Barriefield Housing consultation - Jason’s View

[posting]

Jason here. Let us take a look at the so-called 'Battle for Barriefield', piece by piece (see City of Kingston report attached below).

First - the issue of integration. The only way to truly integrate rent geared to income housing is by a rent supplement program and Kingston certainly has some of them. However, this isn't going to happen now, as that is not how the funding is being delivered to municipalities. What do we mean by integration? Perhaps we want rent geared to income housing not to look like rent geared to income housing. Is physical integration a legitimate target? An early morning tour of most of such housing makes me believe that this is a legitimate request. Our rent geared to income housing looks terrible. Totally lacking in imagination. It stands out as subsidized housing. If physical integration is a worthwhile target we aren't doing well. If social integration is the goal then the city has failed miserably. I doubt if social integration is a worthwhile goal. First of all, I doubt it can be achieved with funding for larger projects only available.

Second, the eyes of architects/builders/developers have not been on the tenants and their experience of living in the subsidized housing. Third, People who don't sort their recyclables are going to be forever scorned by their neighbours who do. Here you have it. It boils down to garbage!

Buffer. Well I think the residents are genuinely concerned about the disappearance of their buffer. However, I agree with Councillor Foster that the answer is to buy it. BUT I think the Barriefield residents should buy it. It has been well known that these pieces of land were going to be declared surplus. This, Councillor, is why we have wards and you may have been working on this problem for ages but it doesn't show. Sometimes residents can win these arguments, (see Sir John A Macdonald blvd - it DOESN'T run through the residential area.) but mostly they don't. This Council will come down on the side of subsidised housing while trying to blend the new housing with the heritage village. I will watch with interest the changes in design. Should the long, long term be to encourage sale to the residents of the housing?

How one reacts to this challenge is a function of how one sees the world. Barriefield residents should watch out for those who want to hurt them because they are seen as elitists. Marx has a lot to answer for highlighting 'class struggle'. Many people (Councillor Garrison?) look at the world through that prism.

Personally, I think that as many as possible should be able to enjoy the lilacs.

[Lydia]

I understand that the residents of Barriefield are using Historical reasons to stop the land that is being sold to the City of Kingston for $1.00 for low-income affordable housing.

Since when does a district tell the City what to do??

Okay if the city won't develope low-income housing to be developed on the eastern district, then how can you possible build the third crossing on the eastern district.

A third Crossing isn't historical either.

When thousands of people have lost their jobs due to this economy, thousands of people are on welfare, thousands of people are the working poor. How dare you choose to give this a reason to stop development that will help TODAY'S society.

Yes, I agree with the people who are saying that there isn't any supporting businesses on the side of the causeway. Since when did we stop businesses from coming and being developed in this city?

This city needs to get with the program and develop STRICT guidelines as to what COUNCIL considers to historical. Not on a project by project basis but on ONE complete CRITERIA that apply to ALL residential areas and housing.
A criteria that will remain with the city in future years to come.

Having said that if such a list exists then honour that side of the debate instead of draging the issue on.

[ntvinh986]

I understand that the residents of Barriefield are using Historical reasons to stop the land that is being sold to the City of Kingston for $1.00 for low-income affordable housing.

Since when does a district tell the City what to do??

Okay if the city won't develope low-income housing to be developed on the eastern district, then how can you possible build the third crossing on the eastern district.

A third Crossing isn't historical either.

When thousands of people have lost their jobs due to this economy, thousands of people are on welfare, thousands of people are the working poor. How dare you choose to give this a reason to stop development that will help TODAY'S society.

Yes, I agree with the people who are saying that there isn't any supporting businesses on the side of the causeway. Since when did we stop businesses from coming and being developed in this city?

This city needs to get with the program and develop STRICT guidelines as to what COUNCIL considers to historical. Not on a project by project basis but on ONE complete CRITERIA that apply to ALL residential areas and housing.
A criteria that will remain with the city in future years to come.

Having said that if such a list exists then honour that side of the debate instead of draging the issue on.
Hi guys, Im a newbie. Nice to join this forum.

[Nancy Foster]

welcome newbie- hope you have the time to walk Barriefield AND the proposed sites.

[jeanlee411]

I'm very interested! I would love to find out more.

