Joshua Evans, AHSL Research Lead

I had the privilege of contributing to a panel organized as part of this year’s City Building Conference, an event convened by the Centre for Cities and Community at the University of Alberta. The topic of the panel was “Building a Just City.” I was joined by four amazing panelists including Damian Collins, Elaine Hyshka, Daniel Jones, and Angela Staines. 

The panel was convened to explore how “urban social disorder” in places like the downtown are linked to ‘structural injustice’ in our housing system, health system and justice system. To quote Iris Marion Young (2011, 52), structural injustice exists when: 

Social processes put large groups of persons under systematic threat of domination or deprivation of the means to develop and exercise their capacities, at the same time that these processes enable others to dominate or have a wide range of opportunities for developing and exercising capacities available to them. 

Building a just city demands that we identify and address structural injustices in society. Only then can we properly solve urban social problems. 

I addressed Edmonton’s housing system where there are powerful social processes limiting the housing choices of vulnerable populations in Edmonton. Affordability for low-income households remains one of the greatest challenges. Here are the main points I tried to convey and a few additional comments and reflections. 

First, Alberta is one of the richest provinces in Canada. Moreover, hundreds of millions of dollars (including public dollars) have flowed into the arena-led redevelopment of Edmonton’s core and this has catalyzed gentrification of the downtown and surrounding mature neighborhoods, a process which itself is linked to housing affordability problems (Walks et al. 2021). Simultaneously, we have tens of thousands of Edmonton households with incomes below the poverty line, many of whom struggle to meet their housing costs. According to the last census, in 2020 14.7% of households (or 80,605 households) had incomes below the low-income measure (before-tax). This amounts to an increase, since the last census in 2015, of 12,795 households (see Statistics Canada). 

The last census also offers some insight into the affordability burdens experienced by renters in our city. In 2021, 32,525 renter households were found to be in ‘core housing need,’ meaning they were paying more than 30% of their income on shelter costs and were living in unsuitable and/or inadequate housing. An estimated 82% of these households (or 26,640 households) were living in unsubsidized, market housing (Statistics Canada). 

Second, affordability problems in the rental market point to a lack of supply when it comes to low-cost rental housing. Edmonton has experienced a boom in rental housing construction. The purpose-built rental universe has expanded significantly in Edmonton (CMHC 2022), outpacing construction intended for ownership.

Source: CMHC 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

Despite growing at a pace not seen since the early 1990s, the primary rental market witnessed a net loss of rental units affordable to households with incomes less than $36K/year (to the tune of 1,486 units). In the fall of 2021, only 15% of the primary rental market was affordable to households with incomes below $36K/year (CMHC 2021, CMHC 2022). This trend has been recently noted in research by Ron Kneebone at the University of Calgary.

The private sector is not able or willing to provide rental housing at a price that low income households can afford. Instead, it has focused on building luxury apartments and buying up older rental stock, renovating it, and raising rents. 

Source: CMHC 2020, 2021, 2022

Third, Edmonton has fallen behind most of its peers in Canada when it comes to the supply of subsidized housing. While poverty rates vary from city to city, the supply of subsidized housing in Edmonton is still far lower than cities with comparable poverty rates (for example, Ottawa). The reason for this undersupply is historical: Alberta neglected to build new social housing as the population rapidly expanded. For example, between 1996-2002, Alberta added ZERO units of new affordable housing. Edmonton is experiencing the effects of this neglect 20 years after the fact. 

Source: Statistics Canada 2022

Each of these count as significant policy failures. The City of Edmonton supported a downtown revitalization project without ensuring adequate community benefits. The provincial government has failed to regulate the rental market allowing predatory investors to step in and gouge renters. This is occurring in the wake of three decades of underinvestment in social housing, all while the population of Alberta has boomed. As a result, the supply of affordable rental housing for those in greatest need is scarce for many and non-existent for some. 

Together these processes produce ‘structural vulnerability’ experienced disproportionately by Indigenous peoples, people living with disability, and low income households. A structural vulnerability exists when a group or individual is at risk due to systemic barriers that prevent access to essential goods or services. It is this structural vulnerability that underlies so-called ‘urban social disorder.’ 

Here, the ‘iceberg’ metaphor is illustrative. Structural processes create barriers to adequate housing (and justice and health services). These barriers produce ‘structural vulnerability,’ a condition shared by a large and growing segment of the population (the part of the iceberg below the waterline).  

When housing is precarious, or absent altogether, other issues and problems are magnified. The unsheltered (the part of the iceberg above the waterline) are left to self-manage in full public view where they are blamed, shamed, and criminalized. 

Pointing to this population as the cause of ‘social disorder’ is a form of scapegoating and does little to address structural vulnerability.  

Scapegoating this population also serves those in power because it allows them to avoid responsibility for the failures that have given rise to the much broader problem of structural vulnerability. 

Building a just city demands that we correct structural injustice thereby diminishing the structural vulnerability that gives rise to urban social problems. A first step is to address the policy failures that have contributed to housing injustice in Edmonton. 

References

Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2019) Rental Market Report. CMHC. Ottawa, ON.

Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2020) Rental Market Report. CMHC. Ottawa, ON. 

Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2021) Rental Market Report. CMHC. Ottawa, ON. 

Walks, R. A., Hawes, E., & Simone, D. (2021). Gentrification in large Canadian cities: tenure, age, and exclusionary displacement 1991-2011. Urban Geography, 42(5), 603-633.

Young, I.M. (2011) Responsibility for Justice. Oxford University Press: London, UK. 

What is home? Wisdom from nêhiyawêwin

Indigenous-led housing is a critical solution to homelessness in Canada. Here in Edmonton, MacEwan University professor Dr. Cynthia Puddu has been leading a study exploring how one housing organization, Niginan Housing Ventures, is fostering spiritual reconnection within their housing programs (for more information on this study click here).

