Social (subsidized) housing cures homelessness:

TorontoCity Council must correct

flaws in proposed “Streets into

Homes” strategy to meet the

goal of ending homelessness

January 19, 2005

Submission by:

Michael Shapcott

Research Co-ordinator, Toronto Disaster Relief Committee,

Co-Chair, National Housing and Homelessness Network, and,

Co-ordinator, Community-University Research Partnerships Unit,

Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto,

455 Spadina Avenue, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5S 2G8

Telephone – 416-978-1260 // E-mail –

Nothing is more visible as an indicator of distress in Toronto than the presence of homeless people sleeping on our streets. . . But homelessness is just the tip of the iceberg of Toronto’s affordable housing problem. Thousands of families struggle to survive with housing costs that are far too high. . . Housing and homelessness are critical issues facing Toronto. . . The threat of eviction interrupts children’s education and adds stress to family life.

Housing is a foundation. People who are secure in their homes can plan for the future, invest in their jobs and businesses and upgrade their skills. Housing has an impact on the whole community, which is why I believe that tackling this issue is key to the renaissance of Toronto. . .

Tough love with no housing options and no support is not a policy for the homeless. It is a policy against the homeless. We need a mix of short-term and long-term solutions that reflects out City’s values. Housing takes time to build. As a compassionate and caring City, we must also ensure that there are enough shelter beds available for people to come in.

David Miller, candidate for Mayor of Toronto, 2003

In early 2004, shortly after I was elected Mayor of Toronto, City Council tried a new experiment in community engagement, designed to help chart a course for the future of our city. City Council wanted to know what residents envisioned for their city before we debated the municipal budget on the floor of council. In a series of highly successful public meetings known collectively as Listening to Toronto, we asked Torontonians about their priorities for City Council’s budget. All over Toronto, people told us the same thing: our number one job has to be to ensure all residents have an affordable place to live. Our mandate is clear. . .

Nobody can do more to help the other orders of government come up with a workable plan than TorontoCity Council and other city councils across the country. I am also aware, though, that we can’t just wait around while negotiations for a new deal for cities play out. We have to get keys into the hands of people who need homes, and we have to do it this year, not next year, or the year after that.

Mayor David Miller, Foreword to “Finding Room: Policy Options

for a Canadian Rental Housing Strategy”, 2004

Fatal flaws in proposed housing strategy need to be fixed

Toronto has an important opportunity to end homelessness in our city:

  • Mayor David Miller and other political leaders are committed to a “housing-first” strategy to end homelessness.
  • Citizens and residents of Toronto have urged politicians to take effective action.
  • The emerging patchwork of housing funding has allowed a handful of new homes to be built by a growing group of smart and committed community developers.
  • Senior levels of government have promised more than $700 million in affordable housing funding for Ontario, with at least $230 million of that expected here in Toronto.

Toronto’s current homeless and under-housed population includes:

  • thousands of women, men and children sleeping rough on the streets and in parks.
  • more than 4,000 women, men and children sleeping in shelters.
  • tens of thousands of “hidden homeless” who are temporarily staying with family or friends, or “couch-surfing”.
  • about 70,000 households (approximately 189,000 women, men and children) on the City of Toronto’s social housing waiting list.
  • 314,975 households (approximately 850,000 women, men and children) in the Greater Toronto Area in “core housing need” – or at risk of homelessness.

Evictions generate more homelessness: The numbers of homeless are continuing to grow. An analysis of evictions prepared for the City of Toronto in March of 2004 reported that about 3,900 households in Toronto are evicted every year (about 9,800 women, men and children) – that’s about 15 households every weekday throughout the year. The report found that 48% of these households joined the “hidden homeless” (moving temporarily in with family or friends); and 29% (or about 1,130 households annually) go directly to the city’s homeless shelters.

The “Street into Homes” strategy prepared by senior city staff “proposes an outreach-based strategy to assist homeless persons find permanent housing”. While the report sets the right tone by putting the priority on housing as the single most important solution to end homelessness in Toronto, and the report offers important initiatives, it contains four fatal flaws that undermine the overall direction and will make it harder to achieve the goal of ending homelessness in Toronto.

Therefore, members of Policy and Finance Committee and Toronto City Council must amend the report to fix the key flaws:

First, drop the proposed ban on “camping” at Nathan Phillips Square. Criminalizing homelessness is costly (in policing and related costs), it is inhumane and illegal (a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by unfairly targeting one group of people based on their status), and it is ineffective (places like New York City have rejected policing policies in favour of subsidized housing).