[posting]

BARRIEFIELD LAND SWAP:The latest attempt to find a compromise in the Barriefield land-for-housing controversy seems to be causing more grief than goodwill.

CKWS TV Report May 07, 2010

THE LATEST ATTEMPT TO FIND A COMPROMISE IN THE BARRIEFIELD LAND-FOR-HOUSING CONTROVERSY SEEMS TO BE CAUSING MORE GRIEF THAN GOODWILL.

VILLAGERS ARE PROPOSING A LAND SWAP WITH THE CITY IN ORDER TO KEEP AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUT OF THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD.

BUT EVEN BEFORE THE IDEA GETS A CLOSER LOOK -- ANTI-POVERTY ACTIVISTS ARE SAYING THANKS -- BUT NO THANKS...

Full video coverage at: http://www.ckwstv.com/index.cfm?page=news&id=2445

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_wDB4lonLZkU/S_FNfYBfDnI/AAAAAAAAAGU/8AmEgdgKudE/s144/CoK_Barriefield_Housing_Delegation-City_Council_2010-05--04.jpg
Delegation on Barriefield to
Kingston City Council, May 4, 2010

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_wDB4lonLZkU/S_FNfIJnIGI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/vPfv63jvXLo/s400/CoK_Barbara_Avenue_Housing_Site-City_Council_2010-05--04.jpg
North end site also under review on Barbara Avenue

[Valley]

Are Barriefield residents actually suggesting that new housing be placed on Barbara Avenue? Locating here would place another affordable housing development within a few hundred metres of two existing affordable housing communities located to the immediate north of that site.

What happened to the principle of diversification of affordable housing across the city?

[Molly]

With the rising cost of rents and low vacancy rates Kingston needs multiple affordable housing sites, including Barriefield, to be developed across the city.

[Edgewaters]

This sort of elitist attitude is, frankly, appalling. These aren't Canadian values. One of the most succesful aspects of our cities, relative to those south of the border, is that we have kept ghettoization to a minimum by diversifying socioeconomic groups within neighbourhoods. If the Barriefield residents think it's bad to have to live next to "those" people, just wait til Kingston gets its very own Lower East Side like in Vancouver! There is nothing worse than concentrating and intensifying poverty, allowing it to reach a critical mass - the effects are felt city-wide, and take the form of skyrocketing crime rates and increased taxes for all, to pay for the emergency services that inevitably follow.

On the other hand, I believe that affordable housing projects are really not the best way to go about things - they are, in many senses, ghettoes in microcosm. Much better if we saw the city contributing to the expansion of co-operative housing which, in this city at least, has been succesful at providing affordable housing while minimizing many of the problems associated with it.

[Lydia]

Interesting comment. I am a little confused as to what you mean about expansion of co-operative housing. I have never heard of that term associated with housing. Do you mean townhouses, semi-detached, rented housing? Please tell us more

[Edgewaters]

Interesting comment. I am a little confused as to what you mean about expansion of co-operative housing. I have never heard of that term associated with housing. Do you mean townhouses, semi-detached, rented housing? Please tell us more

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/buho/gucoho/index.cfm

All of Kingston's co-ops, I believe, are on the social housing registry and provide some units with provincial or federal subsidies, other units at market rate.

[Lydia]

Again thank you for informing us on this concept; I have viewed the link and find it very interesting indeed. As I see this, Co-op housing is actually (as I understand it) really condominums regardless of type of building that people are housed in. Am I correct in this view.

Although I am not in any way against Condominums, I still prefer to be an sole owner of my detached house, semi or town house. If i need to pay rent for living in a condominum in the form of condo fees, I still would prefer to just pay rent to a landlord for an apartment that i would still rent and live. Also respecting people who also live in the apartment building.

However, I also understand in many parts of the world, ""ownership"" isn't always possible or even desireable. I have been told that in Britain, people who rent their homes, don't own them, however, once they pay their rent will live in the same location for as long as they wish and usually that is almost a lifetime. This i was told but I don't know it for a fact.


I wonder if this is what the co-op housing is really like?

[Edgewaters]

Again thank you for informing us on this concept; I have viewed the link and find it very interesting indeed. As I see this, Co-op housing is actually (as I understand it) really condominums regardless of type of building that people are housed in. Am I correct in this view.

