Opinion: Suspending supportive housing in Vancouver will not improve services in neighbouring municipalities

By MAJENTA BRAUMBERGER

Many in favour of Vancouver city council’s Feb. 26 decision to suspend supportive housing argue it will encourage neighbouring municipalities to step up, but there is no evidence to support those claims.  

Mayor Ken Sim brought the proposal, which freezes city contributions towards new supportive housing in Vancouver, to council on Feb. 26. 

Supportive housing is a form of subsidized housing for vulnerable populations with on-site supports.  

Council voted 6-3 to pass the motion, with councillors Pete Fry, Lisa Dominato and Rebbeca Bligh opposed. 

Service distribution

In a Feb. 26 news release Sim said that Vancouver provides 77 per cent of Metro Vancouver’s supportive housing, despite having only 25 per cent of the region’s population.  

Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon said the numbers cited by Sim, which come from a city report, do not match with the province’s numbers. 

“For too long, Vancouver has shouldered more than its fair share of the region’s supportive housing,” Sim said in the same news release. He said that ensuring every municipality does its fair share will make Vancouver’s supportive housing system work better.  

But it is unclear how the decision will do that.  

Sim’s motion doesn’t include special provisions for a working group or task force that would bring neighbouring municipalities together to develop a regional strategy for supportive housing. In fact, the day Sim’s supportive housing suspension passed, council rejected Bligh’s motion to consult with the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and BC Housing on the implications of the freeze.  

Bligh’s motion was rejected despite Jill Atkey, CEO of the BC Non-Profit Housing Association, saying its approval “would provide the opportunity to achieve a strong regional approach to supportive housing allocation.”  

Like Sim, Coun. Mike Klassen pointed to the concentration of supportive housing in Vancouver for his decision to support the motion.   

“It’s not like everybody that has these kinds of challenges that supportive housing can help with are all based in the City of Vancouver. They’re living in other communities around Metro Vancouver,” Klassen said.

A narrow comparison

Though it is true that Vancouver provides more supportive housing than neighbouring municipalities, comparing that statistic to only the city’s population provides a narrow view. Vancouver is the region’s urban centre, and the development of the areas surrounding it is more recent.  

Vancouver has a larger number of many services than surrounding municipalities, including hospitals and healthcare providers, but it’s unlikely that council would argue to redistribute them to neighbouring regions.

Klassen said the pause is an opportunity. 

“I think, while we have this temporary pause, we can evaluate how we can actually do this work better in the City of Vancouver and allow other municipalities to come to the table and say, ‘We need to support people in our community,’” he said. 

He said the BC Urban Mayors’ Caucus is an important forum for the region’s municipalities but confirmed there is no new initiative at the caucus to focus on supportive housing in response to council’s decision. 

Adverse effects

Fry said a pause to supportive housing does not encourage other regions to step up to the plate but does the opposite.  

“What is created is this new populist narrative, and other communities are saying, ‘Oh, well, if Vancouver council is going to say no supportive housing, why is this council doing supportive housing?’” Fry said. 

He said recent actions in Richmond and Vernon are examples of this.  

In February, Richmond council cancelled an approved supportive housing project, despite provincial government support.  

Vernon council will hear a motion this month to assess the impact of supportive housing on residents and businesses.  

“What Ken Sim’s actually done with this very ill-conceived motion and resolution is to actually galvanize opposition to supportive housing everywhere,” Fry said.  

Donna Baines, a UBC professor of social work, said she doesn’t see “a single positive outcome” from the decision.  

“I think that there is absolutely no credibility to this argument that if we stop services here, they will suddenly pop up elsewhere. There’s zero evidence to support that. In fact, quite a bit of evidence that that’s not the case,” Baines said. 

Like Fry, Baines noted Richmond’s opposition to supportive housing.   

“We see a lot of not-in-my-backyard activism going on in the outer cities,” Baines said. 

Dominato said she wants a collaborative approach, where the provincial government engages with each municipality in the region to determine service needs and delivery. 

“My concern lies with the signal it [the decision] sends to other municipalities because what we want is to encourage them to step up and play a role,” Dominato said. 

But unless proactive steps are taken towards a regional approach to supportive housing, Vancouver shirking responsibility does not signal other regions to step up.