Affordability is an important issue in the 2018 municipal election. Many lower- and middle-income households spend more than they can afford on housing and transportation, leaving insufficient money to spend on other essential goods such as food and healthcare. Solving this problem requires local policy changes which increase development of affordable housing types (secondary suites, multiplexes, townhouses and low-rise apartments) in walkable urban neighborhoods. This will require municipal government action.

To help voters evaluate candidates’ positions on affordability, Cities for Everyone surveyed mayor and city council candidates in Victoria, Saanich and Oak Bay. Of 93 candidates contacted we received 31 completed surveys. We also analyzed candidates’ websites and interviews, and incumbents’ voting records (see graph below), and their electability based on name recognition and the quality of their campaign. This column summarizes our results (click here for PDF version).

Victoria Mayor & Council Infill Development Approval Rates

This graph compares infill development approval ratings. More infill tends to increase middle-income affordability.

The following tables show information sources consulted, electability assessment, overall affordability rating (A is best) and notes for mayoral and council candidates in Victoria, Saanich and Oak Bay.

Victoria

Victoria Mayoral Candidates Affordability Evaluation

Victoria Council Candidates Affordability Evaluation

Saanich

Saanich Mayoral Candidates Affordability Evaluation

Saanich Council Candidates Affordability Evaluation

Oak Bay

Oak Bay Mayoral Candidates Affordability Evaluation

Oak Bay Council Candidates Affordability Evaluation

Categorizing Candidates

When it comes to affordability policies, Candidates tend to fall into four general categories:

1. Comprehensive affordability. Support policies that allow more compact infill in residential neighborhoods to increase low- and moderate-income affordability.
2. Low-income affordability. Focus on subsidizing and mandating below-market housing to increase affordability for people with low incomes and special housing needs.
3. “Protect neighborhoods.” Oppose neighborhood change and therefore affordable infill.
4. Unconcerned or unclear. Indicate little concern or provide little information about affordability.

The distinction between comprehensive and low-income affordability is important because there are often trade-offs between these goals. Some policies intended to increase low-income affordability can reduce middle-income affordability, for example, if inclusionary zoning increases moderate-priced housing costs, or housing demolition prohibitions prevent development of larger buildings. Comprehensive affordability advocates support diverse infill housing, including some that is initially too costly for low-income households but increases affordability through filtering, as some low-priced housing occupants move into the new middle-priced units, and over time as the new homes depreciate.

The table below categorizes candidates’ apparent affordability priorities. Voters can use this information to select candidates that reflect their values. Overall, younger candidates tend to place higher value on affordability, while older candidates tend to be more concerned with minimizing change, but there are, of course, exceptions.

Candidates Categorized by Their Affordability Priorities

Candidates tend to fit into one of four general affordability policy categories. This information can help voters choose the candidates who will best represent their priorities.

Below are additional questions to ask candidates concerning their affordability priorities.

Examples of Affordability Questions to Ask Candidates

• Do you support strategies to increase both low- and middle-income affordability?
• What will you do to ensure that any household that wants can find suitable housing in a walkable urban neighbourhood?
• Do you support affordable travel options (walking, bicycling and public transit)? How?
• Would you support infill development that is consistent with the Official Community Plan (OCP) but opposed by some neighbours?

Of course, there are other factors to consider when choosing which candidates to support. Most voters have other concerns, besides affordability. To influence results it is best to choose candidates that are electable, and will be accessible and effective policy makers.

Click here for a PDF version of the Candidates’ Affordability Rating Report.

Please let us know what you think. For questions or comments contact info@citiesforeveryone.org.