This project involved two research assistants from MacEwan – Cheyenne Greyeyes and Celina Vipond. Cheyenne and Celina have played a pivotal role in the learnings emerging from this project. Their thinking and reflection recently culminated in a publication in the journal Radical Housing.

You can find the publication here.

Cheyenne and Celina kindly agreed to share some of the thinking behind their article and some of their other interventions; namely, a call to action for giving land back to urban Indigenous peoples in Canada (link at the end of this post).

Why did you write this paper?

Celina:

While working on a research project on Indigenous youth coming out of care, we were reading papers on Indigenous housing and social policy for a literature review and working with an Indigenous community organization. Our proximity to these topics and experiences began to develop our thinking about the impacts of colonization and how interruptions in cultural transmission and continued displacement have impacted Indigenous homelessness. We noticed that despite reforms in social policy, Indigenous peoples are still disproportionately experiencing poverty, health disparities, and housing insecurity. From this came the idea that policy based in Eurocentric paradigms is not desirable nor suitable for Indigenous peoples, which has been exemplified by Canada’s history of residential schools, 60s scoop, and now the child welfare system. It is our belief that policy for Indigenous peoples should be based in Indigenous paradigms, and this sparked our motivation to write a paper about Indigenous worldviews so that it may be disseminated to those interested in changing social policy.

We also acknowledged how traditional systems still live on in one form or another despite the heavy influence of colonization and assimilation. When discussing this, we made the connection that breaking apart and translating nêhiyawêwin (Cree) transmits knowledge, beliefs, and values regarding these traditional systems of being. This provided a guide for our discussion on Indigenous worldview, and we were fortunate to speak with Elders on their understandings of our chosen words and gain other valuable teachings.

Cheyenne:

In conversations around housing in Canada, the topic of Indigenous homelessness is frequently brought up. People often only mention the breakdown of Indigenous family, the strain on housing services, or what I call a deficit discourse. Much of academic papers and government research is focused on this deficit discourse so in response, I wanted this paper to become a space where we can talk about Indigenous strength and uniqueness as a solution of healing from colonial trauma. Within the paper “What is Home? Wisdom from nêhiyawêwin”, we aimed to express how unique and beautiful Indigenous family and home are, highlighting the importance of our languages, the connection to our lands, and the knowledge of our Elders.

We drew from nêhiyawêwin and Elder’s teachings as our primary sources, to establish and validate that our knowledge lives within the language and oral histories. We wanted to highlight the beauty of Indigenous wâhkôhtowin (kinship) and the difficulties of colonial interruptions on Indigenous family structures in Canada.

What do you hope readers learn from your paper?

Celina:

We hope that our readers would come to a more robust understanding of Indigenous paradigms specifically in relation to conceptions of home, family, kinship, matriarchy, and relationship to the land. All of these concepts have implications for social policy including housing.

Cheyenne:

We wanted to dispel the myth that Indigenous issues can be fixed with Western solutions and instead need the incorporation of Indigenous paradigms of matriarchy, Indigenous kinship, relationship to the land, and language revitalization. Overall, we wanted to challenge the reader to expand their concept of family and demonstrate why good-hearted efforts can fail when they do not consider Indigenous worldview. By acknowledging the inherent differences between Indigenous and Canadian concepts of home and housing, the reasons why social policy have failed become more obvious. For Canadian readers, I thought a perspective paper would be of interest to social workers, housing workers, or anyone wanting to make a positive impact supporting Indigenous initiatives. This paper was published through an international journal so we knew some of our audience could have had little contact learning about Indigenous cultures on Turtle Island nor our specific struggles. We wanted them to have a representation worthy of our resilient and beautiful peoples.

What are you working on presently?

Celina:

Our latest interest has been in how we can put these paradigms into practice, or what idyllic Indigenous housing solutions could look like. We built off of the case studies of Camp Pekiwewin in Edmonton and naawi oodena in Winnipeg to demonstrate how renewed treaty and pathways to Indigenous land claims could result in these solutions.

Cheyenne:

Throughout the writing of our Radical Housing publication, Celina and I worked on our new project for the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness conference. We presented in November 2022 on issues regarding Indigenous housing initiatives, LandBack, and a framework for a housing structure here in Edmonton. I will be convocating from my undergraduate program in psychology with minors in anthropology and sociology this spring and hope to continue writing on Indigenous issues and conducting Indigenous researach.

You can watch Celina and Cheyenne’s CAEH presentation here.

This past February, Dr. Joshua Evans delivered a presentation exploring the AHSL’s experimentation with the ‘social innovation lab’ approach.

A social innovation lab brings diverse stakeholders together who work collaboratively to address complex social problems.

In 2021-2022, the AHSL established a social innovation lab called The Pivot. This social innovation lab was unique in the way it integrated a human rights-based approach and in the way community participants used this approach to identify a list of actions that would, if implemented, address Edmonton’s housing crisis.

You can use this passcode (f#Z1A.+X) and watch the presentation here.

Below is an infographic describing the process the AHSL came to call “The Pivot.” To access a larger version click here.

Tenant Organizing and the Right to Adequate Housing

Security of tenure is an essential part of adequate housing. Yet tenants too often are powerless in our housing system – a system in which landlords and real estate interests are themselves highly organized and well-resourced.

More attention is being paid to tenant circumstances and the need for tenant empowerment as a growing number of tenant households are being impacted by housing challenges, heightened by financialization. Including relentless (and illegal) do not rent lists, unresolved pervasive pest issues, ongoing unchecked rental increases (which incomes cannot keep pace with), renovictions and growing homelessness. These issues are of particular concern as we now have federal legislation that recognizes the Right to Housing (2019), but are lacking the proper mechanisms at each order of government for access to adequate housing. In fact, without working to implement the right to housing, some of our recent federal housing programs have actually worsened unaffordability (due to the vast majority of loans going to private developers instead of non-profits), while many current provincial initiatives are actually in clear violation of the human right to housing. Including functional cuts to income support (i.e. supplementary benefits), cuts to AISH, policy changes to social support (no longer a 30 day warning with changes made), decades of chronic underfunding of supply and demand side housing (social assistance as well as capital projects with non-market housing), cutting off social assistance to recipients without access to a residential address and criminalizing homelessness, Bill 78 and the threat of losing already insufficient non-market housing stock, etc.

