Roger-Luc Chayer (Image : Meta AI / Gay Globe)
The Housing Crisis in Major Western Cities
We are experiencing an exceptionally critical period in housing in major Western cities, a phenomenon that has worsened since the 2020 pandemic.
In Paris, Montreal, or Los Angeles, the crisis is visible on every street corner. Due to real estate speculation, rents have reached levels inaccessible to an increasing portion of the population. At the same time, encampments are multiplying, becoming refuges for people from very different social backgrounds, yet united by a common reality: no longer being able to live decently in their own city.
The population of these encampments is composed of a heterogeneous mix of people who have been progressively marginalized by the housing crisis: former evicted tenants, precarious workers whose incomes are no longer sufficient to cover rent, young people estranged from their families, isolated elderly individuals, and recently arrived migrants.
All share the same reality: having been excluded from the traditional housing market and having to recreate, in these improvised spaces, a form of community and survival.
We also know that gay men and lesbians represent an abnormally high proportion of this population, often due to rejection by their families because of their sexual orientation.
Should We Focus on Construction to Solve the Housing Crisis?
There is no doubt that building new social housing is necessary and that a major investment will be required if we want to get most of these people off the streets, people who should never have had to be there.
But is there really a shortage of housing sufficient to justify such a social crisis, or are some speculators and owners deliberately keeping hundreds, even thousands, of units vacant to artificially drive up prices?
The housing crisis in Paris, Montreal, and Los Angeles is not only due to a lack of apartments: it mainly reflects speculation that leaves essential housing vacant, inflating rents and forcing thousands of people onto the streets.
In each of these cities, speculation and property hoarding by investors contribute to keeping rents at inaccessible levels and leaving numerous apartments empty.
In Paris, tourist pressure and the proliferation of short-term rentals reduce the supply for residents. In Montreal, massive purchases by private investors displace tenants who struggle to find housing, while in Los Angeles, the combination of overwhelming demand and insufficient regulation creates housing out of reach for many.
Overall, the problem is less about insufficient construction than about how certain market actors exploit scarcity to maximize profits, leaving the most vulnerable on the streets or in improvised encampments.
Should We Focus on Subsidies Rather Than Construction to Solve the Crisis?
Building new housing is extremely expensive. Permits, engineers, architects, land acquisition, infrastructure for water, electricity, and sewage, installation of internet and public service technologies… the costs quickly add up.
Rather than spending millions to create new housing, why not invest in those that already exist and are fully functional? The question is simple, and the potential savings could be enormous.
Take the case of Mrs. Lapierre, for example. She owns a three-room apartment in Montreal and pays $1,150 per month in rent, in addition to electricity, phone, and internet bills, not to mention groceries and other daily expenses such as transportation. Her net working income is limited to approximately $1,900 per month after taxes and social contributions. Mrs. Lapierre has no way to increase her income and risks losing her apartment every month.
In Montreal, a three-room apartment is approximately 800 square feet. With a cost range of $165 to $300 per square foot, the total construction cost would be between $132,000 and $240,000.
Beyond the construction cost, additional expenses can quickly raise the total. Fees for plans drawn up by an architect or architectural technologist generally range from $4,000 to $10,000, while specific installations, such as wells, septic tanks, or utility connections, can cost between $1,000 and $15,000 depending on the needs.
Additional administrative costs, including notary services and transfer taxes, generally range between $1,000 and $2,500, illustrating the extent of extra costs associated with building a home.
In addition to these absolutely necessary investments, one might wonder why a credible and substantial housing aid program is not implemented to subsidize Mrs. Lapierre’s housing, preventing her from moving, avoiding the consequences of being homeless, and potentially saving the state significant resources.
What if a Housing Allowance Could Change Everything?
If a 25% aid were granted to Mrs. Lapierre, her rent would decrease by $287.50, dropping from $1,150 to $862.50, which is a significant reduction. Beyond direct tenant subsidies, the state could also implement a residential maintenance program for owners to ensure that their subsidized housing retains its value over time.
Even if this program provided owners with $500 per month, or $6,000 per year, for maintenance and renovation, this amount would not only be appreciated by them, but the combined total of tenant allowance and housing subsidy would remain far below the cost of building new units, while helping thousands of tenants avoid homelessness.
In times of crisis, we must think less like investors and more like social managers.
Vacant Housing: Should There Be a Law to Force Speculators?
In addition to the measures mentioned above, it is also time to consider implementing legislation to force speculative owners to rent out vacant units, making it illegal to keep properties unoccupied.
A tax on vacant housing could be an effective solution. The revenues generated could fund housing allowances and maintenance programs for owners, reducing the financial burden on the state. An owner subjected to a $500 monthly tax per vacant unit would quickly incur significant losses.
Under these circumstances, they would have every incentive to rent out their units quickly to avoid the tax, while benefiting from renovation assistance. A pragmatic and advantageous approach for all.
Why Haven’t Authorities Acted Already?
Why haven’t authorities already considered such solutions, which are both simple and potentially very effective? It’s a good question, but elections always offer the opportunity to raise these issues, and we must not hesitate to confront elected officials with these alternatives when the opportunity arises.
ADVERTISING
