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 0 0 5 6 3 8 0 0 • - 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T M O O D Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R I C H M O N D 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 S U R R E Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 V A N C O U V E R 5 7 3 2 7 8 6 0 0 . 0 6 W E S T V A N C O U V E R Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 5 7 7 9 1 5 4 1 1 4 0 0 3 5 N O T E : ( 1 ) D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E Y E A R W H E N A B U I L D I N G I S R E A D Y F O R I N I T I A L O C C U P A T I O N , W H I C H I S 1 T O 1 1 / 2 Y E A R S A F T E R T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E ( 2 ) D U E T O D A T A L I M I T A T I O N S , N O R T H V A N C O U V E R C I T Y A N D D I S T R I C T H A V E B E E N C O M B I N E D I N T O T H E C A T E G O R Y N O R T H V A N C O U V E R S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 314 T A B L E 9 5 5 6 . 1 N O N - P R O F I T : B E D R O O H C O U N T Y E A R 1 9 8 6 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 B E D R O O M 5 + B E D R O O M H O S T E L B U R N A B Y 0 0 0 0 Q 0 1 4 C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R 0 6 2 6 5 1 2 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T M O O D Y 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 R I C H M O N D Q 3 2 2 1 6 4 0 0 S U R R E Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 V A N C O U V E R 2 4 1 1 2 3 1 5 0 6 8 1 1 0 5 4 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 2 4 1 1 3 2 1 9 8 1 3 5 1 7 0 9 5 N O T E : ( 1 ) D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E Y E A R W H E N A B U I L D I N G I S R E A D Y F O R I N I T I A L O C C U P A T I O N , W H I C H I S 1 T O 1 1 / 2 Y E A R S A F T E R T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E ( 2 ) D U E T O D A T A L I M I T A T I O N S , N O R T H V A N C O U V E R C I T Y A N D D I S T R I C T H A V E B E E N C O M B I N E D I N T O T H E C A T E G O R Y N O R T H V A N C O U V E R S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 315 T A B L E 9 6 5 6 . 1 C O - O P E R A T I V E : B E D R O O M C O U N T Y E A R 1 9 8 0 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R . 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 B E D R O O M 5 + B E D R O O M B U R N A B Y 0 0 Q 0 0 0 C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R Q 0 0 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , C I T Y 0 0 Q 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , D I S T R I C T 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 P O R T M O O D Y 0 0 0 0 Q 0 R I C H M O N D 0 0 0 0 0 0 S U R R E Y 0 0 3 3 2 7 0 0 V A N C O U V E R 0 4 7 5 4 3 9 2 0 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 0 4 7 8 7 6 6 2 0 N O T E : D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E Y E A R W H E N A B U I L D I N G I S R E A D Y F O R I N I T I A L O C C U P A T I O N , W H I C H I S 1 T O 1 1 / 2 Y E A R S A F T E R T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 316 T A B L E 9 7 5 6 . 1 C O - O P E R A T I V E : B E D R O O M C O D N T Y E A R 1 9 8 1 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 B E D R O O M 5 + B E D R O O M B U R N A B Y 0 0 0 0 Q 0 C O Q U I T L A M 0 Q 0 0 0 0 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , C I T Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , D I S T R I C T 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T M O O D Y Q 0 0 0 0 Q R I C H M O N D 0 0 0 0 0 0 S U R R E Y 0 0 Q 0 0 0 V A N C O U V E R 1 5 4 7 5 5 6 7 5 0 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 1 5 4 7 5 5 6 7 5 0 N O T E : D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E Y E A R W H E N A B U I L D I N G I S R E A D Y F O R I N I T I A L O C C U P A T I O N , W H I C H I S 1 T O 1 1 / 2 Y E A R S A F T E R T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 3 1 7 T A B L E 9 8 5 6 . 1 C O - O P E R A T I V E : B E D R O O M C O D N T Y E A R 1 9 8 2 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 B E D R O O M 5 + B E D R O O M B U R N A B Y 0 2 0 3 4 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 C O Q U I T L A M 0 1 8 9 3 3 6 1 0 0 D E L T A 0 8 8 8 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 0 0 Q 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , C I T Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , D I S T R I C T 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 . 