While these circumstances are dire, one effective response is tenant organizing – both as a means of building collective power, as well as a self-made mechanism for (potentially) accessing adequate housing. 

Our own history of tenant associations dates back at least 100 years provincially and at least 70 years locally including: the Edmonton Tenants’ Protective Association (~1950), Westview Village Tenants Association (~1975), Edmonton Tenants’ Association (1970s – 1980s), the Edmonton and Area Tenants Association (1990s), and Alberta ACORN (2021 –)). While continuity seems to be an ongoing challenge, tenant associations remain incredibly relevant and important mechanisms for tenants – and was one of the key areas for action identified in our Pivot process

As the next event in the AHSL’s ongoing series on the Right to Housing, the AHSL organized a panel to learn about where and how tenants have been organizing and mobilizing across Canada today, to inform tenants about additional possibilities when organizing locally. 

Featuring representatives from:

• Hamilton Tenants Solidarity Network
• Alberta ACORN
• Herongate Tenant Coalition
• Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario

our invited panelists generously shared their insights from tenant organizing in response to one landlord across a number of primary rental properties, to many landlords (in primary and in some cases, secondary rental suites) at the neighborhood, city, as well as provincial level. Attendees learned about some of the first steps to take toward organizing, ideas and tips on how to engage with neighbors, and how to creatively address inadequate housing needs in a timely and effective way through a collective plan of action.

Although organizing can be incredibly hard, especially while dealing with housing insecurity and precarity, the main message from our speakers was that tenants hold the power when collectively organizing.
– The power of tenants finding common ground and standing together collectively can last over time – when highly organized, tenants are more effective collectively than politicians or the courts.
– An organized movement creates equity for tenants by placing pressure and onus on landlords or housing providers to engage and meaningfully collaborate with tenants. Concern about public image may also increase accountability to tenants.
– Remember you are stronger together – do not try to do anything alone.
While landlords are not legally allowed to retaliate, collectively taking action and voicing concerns together means the landlord is not able to pick on just one person.

Panelist Organizations:

Key Learnings from the Panel

I want to organize. Where do I even begin?

It can be hard to know where to start when it comes to organizing. The panelists shared that the best place to start is by talking to those around you. An easy win can be organizing with those that are already vocal about the issues they are experiencing, but it is important to involve everyone. One suggestion was to go door to door to discuss issues that individuals might be experiencing with the building or complex. Having these initial conversations can draw out common ground and concerns that tenants may face.  

An initial challenge that may hold some back is a lack of understanding of what is allowed. One panelist shared that in their door knocking experience, many people initially said that they did not have any problems in their home. But, when they came to understand that their situation was illegal or unacceptable, they were more willing to get involved in organizing.

Some may be hesitant to get involved because there is not enough trust established. A panelist shared that trust is especially important in neighbourhoods or buildings with large immigrant populations who may have experienced political oppression in their countries of origin. This may cause a degree of reticence to getting involved in organizing. A casual, friendly approach, plus free food, go a long way to encourage people to get involved. Additionally, creating a presence and visibility of tenant challenges in the rental complex helps to demonstrate the collective care people have for their neighbours. 

Does organizing work?

When well-organized, a collective of tenants can be more effective than political action or going through the court. We might have stronger protections today, but these protections can shift over time and become weaker in the future. The power of tenants can put pressure on landlords to engage in a meaningful, collaborative dialogue with their tenants and create a healthier negotiable environment for everyone. One panelist, who lives in Ontario, spoke to the power of organizing against rent increases. When facing a rent increase, one option is to contest the increase in the tribunal system as an individual. This process can take months, and has no guarantee that you will win the case. Working collectively with neighbors to directly engage with the landlord represents an alternative. 

Note: in Ontario, the Landlord and Tenant Board sets a yearly cap on the maximum amount that landlords can increase rents by. In Alberta we have no limits on the amount landlords can increase rents, only that increases can only occur for ongoing tenants every 12 months – only rental increases before that time can be contested).

How should I start?

Try talking to 2 or 3 people in your building. These initial conversations could start with a friendly conversation with a neighbor you meet in a shared space in your building, such as the building lobby. Who knows how far a message could spread if each of these 2 or 3 people (including yourself) brings one more person into this conversation? The panelists stressed that striking up a conversation gets easier the more you do it: try just jumping into it by knocking on a neighbor’s door. If you are uncomfortable, ask someone to go with you – be they a friend who might not live in your building, or one of your neighbours.

Having an ask can be helpful when door knocking. For instance, asking for signatures for a petition or letter to the landlord can help focus the conversation and spark ideas about how to respond to issues that tenants are facing. 

Where can these small actions take us?

Once you have signatures from interested neighbours, you can share your petition that outlines your concerns and asks to your landlord (i.e. in person at their office). If you do not get a response to your petition, you could try to get media coverage (tv, newspaper, and/or radio) to expose your living conditions. Tenant groups have used additional, oftentimes creative, tactics to draw public attention to landlords who are not fulfilling their duties. 

Need more ideas? Reach out to other tenant organizing groups for advice, they will have ideas for you.

Tenant organizing might seem formidable. But engaging in the process together with neighbours as a united front can help. Plus, the next time you are facing an issue in your building, you will be less intimidated and more willing to respond and act together. As well, landlords are not allowed to retaliate. Collectively taking action and voicing concerns together presents a united front and protects individual tenants from being individually targeted. 