Not precisely, but there are similarities. In most Ontario co-ops you're not buying a share in the co-op. They raise capital with mortgages, instead, and the units remain the property of the corporation rather than the tenant. I don't think any of Kingston's co-ops require a person to buy the unit. They simply move in when a unit is vacant, like they would in private rental accomodation.


If i need to pay rent for living in a condominum in the form of condo fees, I still would prefer to just pay rent to a landlord for an apartment that i would still rent and live.

The advantage of non-profit co-ops is that the tenants control the rent and what gets done with it. A private landlord seeks to minimize overhead and keep costs down and profits up; social housing has its own problems when it comes to budgeting for upkeep and maintenance, too. In low-rent housing, appliances, windows, fixtures and so on are often decades old and in a very poor state. A nonprofit co-op is more motivated to make improvements and spend on upkeep, because it's the tenants who ultimately control spending, and none needs to be siphoned for profit. At rates that are usually slightly less than market rates, co-ops often manage to have relatively new appliances, fixtures, windows, roofing and whatnot. Overhead can also be lower, where there are volunteer commitments in the residential agreement (usually stated as 4 hours a month, although in practice it would be difficult to find that much for everyone to do).

[Lydia]

Very interesting concept. Everything I am learning from you actually encourages me on the concept. I agree with you that social housing does have it's own problems and usually the governments don't help to maintain the upkeep on their buildings.

The idea that renters would have a say into how their building would be maintained and where the money is spend actually is a great way for renters to be proud of their homes. (Homes don't always have to be considered a house). Home is where you hang your hat.

From what you are indicating here, Co-op housing is ways that help renters have say in their environment without having to pay a hugh downpayment in a morgage and still enjoy living in a pleasant environment.

I would love to have more people join us on this issue and tell people how they got involved with Co-op housing. There are good and difficult issues living in any kind of housing. It would be interesting to learn both sides.


A retireee who is tired of maintaining a private home of their own and who is getting too old to maintain it, this might just be a good suggestion. It is for this reason, I am encouraging you on this posting.

[posting]

The Barriefield homes planning consultation dates have been set by the City of Kingston:

First session: July 6, 2010, evening at school or church in Barriefield

Second session: August 9, 2010, evening in Memorial Hall

Detailed notices will be available shortly.

[posting]

Barriefield Housing: Consultant Proposal Plans

August 9, 2010

Proposal Outline as reported to the Heritage Committee - Highlights

# Previous input: “stakeholder” interviews plus meeting with Barriefield residents

# Recommends no housing on Parcel 1 (near church)

# Recommends low-rise 32 unit seniors housing on Parcel 2 with 38 parking spaces (near school). The apartment mix would be 26 one bedroom apartments and 6 two bedroom apartments.

# Recommend 13 single family houses and one semidetached house on Parcel 3 (southerly section). All houses would have out buildings or garages

# Total of 47 units to be built on parcels 2 and 3

# new north-south public lane to access housing in both parcels

# Wellington Street to be reinforced as main access to Barriefield

[keoadmin]

Barriefield residents are continuing their NIMBY battle against low density affordable housing proposal on federal lands: http://bit.ly/bPm8Cs

[keoadmin]

The City of Kingston's Affordable Housing Development Committee endorsed the Barriefield housing proposal today and made recommendations to improve the proposal - see motion below


City of Kingston, Affordable Housing Development Committee
Barriefield Housing Proposal Plan Changes FINAL

August 19, 2010

Background:

On August 9, 2010 consultants for the City of Kingston outlined a draft proposal for the development of affordable housing on federally owned surplus lands in Barriefield. After reviewing the proposal the Affordable Housing Development Committee would recommend the changes outlined in the following resolution:

Barriefield Affordable Housing Proposal Resolution

Whereas the largest single demand for affordable housing in the City of Kingston is for single individuals;

And

Whereas individuals referred from the Social Housing Registry will need rent-geared-to-income assistance to afford to live in any new accommodation in Barriefield.

And

Whereas all the units proposed to be developed in Barriefield on public lands should generally be affordable in perpetuity.