1 0 1 5 0 0 P O R T M O O D Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 R I C H M O N D 0 0 0 0 0 0 S U R R E Y 0 1 0 1 1 9 8 2 4 0 V A N C O U V E R 6 6 2 1 8 9 1 7 0 3 4 0 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 6 1 1 8 7 6 0 4 3 3 6 9 Q N O T E : D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E Y E A R W H E N A B U I L D I N G I S R E A D Y F O R I N I T I A L O C C U P A T I O N , W H I C H I S 1 T O 1 1 / 2 Y E A R S A F T E R T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 318 T A B L E 9 9 5 6 . 1 C O - O P E R A T I V E : B E D R O O M C O U N T Y E A R 1 9 8 3 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 B E D R O O M 5 + B E D R O O M B U R N A B Y 0 1 3 4 6 9 7 5 6 0 C O Q U I T L A M 0 1 6 8 1 0 1 2 2 0 0 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , C I T Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , D I S T R I C T 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T M O O D Y 0 1 6 2 8 1 6 0 0 R I C H M O N D 0 8 1 8 4 2 4 0 S U R R E Y 0 5 7 1 2 6 3 9 1 0 0 V A N C O U V E R 1 3 9 8 1 2 8 4 3 3 0 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 1 3 4 8 1 4 7 0 2 3 7 2 3 0 N O T E : D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E Y E A R W H E N A B U I L D I N G I S R E A D Y F O R I N I T I A L O C C U P A T I O N , W H I C H I S 1 T O 1 1 / 2 Y E A R S A F T E R T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 319 T A B L E 1 0 0 5 6 . 1 C O - O P E R A T I V E : B E D R O O M C O D N T Y E A R 1 9 8 4 C O M M U N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 B E D R O O M 5 + B E D R O O M B U R N A B Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 0 1 2 2 4 1 3 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , C I T Y 0 0 Q 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , D I S T R I C T 0 3 2 5 2 7 7 1 2 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T M O O D Y Q 0 Q 0 0 0 R I C H M O N D 0 1 2 4 0 3 2 1 0 0 S U R R E Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 V A N C O U V E R 0 1 0 3 2 1 1 9 8 1 8 6 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 0. 1 5 9 3 2 7 2 2 0 4 0 6. N O T E : D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E Y E A R W H E N A B U I L D I N G I S R E A D Y F O R I N I T I A L O C C U P A T I O N , W H I C H I S 1 T O 1 1 / 2 Y E A R S A F T E R T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 320 T A B L E 101 56.1 C O - O P E R A T I V E : B E D R O O M C O D N T Y E A R 1985 C O M M D N I T Y B A C H E L O R 1 B E D R O O M 2 B E D R O O M 3 B E D R O O M 4 B E D R O O M 5+ B E D R O O M B U R N A B Y 0 27 95 118 0 0 C O Q D I T L A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E L T A 0 0 0 0 0 0 N E W W E S T M I N S T E R 0 42 22 22 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , C I T Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O R T H V A N C O U V E R , D I S T R I C T 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O R T C O Q U I T L A M 0 0 Q 0 0 0 P O R T M O O D Y 0 0 0 o 0 0 R I C H M O N D 0 12 16 32 4 0 S U R R E Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 V A N C O U V E R 44 195 338 153 3 0 W E S T V A N C O U V E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L 44 276 471 325 7 0 N O T E : D A T A I S C A T E G O R I Z E D A C C O R D I N G T O T H E Y E A R W H E N A B U I L D I N G I S R E A D Y F O R I N I T I A L O C C U P A T I O N , W H I C H I S 1 T O 1 1/2 Y E A R S A F T E R T H E C M H C P R O J E C T A P P R O V A L D A T E S O U R C E : C a n a d a M o r t g a g e a n d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v a r i o u s f i l e s . 321 TABLE 102 56.1 CO-OPERATIVE: BEDROOM COUNT YEAR 1986 COMMUNITY BACHELOR 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 4 BEDROOM 5+ BEDROOM BURNABY 0 7 39 26 0 0 COQUITLAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 DELTA 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEW WESTMINSTER 0 25 51 71 0 0 NORTH VANCOUVER, CITY 0 0 12 55 0 0 NORTH VANCOUVER, DISTRICT 0 0 0 0 0 0 PORT COQUITLAM 0 0 Q 0 0 0 PORT MOODY 0 0 0 0 0 0 RICHMOND 0 0 39 73 8 0 SURREY 0 0 0 0 0 0 VANCOUVER Q 99 203 198 33 0 WEST VANCOUVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 131 344 423 41 0 NOTE: DATA IS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE YEAR WHEN A BUILDING IS READY FOR INITIAL OCCUPATION, WHICH IS 1 TO 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER THE CMHC PROJECT APPROVAL DATE SOURCE: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation various f i l e s . 322 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097981/manifest

Comment

Related Items