It is important to note that housing issues are just as critical to address between market rental housing (with primary purpose built rental housing as well as secondary rental housing) and the non-market sector. Despite some small differences  (i.e. named as ‘housing provider’), the nature of the landlord/tenant dynamic relationship, and the legal documents that mediate that relationship, are the same. This includes negative concerns, such as evictions (in fact, in Ontario, some social housing providers evicted tenants at the highest rates during the pandemic). Because social housing providers receive public funding, there can often be a lot of concern about public image. Tenants forming independent unions often make non-market landlords more susceptible to pressure, and thus, more accountable to tenants. 

Resources & Information:

Hamilton Tenants Solidarity Network

https://affordablehousingsolutionslab.com/2023/02/10/htsn/

https://radicalhousingjournal.org/2019/rent-striking-the-reit/

https://www.facebook.com/hamiltontenantssolidarity/

Alberta ACORN

https://acorncanada.org/locations/alberta-acorn/

Herongate Tenant Coalition

https://herongatetenants.ca/

https://leveller.ca/2021/12/a-framework-for-destruction/

Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario

https://www.acto.ca/

---

Organizing Guides

Herongate – Tips for Organizing / HTSN – Organizing Guides / FMTA – Tenant Organizing Manual / FMTA – Tenant
Association Toolkit / R.E.N.T. – Tenant Organizing Manual / 280 Wellesley St. E. Tenants’ Association – Tenant Organizing Best Practices (Slides)

The AHSL recently hosted a panel on Tenant Organizing as part of our Right to Housing Series.

Recommended reading:

“Rent Striking the REIT: Reflections on tenant organizing against financialized rental housing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada” (2019) by Emily Power and Bjarke Risager. Radical Housing Journal.
Article about the 2018 Stoney Creek Towers (Hamilton) rent strike against InterRent Real Estate Investment Trust.

“The Housing Monster” (2012) Prole.info.
Illustrated book that describes the root causes of the housing crisis and processes of gentrification.

“Demanding the Right to the City and the Right to Housing: Best practice for supporting community organizing” (2020) Martine August and Cole Webber.
Short report outlining the organizing principles and campaigns by Parkdale Organize (Toronto), Herongate Tenant Coalition (Ottawa), and the Hamilton Tenants Solidarity Network and the ways community legal clinics and other non-profit agencies should (and should not) support community organizing.

Recommended viewing:

“This is Parkdale” (2017) Submedia and Parkdale Organize.
Documentary about the 2017 Parkdale (Toronto) rent strike against MetCap, a landlord backed by the Alberta Investment Management Corp. (AIMCo), the province’s public sector worker pension fund.

Organizing guides created by HTSN over the years (feel free to adapt these to do outreach in your building):

The Federal Government of Canada recently revealed the details of a ban on foreign/non-Canadian purchasing residential properties. This legislation was initially proposed in April’s 2022 budget to ‘curb foreign investment and speculation’ – a source of increasing housing costs.

Starting on January 1, 2023 until January 1, 2025, ‘non-Canadians’ are restricted from directly or indirectly (through corporate structures) purchasing residential property located in a census metropolitan area or a census agglomeration.

‘Non-Canadian’ is defined as individuals who are not permanent residents or Canadian citizens – with some conditional exceptions for temporary residents with study permits, work permits, foreign nationals with temporary resident visas or status as well as refugee claimants already referred to the Refugee Protection Division.

‘Non-Canadian’ also includes corporations or ‘entities’ established outside of federal or provincial law, or controlled by ‘Non-Canadian’ entities or individuals.

Penalties for breach of this ban include fines of up to $10,000 as well as a potential judicial sale order of residential property.

What is Excluded?

• Vacant land (without a habitable and immovable dwelling)
• Recreational property / vacation homes (located outside of a census metropolitan area or census agglomeration)
• Buildings with three or more dwelling units

What does this mean?

Acknowledged in the 2022 Federal budget, a growing number of households continue to be unable to access safe, affordable and adequate homes (p.35). “Foreign investors and speculators are buying up homes that should be for Canadians to own. Rents in our major cities continue to climb, pushing people further and further away from where they work (p.35).”

Unfortunately the 2-year ban and the additional interventions proposed in the 2022 Federal budget are seemingly untethered to the root causes and household experiences of inadequate housing.

Financialization of Housing

One of the key drivers of our prolonged housing crisis is due to financializing housing. The phrase ‘financialization of housing‘ is used to describe the “…structural changes that have occurred in recent years whereby massive amounts of global capital have been invested in housing as a commodity, as security for financial instruments that are traded on global markets, and as a means of accumulating wealth (p.1).”

The financialization of housing is the commodification of housing – distancing housing from being an essential human right and a social good, and instead regarding housing as a vehicle for investment and a means of generating wealth. Instead of building homes to meet the adequate housing needs of individuals and households, homes are built for investors and institutional owners (i.e. pension funds, hedge funds, mutual funds, endowments).

The consequences of financializing housing are staggering and for tenants include increasing housing costs (often outpacing household incomes), reduced habitability/quality of life and higher rates of eviction and displacement – which disproportionately impact Black, Indigenous, and racialized persons as well as economically disenfranchised households (Crosby, 2021; August, 2022; Lewis, 2022; Acorn, 2022).

Yet we still lack good data on the scale and volume of financialized ownership – for both non-Canadian as well as Canadian entities (i.e. Core Development Group (Younglai, 2021; Alini, 2021)). While some entities are publicly traded and share investor information on the location and details of the multi-family housing they own – which would primary rental housing (residential apartments or row housing purposely built for renter households) – it is more difficult to determine the ownership of multi-family buildings privately owned by financialized entities.

