Asking developers to contribute to the city's affordable housing fund doesn't sit well with one city councillor who calls the idea "another tax" driving up the cost of housing in Cambridge.
Prior to approving a plan to build seven townhouses on Limerick Drive on Tuesday, Helen Shwery said she doesn't like the city asking for cash for affordable housing because it ends up defeating its purpose by making homes more expensive to build; an expense that ultimately lands on the backs of consumers.
Homes that are priced at 80 per cent of the average market rate meet the region's current definition of "affordable."
But as Shwery pointed out, if homes are more expensive to build because of a request developers contribute to the affordable housing fund, the market rate of homes in Cambridge increases along with the definition of affordability.
The city asks all subdivision developers to agree to contribute $500 per unit prior to council approval.
The money is collected before building permits are issued and placed in the fund, which has risen to $1.3 million since being established.
It's used to provide capital grants, on a per-unit basis, to eligible not-for-profit organizations and others who commit to building affordable units for low income individuals or families with core housing needs.
But Shwery thinks the contribution is nothing more than a tax on developers.
"Affordable housing is just another word for low income housing," she said. "This should be the responsibility of our provincial government and we should not be burdening taxpayers and future homeowners with this as this will just make homes more expensive."
"It seems to me that forcing builders to pay another tax on already high development charges, fees and long wait times to build...the more expensive homes will be."
"It's really not doing anything," she said.
Other councillors disagreed with Shwery's assessment.
Coun. Nicholas Ermeta wants the requirement retained to help the city increase its affordable housing stock.
So does Coun. Scott Hamilton who appeared agitated by Shwery's comment.
"We need more affordable housing, not less," he said. "I think we need to remember the more affordable housing we create for people and families that are in need, the healthier and more vibrant neighbourhoods become, the better they become, for everyone, for all walks of life."
"The concept that more affordable housing is going to lead to skyrocketing home costs, or increase the housing stock or increase taxes, I don't buy that."
He said the average income earner in Canada is increasingly being priced out of the housing market because municipalities and upper levels of government aren't doing everything they can to make home ownership affordable.
And he believes the affordable housing fund is one of the only tools the city has to help get this type of housing built.
It's the city's "moral and ethical imperative to do whatever" it can to help those that are most in need, he said.
Coun. Sheri Roberts agreed, saying she's completely comfortable having those conversations with developers and believes if money is volunteered, the city should be eager to take it.
Shwery, on the other hand, believes making contributions to the fund a condition of approval is too "coercive," and suggested council needs to have more conversations about what to do going forward.
Senior planner Lisa Prime said the developer in the Limerick Drive proposal agreed to accept the condition, but there could be room for council to adjust the conditions of the request if they see fit.
It could also be a point of discussion for a recently formed Affordable Housing Fund working group, she said.
