POST BY MAYOR STEWART: BURDEN ON NEW HOMES & NEW BUYERS…

For a change of perspective, today’s Monday Briefing features a recent Facebook post by Richard Stewart, Mayor of Coquitlam and former CHBA BC President (shared with his permission). Richard was our guest speaker at last fall’s CONNECT Municipal event, where he candidly spoke about the good, bad and the ugly when it came to the challenges facing municipalities and the housing industry. His post is a reflection on how well-intentioned policies — from climate action to accessibility requirements to infrastructure funding — often place disproportionate costs on new homes, and by extension, on first-time buyers. This is not a new conversation and is one we have said many times to local government but it is a reminder that in the pursuit of the ‘perfect home’ that checks all the boxes as well as funds water, sewers, roads, parks, police, fire protection, etc. it cannot also be affordable.

While it may seem conversations about the new-construction multi-family market is a niche discussion, it is, in fact, it is a discussion that impacts housing affordability and availability at every stage. Decisions affecting new-home construction have ripple effects across the entire housing continuum. Over time, first-time home buyers become move-up buyers, which often leads to renovations or re-builds, and in some cases, with the equity built-up during their homeowner years, may consider a custom build or a second property. With each stage, construction brings in many segments of the homebuilding industry, from architects to HVAC to door hardware. If first-time buyers cannot take the first step in homeownership, how will this affect the homeowner/homebuyer cycle and all those who are involved in building/renovating/designing/servicing/supplying these homes?

The inclusion of Richard’s post is an opportunity to hear from a different perspective but does not place the full blame on the province nor releases municipalities from their contributions to the current state of the industry. They have control over ever-increasing municipal fees, process delays, acceleration of timelines on code adoptions, and choosing not to fairly distribute the increasing burden of infrastructure costs onto current residents, and more. If we want to see a change and the ability to really move forward then every party has to put in the effort to collaborate and make real concessions, not finger-pointing.

Share your thoughts at wendy@havan.ca.

Richard Stewart’s post:

The Aspiring Homeowner’s Burden

How government policy makes first-time buyers pay for population growth and societal goals

We ask a lot of new homes these days.

At a time when housing is urgently needed — for young people, new immigrants, families, and seniors — we’re loading new homes with costly expectations. We want housing to be affordable, sustainable, inclusive, and to fund public services. The problem? Every added burden placed on a new home is ultimately paid for by the people who haven’t bought one yet.

A New Home Must Save the World — and Fund It Too

The email from a resident pressed for Coquitlam Council to adopt the Zero Carbon Step Code; I know this resident, and I know he loves to cook with natural gas, in his home that is heated by the same inexpensive fossil fuel. Same with his pool, hot water tank, patio heater, etc.

I suppose it’s human nature to 1) recognize the harm, and 2) hope someone else solves it.

The climate goals of moving off fossil fuels are commendable, but in this case the impact is highly targeted. By phasing out natural gas in new homes — while allowing existing homes to keep their gas hookups — we’re forcing renters and first-time buyers to shoulder higher energy costs. Plus, no “cooking with gas”, no cozy gas fireplace, etc. Legacy homeowners face no such penalties. And BC continues to support Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) exports; that is, it’s not that we don’t want our natural gas to be burned, we just want someone else to burn it somewhere else.

Water conservation is similar. New homes must meet high-efficiency standards — low-flow fixtures and, in some municipalities, water metering for new homes only — while older homes remain exempt.

Even Canada Post has joined the trend. Door-to-door mail service doesn’t exist in new neighbourhoods, replaced by community mailboxes. In effect, reduced service in new areas helps subsidize and maintain premium door-to-door for older neighbourhoods.

A wide range of other added costs – from underground wires to replace less-costly overhead wiring, to building code improvements to improve safety – all serve to make today’s housing more costly to build.

Accessibility Rules Add Costs

Recent changes to BC’s building code require 20% to 50% of units in many new buildings to be adaptable for wheelchairs — a big step toward inclusivity. But while the goal is noble, the costs are very real. Making small and affordable apartments adaptable for wheelchairs requires larger bathrooms and turning space, potentially adding $30,000 to $60,000 to unit prices.

These rules affect all buyers, not just those who need accessible housing. And with only about 8% of persons with disabilities actually using wheelchairs or scooters – about 1% of all Canadians – many buyers are paying extra for features they may never use.

New Homes Fund Immigration

Originally, Development Cost Charges (DCCs) funded basic infrastructure like roads and sewers to connect new developments to the grid. Today, they help pay for schools, transit, parks, water treatment, even healthcare. The typical mantra is “development must pay for development,” but in reality it’s “new homes must pay for population growth.”

As immigration rises to support our aging population and labour force needs, the cost of the resulting population growth is falling not on the government that sets immigration policy, or on long-time homeowners who reap tax-free gains, but on new homebuyers priced out by the very services they’re being asked to fund.

“Affordable” Housing – Funded by First-Time Buyers

Inclusionary zoning is another example of good intentions gone sideways. By mandating that a portion (typically 20%) of new homes be sold or rented below market value, government takes credit for “creating” subsidized units. But the subsidy is paid by the renters or first-time buyers who didn’t qualify for the lower-priced units in their building, rather than by high-income residents who already own a home.

It’s a strange paradox: the people struggling to buy a home are being asked to pay more so others can pay less, while the province (which is responsible for housing) contributes nothing. That’s not a sustainable or fair model for affordability.

The Burgeoning Bill for Belonging

In trying to solve the housing crisis, we’re unintentionally punishing the very people who are already struggling — renters and would-be first-time buyers.

If you already own a home, you’re largely shielded from these costs. You benefit from grandfathered infrastructure, lighter regulations, and rising home values, and you don’t contribute to the subsidies required for the “affordable housing” created through inclusionary zoning. The system protects those already inside and raises the drawbridge on everyone else.

Great Goals — Punishing Policies

Climate action, accessibility, and public infrastructure are essential. But our current approach loads all those ambitions onto new homes — and by extension, the people least able to afford them. And with these burdens on new housing, it makes many proposed housing projects less viable or even money-losing – exacerbating the housing crisis by further limiting supply, and pushing housing costs higher through scarcity when unviable housing proposals are canceled. This isn’t going to work.

We need to rethink how we fund the services and standards we value. Governments at all levels — especially federal and provincial — must step up with smarter mechanisms to fund infrastructure. The costs of population growth should be shared across the population, not placed squarely on the shoulders of those who don’t own a home.