Further, there is no data on financialized owners of secondary rental housing (housing intended for homeownership that is rented including single family homes, semidetached/row homes/duplexes, and other dwelling types like accessory suites). Despite secondary non-purpose built rental housing being a significant supply for tenant households – including an estimated 51% of tenants in Edmonton, as well as ~56% across Canada in 2021 (Statistics Canada, CMHC; Canada and Edmonton).

Without a base of good information, the creation of piecemeal legislation to address increasing housing costs by investment and speculation solely through non-Canadian entities (while also exempting sales of residential buildings with three or more dwelling units) is contradictory and the latest example of a housing policy paradox.

To address some of the data gaps and limitations on the scale and impact of financialized ownership (Arsenault, 2022), the Affordable Housing Solutions Lab (AHSL) has been working to compile a local database of financialized owners of our primary (purpose built) rental buildings in Edmonton. As well, the AHSL has also created some estimates of the secondary rental housing supply in Edmonton by Census year.

Some of these findings are shared Edmonton follow below, and provide some insight on the potential implications of this new federal ban.   

Will tenant households in Edmonton benefit?

To address this question, it is important to get a clear picture of our housing rental market.

Composition of Rental Homes in the City of Edmonton

When the topic of housing affordability, and discussion of solutions through our market rental ‘housing supply’ comes up, this is often done with the assumption that all market rental housing is the same. While this may have been the case in the past, there are a few different forms that have emerged that all have different implications for renters. Namely primary rental housing that is financialized (purpose built rental housing owned by financialized owners) as well as secondary rental housing (not purpose built for rental housing and may or may not be owned by financialized entities).

Figure 1 highlights the differences in these forms of rental housing in the City of Edmonton over 20 years, comparing 2001 with 2021.

The number of tenant households living in secondary rental housing was approximated by subtracting the total number of renter households in the City of Edmonton in the 2001 and 2021 censes from the estimated total number of occupied primary rental units from CMHC’s rental survey in 2001 and 2021 (using CMHC’s housing market information portal).

There are a number of things that are important about these observable differences in our market rental housing stock over the past 20 years.

Firstly, secondary rental homes tend to be much more expensive than primary (non-financialized) rentals (1). While rents tend to be higher, utilities are also less likely to be included with monthly rents and are additional costs on top of elevated monthly rents.

The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation started sharing secondary rental market data for Census Metropolitan Areas in 2007 – 2016. In 2017 this data collection was ended abruptly and the was the only secondary housing data collection that has continued is the condominium apartment survey – despite condominium apartments being only 1/5 of secondary housing in Edmonton (CMA) in 2016.

As well, many secondary rentals are managed by 3rd party firms – including individual households that may have one or two additional homes that are rented out, small mom and pop multi-family apartment owners, private family-run residential companies, as well as institutional owners and financialized entities.

A number of real estate firms have been creating their own or purchasing existent 3rd party residential management companies – with a vested interest both in increasing homeownership costs as well as increasing renter costs. Many 3rd party firms offer a free service of speculating what owners might charge for monthly rents, with the option for an additional 10-20% to manage the unit on behalf of the owner. Despite estimates that over half of all tenant households in Edmonton currently live in secondary rentals, there is no data at present on the proportion of secondary rentals that are managed by 3rd parties – nor of the impact of this on housing affordability.

Secondly, with a few exceptions, the vast majority of financialized owners of primary rental stock in Edmonton are actually Canadian entities. The AHSL has estimated from that as of 2022 there are around 35,000 primary rental units that are financialized through asset management organizations, REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts), REOCs (Real Estate Operating Companies) or private equity firms. Of these 35000 homes, 93% are Canadian owned.

Thirdly, the affordability of our primary rental housing stock has been really affected by the volume of existing and newer builds purchased by financialized owners, with a significant loss of our ‘more affordable’ rental housing. For example, in 2006 the monthly shelter costs for approximately 82% of all rental units was $999 or less per month – this dropped down to 29% in 2016 (2).

Fourthly, related to broader discussions around financialization, one hidden trend regarding tenant affordability is that there are a number of financialized owners who accept payment of rent through credit card, such as Boardwalk (which is a REIT) and Mainstreet (which is a REOC). While rents can be increased every 12 months in Alberta, appeasing shareholders and investors, an untold number of households are remaining housed by incurring deepening credit card debt. And this is in addition to countless households who continue to make ends meet and deal with income shortfalls by paying for utilities and other essentials such as food, health care, transportation, clothing, et cetera, through credit card(s). Without the income to keep pace with the cost of living essentials, paying off credit cards becomes increasingly impossible with high interest rates accumulating even more debt.

None of this information is being collected or tracked over time in relation to housing affordability. While Equifax does release quarterly reports of consumer credit trends and insights by province and select cities (for mortgage debt and non-mortgage debt), this information is not disaggregated by housing tenure (whether homeowner or tenant). At present, there are no solutions and policies for housing affordability that factors in household debt. Which is a glaring omission considering the average individual non-mortgage debt for Edmontonians is $24,255 (Q3 2022).

Policy Paradox

Based on the current realities of the rental market and what tenant households are coping with in Edmonton, the federal ban will largely have little to no impact on addressing the key drivers that continue to increase housing unaffordability and decrease access to adequate housing (Sotheby’s, 2022).

Between 2001 to 2021, almost 50% of our primary rental housing was been lost to financialized owners (Figure 1). The amount of primary financialized rental housing over that time period has increased over 1300% and seems to be continually rising. Again, as the ban does not include buildings with 3 or more units, the financialization of our primary rental housing will not be addressed at all, despite it being a key driver of our housing crisis.

However at the household level, this policy disproportionately impacts migrant households and is punitive, confusing, discriminatory, xenophobic, and will impede access to homeownership. Although we are still waiting for data from outstanding provinces (such as Alberta), current estimates from 2020 indicate that around 4% of homes are non-resident owned (based on available data from Ontario (3.4%), British Columbia (4.7%) and Nunavut (2.7%)) (Canadian Housing Statistics Program).