Therefore be it resolved that the City of Kingston Affordable Housing Development Committee recommend to Kingston City Council that affordable rental housing to be built in Barriefield should be developed on a not-for-profit basis with a priority for singles;

And further

That the rental component of the proposed Barriefield rental development contain at least 50% of the units available on a rent geared to income basis and the remaining 50% at rents that are up to 100% of current market rents in Kingston as determined by the annual rental survey of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

And further

That the ownership housing proposed for the Barriefield development be developed on a limited equity basis in a manner similar to that described in the recent Hillside Village Community Planning Model: A Kingston Community Profile Study for affordable housing prepared for the Social Planning Council of Kingston and District in collaboration with the Queen’s University School of Urban and Regional Planning.

And further

That the land for all parcels developed for affordable housing in Barriefield is intended for the public good in perpetuity and not for a limited time period. To ensure a permanent supply of affordable housing the land assets be retained in the public domain to provide assurance to the public that the housing developed will remain affordable. To ensure a permanent asset lock on land assets the use of both sites will be controlled in one or more of the following methods: a restrictive covenant on the title of the property; a long term capital lease on the land; or the use of a land trust.


Definitions:

Asset Lock
Asset Lock is a general term used to cover all the provisions designed to ensure that the assets of a not-for-profit or limited equity corporation (including any surpluses generated by its activities) are used for the benefit of the community.

Capital land lease
A long term lease of land that is treated as though the lessee had borrowed money and bought the leased assets. For affordable housing the lease cost would be established at a nominal value.

Land Trust
A housing land trust aims to protect the lands that define a community. A land trust may accomplish this through establishing and monitoring permanent ownership or easement on a property.

Limited Equity Home Ownership
Limited Equity Housing (LEH) organizations are corporations in which residents share ownership of property. Residents work together to reach mutual goals based on democratic control and decision-making. LEHs offer ownership opportunities to lower and moderate income households while limiting the return from resale that they can receive from the housing.

Public Domain
Land owned by the government (public property).

Restrictive Covenant
Restrictive covenants are deed restrictions that apply to a group of homes or land in a specific development or subdivision.


Reference:

Hillside Village Fact Sheet, December 2009

Hillside Village Community Planning Model: A Kingston Community Profile Study, 2009
Social Planning Council of Kingston and District and the Queen’s University School of Urban and Regional Planning

[keoadmin]

City Staff are presenting two information reports on the Barriefield project to Kingston City Council on August 24, 2010

Barriefield Update, 2010-08-23A (http://www.cityofkingston.ca/pdf/council/agenda/2010/COU_A1910-10271.pdf)

Barriefield Update, 2010-08-23B (http://www.cityofkingston.ca/pdf/council/agenda/2010/COU_A1910-10271C.pdf)

[davidwillson]

Again thank you for informing us on this concept; I have viewed the link and find it very interesting indeed. As I see this, Co-op housing is actually (as I understand it) really condominums regardless of type of building that people are housed in. Am I correct in this view.

Although I am not in any way against Condominums, I still prefer to be an sole owner of my detached house, semi or town house. If i need to pay rent for living in a condominum in the form of condo fees, I still would prefer to just pay rent to a landlord for an apartment that i would still rent and live. Also respecting people who also live in the apartment building.

However, I also understand in many parts of the world, ""ownership"" isn't always possible or even desireable. I have been told that in Britain, people who rent their homes, don't own them, however, once they pay their rent will live in the same location for as long as they wish and usually that is almost a lifetime. This i was told but I don't know it for a fact.



I wonder if this is what the co-op housing is really like?


The advantage of non-profit co-ops is that the tenants control the rent and what gets done with it. A private landlord seeks to minimize overhead and keep costs down and profits up; social housing has its own problems when it comes to budgeting for upkeep and maintenance, too. In low-rent housing, appliances, windows, fixtures and so on are often decades old and in a very poor state. A nonprofit co-op is more motivated to make improvements and spend on upkeep, because it's the tenants who ultimately control spending, and none needs to be siphoned for profit. At rates that are usually slightly less than market rates, co-ops often manage to have relatively new appliances, fixtures, windows, roofing and whatnot. Overhead can also be lower, where there are volunteer commitments in the residential agreement (usually stated as 4 hours a month, although in practice it would be difficult to find that much for everyone to do).

[bluelight2]

I also know that the rental component of the proposed Barriefield rental development contain at least 50% of the units available on a rent geared to income basis and the remaining 50% at rents that are up to 100% of current market rents in Kingston as determined by the annual rental survey of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.