UPDATE: Housing Needs Reports required by the BC govt every 5 years are revealing a disturbing trend of new housing obstruction in many municipalities, with a few exceptions such as Langford.
Langford – “Langford’s strong working relationship with developers in creating communities is seen as a strength & could be worth replicating or exploring in other communities”
On the other hand, Oak Bay: “Stakeholders reported that development approvals are slow and uncertain, and this is not conducive to encouraging the development of new housing. Past projects have faced significant push back from the community and this history has deterred important funders and housing builders from developing in Oak Bay.”…”Stakeholders involved in non-profit housing report that organizations have avoided working in Oak Bay in the past due to the contentious public engagement environment & difficulty receiving project approvals.”
Metchosin: “No primary rental housing units in Metchosin & as such no data was available for the median rent & vacancy rates.”
Salt Spring: Density “needed to provide more housing options including rental housing..new developments especially with additional density, can create concerns from neighbours..”
Central Saanich: Slow development process, high costs like Step Code regs, and strong nimbyism as outlined below.
Saanich: The longest development process in the CRD & many other challenges.
What will the BC govt do about it? They will do what they have always done – blame speculators for rising home prices and short supply and ignore municipal obstruction and high costs. There needs to be blanket rezonings in municipalities implemented by the province as done in Oregon.
Most of BC’s municipal zoning is a form of protectionism maintaining sky-high costs for large single family lots while discriminating against lower income families. The BC govt’s policy of self-determination perpetuates this protectionism, discrimination, continual high housing costs and low rental vacancy rates.
It’s all in the Housing Needs Reports, if anyone in the BC govt bothers to read them.
Central Saanich
The Housing Needs Report for Central Saanich identifies the BC Step Code as a significant challenge to housing affordability. The BC govt low-balled the real costs, and bypassed national code diligence on unintended consequences such as radon, resulting in a BC building code undermining affordability, health and safety. Central Saanich, North Saanich, Saanich, Oak Bay and Victoria adopted the Step Code against the advice of the Victoria Residential Builders Association, which identified numerous flaws, including the ability of municipalities to bypass steps and leap into higher levels without mandatory education and proven practice. Most of the municipalities have fast-tracked the Step Code into Step 3, which is estimated to add $30,800 to the cost of a new home. Despite these significant flaws, Sooke is also planning to adopt the BC Step Code, which will undermine affordability and consumer protection for their residents. For more on the BC Step Code flaws read BC Step Code a Misstep.
In addition, slow development processing times “make it challenging to develop financially feasible housing projects.” Another new housing report called “Gimme Shelter: How High Municipal Housing Charges and Taxes Decrease Housing Supply” by the CD Howe Institute was recently released identifying municipalities, such as Central Saanich and North Saanich, as the source of high housing prices, lack of supply and therefore affordability.
The Housing Needs Report, Pg 55, says:
“Development Challenges
Stakeholders suggested that some barriers felt by developers throughout the CRD are more acutely experienced on the Saanich Peninsula. It was noted that it is challenging for developers to navigate
three different sets of policies and regulations from the three municipalities on the Peninsula, which, combined with long processing times, make it challenging to develop financially feasible housing
projects. Energy step code requirements adopted by Central and North Saanich were also reported to increase cost and create additional challenges to building more affordable housing. Developer and real estate stakeholders reported there is a disconnect between what forms of housing are financially feasible to develop on the Peninsula and what forms are needed.”
“NIMBY-ism”
“NIMBY-ism was reported to be especially strong on the Peninsula, where many wealthy homeowners who are comfortable in their housing situation and wish to maintain the rural feel, oppose some
denser forms of housing. It was suggested that local governments on the Peninsula have the opportunity to increase public awareness and address misconceptions about non-market housing and
to be vocally supportive of affordable housing projects.”