Sources:
(1) CMHC Housing Portal, Edmonton CMA: Secondary Rental Market (condo and ‘other) and Primary Rental Market (rental universe, historical)
(2) CMHC Housing Portal, Edmonton CMA – Population, Households & Housing Stock: Shelter Costs (historical) for renters)

Additional Resources that may be of interest:
McQuillan, L. Canada’s ban on foreign property buyers won’t apply to many workers, international students. CBC: Dec. 21, 2022.
McQuillan, L. Will Canada’s ban on foreign homebuyers make houses more affordable? Some experts have doubts. CBC: Dec. 30, 2022

Blog updated February 17, 2023

Part of the work of the AHSL is exploring access to adequate housing.

Within this context, tenant organizing is an area of increasing interest that community members, community partners, and the public (especially renters) are interested in learning more about. Particularly as tenant organizing and collective bargaining is one way that households and individuals may be able to access their Right to Adequate housing.

While Alberta has a mixed history with collective organizing in the form of labour unions, there is a history of tenant associations dating back at least 100 years. Locally, there have been a number of groups including the Edmonton Tenants’ Protective Association (~1950), Westview Village Tenants Association (~1975), Edmonton Tenants’ Association (1970s – 1980s), the Edmonton and Area Tenants Association (1990s), and more recently, Alberta  ACORN.

This ongoing interest in tenant organizing is reflective of longstanding issues (i.e. lacking rental increase regulation) heightened by changes due to the financialization of housing.

To give some perspective on this, in 2006, 75.4% of Edmonton renters lived in primary rental housing (i.e. purpose-built rental housing) and 24.6% of renters tenants lived in secondary rental housing (i.e. condos, secondary suites, etc). In the case of the former (renters in primary rental housing), 7.6% lived in housing that was owned by a financialized entity (i.e. Real Estate Investment Trust, Asset Manager, Pension Fund, etc). Also of note, 81% of primary rental homes in Edmonton and surrounding area cost tenants $999 or less per month. 

In 2021 these numbers were very different.  An estimated 49.6% of renters lived in primary rental housing and 51.4% of renters (over half) lived in secondary housing. With regard to the former (tenants in primary rental housing), ~22.2% lived in housing that was financialized – an increase of nearly 15% from 2006. As well, the proportion of primary rental homes in Edmonton and surrounding area that cost $999 or less per month dropped down to 26%.

We are looking forward to the discussion in our upcoming panel on tenant organizing, and thank all for their interest in this event.

By: Bon Swanson & Joshua Evans, Affordable Housing Solutions Lab

Introduction 

Like food, water and education, adequate housing is a fundamental human right. Today, Canada’s housing system is unable to fulfil this basic human right for everyone. Housing deprivation among vulnerable populations remains a pressing issue in Canadian society. It has been more than two decades since activists called upon all levels of government to declare homelessness a ‘national disaster’. Yet, after twenty years of federal and provincial investments in local programs to end homelessness, housing insecurity and homelessness remains firmly entrenched in our biggest cities, Edmonton included. If human rights are used as a measuring stick then Canada’s housing system is severely impaired if not broken. 

Housing owned and operated by the government, nonprofits, and cooperatives has long been seen as a solution to housing insecurity and deprivation in Canada. This ‘community housing sector’ has been operating in Canada for more than 75 years. In Edmonton, this sector plays an integral role in the housing system. Community housing has provided subsidized housing to low-income households since the late 1960s. However, the growth in demand for this community housing has outpaced its supply.

Moreover, some of the existing supply is not physically accessible for those living with a disability or those with specific cultural needs. Expanding community housing in Edmonton is a key ‘area of action’ when it comes to the fulfilment of the right to adequate housing. This blog post aims to share community input gathered by the AHSL on this area of action. 

How we got here

Since its inception in 2019, the AHSL has been operating in an evolving context of international human rights legislation, Canadian law, and housing policy to develop and support the progression of housing innovation in Edmonton. The AHSL exists to empower citizens to innovate, co-create and develop effective local housing solutions. Beginning in the fall of 2021, we began working with a diverse group of housing stakeholders to address the following question: What actions might help ‘pivot’ Edmonton’s housing system towards the realization of the right to adequate housing? 

The AHSL collaboratively approached this process with inclusion, equity and social justice in mind. In this regard, we made a conscious effort to involve various stakeholders while also centering the perspectives of those in need of adequate housing or ‘rights holders.’  

What we heard

In the end, six areas of action were identified by Pivot participants (for description click here). One of the ‘areas of action’ that emerged through the Pivot process was the following: 

To address the shortage of affordable and accessible housing, governments, working in partnership with nonprofits and cooperatives, need to protect, renovate and grow community housing, especially the supply of deeply subsidized units (i.e. rent-geared to income) that are universally accessible. 

Participants recognized that action towards this end faces numerous barriers and challenges. Canada’s various levels of government are closely tied, with overlapping roles and responsibilities that necessitate collaboration. One area of overlap with significant implications for Canada’s housing sector is the province’s control over municipalities (in Alberta this control is exercised through the Municipal Government Act). Participants flagged a breakdown in cooperation between the province and municipalities as a key threat to expanding supply. Perspectives on what should be done vary between the two jurisdictions, leading to inaction on expanding the housing supply. 

Participants pointed to one area of municipal jurisdiction that poses both a threat and an opportunity: zoning. Cities can use zoning to influence the types of developments that are allowed to take place. In the case of housing, an overwhelming majority of development is profit-motivated and undertaken by the private sector. While development means that there is housing being built, this stock is not necessarily affordable. Further, in some cases older, naturally affordable housing stock is demolished to build new buildings, potentially degrading affordability and reducing the number of affordable options available. While most of this development is occurring in the private, market-rate rental sector, the loss of naturally affordable housing stock puts increased pressure on community housing sectors to provide affordable housing to our neighbours who need it. Municipalities can use zoning to influence how much community housing is built, and how many subsidized housing units are incorporated into new builds.

The expiration of housing subsidies poses another threat to expanding the supply of community housing in Edmonton. The majority of community housing is owned and operated by not-for-profits who rely on subsidies to provide housing; without stable funding, community housing providers may be forced to close their doors, reduce their services, or make operational reductions that infringe upon the right to housing of those who rely on their existence. The need to renew these subsidies, which come in many forms, was top of mind for participants. Indeed, without stable programming, affordable housing providers will have no choice but to focus on merely maintaining their housing portfolios rather than on much-needed expansion.

In the face of these challenges, the supply of community housing must be expanded to realize the right to housing in Edmonton. Participants noted a variety of goals that will help to pivot Edmonton in a better direction. These goals include (a) protecting against the loss of existing affordable housing, (b) enhancing the adequacy of affordable housing, including community housing, and (c) growing the overall supply of community housing. 

1. Protect

When it comes to protecting the existing stock, the City of Edmonton should gain a better understanding of the affordable housing inventory currently available. This will help to address gaps in housing and allow precise tracking of where and what stock is being lost through redevelopment. Participants also noted that decisions surrounding what is being built and where should be made by people with expertise and familiarity with Edmonton’s housing landscape. This way, rights holders and experts can meaningfully guide community housing developments that address the needs and preferences of those that will reside there.

In the Edmonton context, where the waitlist for community housing is years long, the existing stock of market rental housing must be equitable for tenants. Participants proposed that the city should require rental licensing to provide oversight to Edmonton’s rental sector. Not only would licensing protect tenants and shed light on landlord-tenant relations, but it would also provide valuable information on landlord-property relationships. Privately owned and operated rentals are an inescapable part of Edmonton’s rental market, but they can be better regulated to protect tenants and to aid in the progressive realization of the right to housing. 

Private developers undertake the majority of housing developments in Edmonton. Demand for land increases the cost of land and applies extra pressure to community housing providers who already have less capital and resources to develop deeply affordable housing. The lack of affordable land in accessible locations is a major barrier that inhibits community housing developers from building in neighbourhoods where their tenants already reside. The City of Edmonton and the Government of Alberta can help to relieve this roadblock to development by mobilizing underdeveloped city-owned and provincially-owned land found across the city, providing affordable housing providers with a step up to keep their costs low, and as a result, their housing as affordable as possible for their tenants.

2. Enhance

Affordable rentals are made for tenants, but far too often tenants are not meaningfully involved in the planning, design, and operation of affordable housing. We asked participants to comment on how meaningful involvement of tenants could be put into practice in Edmonton. We heard from the participants that tenant engagement should not be treated as an afterthought, but rather as an essential part of the development process. To ensure that tenants are meaningfully involved, professionals should be educated – including persons who develop and design housing – regarding tenants’ complex needs and how they can change over time. Professionals should also come prepared with tools to ensure that tenants are appropriately engaged and recognize inequities in the development process between market and non-market developments.

While it is important to engage tenants and the many other stakeholders involved in housing provision, it is essential to ensure that not just the most prominent voices are heard. It is crucial to the success of development to consider the little things that increase the quality of a build, including finishing that might otherwise be overlooked, such as lowering the height of light switches to accommodate those who cannot easily reach them at standard heights. It is also important to decolonize the process of engagement so that all stakeholders are coming from a level playing field; by ensuring an equitable process, we can make communities that work for everyone. Further, while some buildings or units may need updating or retrofits, it is valuable to understand that tenants ought to have control over their own space and be able to customize their homes as they see fit, which includes having the choice to stay where they are if they so choose and not be forced to move.

Beyond ensuring that tenants’ voices are heard and the engagement process for developments is equitable, more must be done on a municipal level to ensure that the progressive realization of the right to housing for tenants is achieved. Participants in the Pivot highlighted that the City of Edmonton should take a proactive approach to outline tenant expectations and legislate mandatory resident involvement requirements in the community housing development process. This would help ensure that the suitable types of supply are built, in the right locations, and with amenities that are important to tenants included. Additionally, tenants should have more say over changes that affect their ability to maintain their housing, such as rent increases. The City of Edmonton should also do more to champion healthy living guidelines and promote and normalize various styles of living in line with the tenets of the right to housing. 

3. Grow

While protecting and enhancing the existing supply of community housing are valuable goals, it is also important to expand the supply of affordable housing in general (and community housing in particular) to ensure that everyone has a home that meets their needs. Individuals living with disabilities are overlooked, under-consulted, and forced to reside in housing that is incompatible with their needs. To ensure that we are building the right supply for everyone, individuals with disabilities need to be consulted so that units are designed with universal design principles in mind. Being involved in the design process must go beyond giving a green light to floorplans, but must be carried through to the finishings of a building, to the fixtures and flooring. There is no “one size fits all” for housing, though often the way we develop community housing assumes that there is. By collaborating with future tenants, we can help to make sure that the housing supply we are building is sensitive to the needs of everyone. 

Growth needs to take many forms to ensure an adequate housing supply that meets the needs of tenants today and in the future. It is essential that not only the physical supply of housing is expanded, but also the financial capital that is put into housing. With the “naturally” affordable housing stock decreasing over time, we must take investment into affordable housing seriously. This requires investment in community housing. Housing must also meet the needs of a future climate. Climate change is affecting the way we think about housing and the number of people who need it. With rising sea levels and extreme weather events increasing across the globe, Canada will need to accept an increasing number of immigrants and refugees, and with that, provide an increasing amount of affordable, sustainable, and equitable housing. We need to expand the data that we have about housing and understand the gaps in knowledge that currently exist to ensure that we support an appropriate level of community housing starts.

Concluding Thoughts

As researchers, we know that rights holders have many of the answers to the complex issues with our housing supply. Researchers cannot come up with solutions without their input and participation. We ought to use our position of power and influence to elevate and advocate for those who are systematically marginalized in an organized and impactful way. Research can help to fill the knowledge gaps that we know exist, while also uncovering more knowledge gaps that can help us to understand the housing crisis more comprehensively. In this regard, researchers need to work directly with municipalities to craft policies and action plans that are evidence-based and rooted in the experiences and priorities of rights holders.

Based on the experiences of rights-holders, it is clear that there is a shortage of affordable and accessible housing and that governments need to protect, renovate and grow community housing, especially the supply of deeply subsidized units (i.e. rent-geared to income) that are universally accessible. Actions taken to address this need must ensure an adequate housing supply that meets the needs of tenants today and in the future. 

Written by Yasushi Ohki, Executive Director of Green Violin.

Yasushi was raised in Edmonton and has called it home since completing degrees in civil engineering (University of Alberta) and architecture (University of British Columbia). For over 22 years, he has worked in the land development industry, including greenfield development, infill residential construction and project management. Yasushi has also spent a good portion of his professional life in civil service, first in Strathcona County’s Current Planning Department, then in the Government of Alberta’s Ministry of Infrastructure, and finally in the City of Edmonton’s Housing and Homelessness Section. Yasushi brings to his work a love of urban design and a keen eye for how people interact with architecture, combined with a sensitivity to the realities of building construction and maintenance. He continues his work in community development with the establishment of a trio of sustainability-oriented organizations: the Green Violin Community Development Company, the Rose Cello Affordable Housing Society, and the Prairie Sky Property Management Corporation.

If Minivans Were Manufactured Like Housing

We can increase the capacity of existing roads, we can efficiently transport more people, our whole family can travel together! It’s such a great idea. Let’s get a minivan – not so fast, this is Edmonton and if  minivans were manufactured like houses – it wouldn’t be that easy.

SPRING:  First of all, is your property even allowed to have a minivan? Check your property zoning. Luckily, City Council has approved a new zoning bylaw that encourages density and minivans are allowed to be built as a discretionary use. That means that you must engage your immediate neighbours and get them to support your application to have a minivan. Most of your neighbours, even the friendly ones, start to feel uncomfortable. They agree that minivans are a great idea for increasing capacity, they just don’t want to see one in their neighbourhood. Some neighbours are outright rude and say they don’t want the kind of people that minivans attract. They say that it will bring down the value of their own cars that they enjoy. You’ll have to deal with them later at Council or at a special board that hears appeals.

SUMMER:  You are convinced you are doing what is good for the city and good for the environment. You engage a minivan designer and start looking for a minivan builder. At the same time, you submit your proposed design for your minivan to the City and by this time, you don’t even object to the City’s minivan planners who say you need to change the roofline and remove most of the windows on one side, you also have to lower your minivan so it doesn’t sit too high above the cars in your neighbourhood. In addition, you have to agree that no more than three unrelated individuals will ever use the minivan at the same time, and you cannot rent your minivan out for sharing. Six months have passed since deciding on a minivan but you are still determined. You have your permits approved and you are ready to start building.

AUTUMN:  Your minivan builder is busy and you have to wait for them to show up at your property. Eventually the tires arrive, followed by some of the bodywork. The seats appear one day and disappear the next. You buy some insurance against theft. One builder rep shows up but not all the components are on site so he leaves. It rains. You look out of the window as  your parts start to rust a bit. Eventually enough of the components arrive that the trades start to appear and assemble your minivan. For most of the autumn you excitedly sit in the half built shell and imagine all the road trips you will take.

WINTER:  Months pass. Parts come and go. Some parts fit, some parts don’t. Trades come and go. Some are good, some are not. Your dream minivan is looking okay, but it’s taking so long. Finally the interior finish is nearing completion, your minivan is inspected and is found to be roadworthy. Sure some painting needs to be touched up, and a few of the lights don’t work, and the left tire still leaks. These are owner maintenance items so you are handed the keys. It took some time, and a lot of effort but you are making a difference. You are part of the solution. Congratulations you have now own a minivan!

CONCLUSION:  You are not happy with the process. Minivans should not be built this way. If we do not change the process and time to provide minivans, there will not be as many as the City needs in order to fulfil the City Plan. This is imperative to meet affordability goals, climate goals and livability goals.  There needs to be a revolution. There will be a revolution. We cannot grow without it.

Dr. Joshua Evans is seeking a full-time, master’s student to join the Community Housing Canada team beginning May 2021 or September 2021. This is a 2-year, fully-funded graduate opportunity ($23,282.24/year) and is based in the Human Geography Program (Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences) at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta.

Working under the supervision of Dr. Evans within the Area of Inquiry entitled “Imagining Community Housing Futures,” the successful applicant will complete graduate course work (9 credits) and thesis research on innovations in Community Housing. The expectation is that the student’s research will examine dominant ways of understanding community housing while also identifying alternative ways of foreseeing its transformed purpose and function. In this regard, thesis based research may involve a variety of approaches including theoretical-engagement with alternative practices or practical engagements with theoretical alternatives.

Students with an undergraduate degree in Human Geography, Planning, Sociology, Political Science, Anthropology, History or a related discipline are encouraged to apply.

Application information (including application deadlines) can be found here.

For your more information regarding this opportunity please contact Dr. Joshua Evans (jdevans@ualberta.ca).

This position will contribute to the work of “Community Housing Canada: Partners in Resilience” an academic-community partnership supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Grant Number: 890-2018-1013). The partnership is directed by Professor Damian Collins at the University of Alberta (host institution), in collaboration with Capital Region Housing (lead community partner).