Second, commit at least an additional $14.2 million in city dollars for new social (subsidized) housing to match the $14.2 million in re-allocated dollars. The strategy, as proposed by staff, only re-allocates existing resources and finally commits housing dollars that were first promised in 2000.

Third, create city-community committee to ensure delivery of new homes. The City of Toronto has failed in delivering new truly affordable homes in recent years. The strategy, as proposed by staff, doesn’t offer any new mechanism to break the logjam at City Hall.

Fourth, set the year one target at 3,000 truly affordable new homes. The targets for new housing in the strategy fall far short of the desperate need for new social (subsidized) homes in Toronto.

Fifth, amend the street outreach strategy to make sure that temporary beds that will be lost in the spring are replaced and to effectively support existing outreach services.Toronto will lose the beds at the Edward Street shelter in the spring, along with Out of the Cold beds. There needs to be a plan now to replace those beds, along with plans for additional support to existing outreach initiatives.

Housing cures homelessness

Practical experience and empirical studies in Toronto and across North America in the past two decades have demonstrated that:

  • Lack of truly affordable housing causes homelessness: The single biggest factor in generating homelessness has been the loss of low-rent housing (including rooming house units) and the lack of new social (subsidized) housing. There is a direct co-relation between declining affordable housing stock and growing homelessness in Toronto and elsewhere.
  • New truly affordable housing cures homelessness: The single biggest factor in moving homeless people into stable housing is the provision of social (subsidized) housing. Outreach services and various supports to meet the individual needs are important, but housing is the critical foundation on which everything else is built.

Subsidized housing is both necessary and sufficient to “cure” homelessness. . .

Dr. Marybeth Shinn, New YorkUniversity, 1998

Subsidized housing cures homelessness: Dr. Marybeth Shinn of New YorkUniversity and her colleagues have completed one of the most extensive research studies on the so-called “exits” from homelessness; that is, the solutions to move homeless people into housing stability. Over five years, Dr. Shinn and her colleagues followed more than 560 homeless families from the New York City shelter system into housing. Almost two-thirds of the families were able to find stable housing (that is, they were able to remain in one place for at least one year). In a major study published in the American Journal of Public Health in November of 1998, Dr. Shinn reported that: “Subsidized housing was virtually the only predictor of residential stability after shelter.” The Emergency Homelessness Pilot Project in Toronto proves that subsidized housing does, indeed, cure homelessness.

Mayor Guiliani generates record level of homelessness in NYC: Mayor Rudolph Guiliani of New York City, in office for most of the 1990s, created new laws that targeted the homeless and he ordered the police to aggressively enforce existing and new laws. The result: By 2002, there were more homeless in New York City than ever before in the city’s history. There were an average of 33,581 women, men and children in New York shelters every night, plus thousands more in city jails and hospitals. The financial cost was staggering: Almost $1 billion in fiscal 2001.

Criminal harassment of homeless declared illegal: Several U.S. cities adopted similar approaches in the 1990s, using local ordinances to criminally harass the homeless. These tactics have been declared illegal by the courts. For instance, the City of Miami was ordered to pay more than $600,000 to a group of homeless people after losing a lawsuit launched by the American Civil Liberties Union. Atlanta’s attempt to sweep the streets was declared unconstitutional by the courts in 1996 and the city and police were required to set in place measures to protect the civil liberties of homeless people.

Mayor Bloomberg launches campaign for 65,000 subsidized homes: Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who took over from Mayor Guiliani in 2002, is no “bleeding heart liberal”. He is a tough Republican, but he knows a costly failure when he sees it, so Mayor Bloomberg said that subsidized housing would be his solution to homelessness. He announced plans for 65,000 new subsidized homes by 2008. In 2003 (his first year in office), he had funded 10,200 new subsidized homes. In 2004, Mayor Bloomberg was on track to fund 16,000 subsidized homes.

Toronto would need 3,500 new homes annually to match NYC:New York City has a population of 7.3 million. Toronto has about 2.4 million residents. On a per capita basis, Toronto would need to fund 21,500 new homes over six years (3,500 new homes annually) to match New York’s initiative.

City of Toronto’s dismal housing record: 1999 to 2004

In January, 1998, then-Mayor Mel Lastman announced plans for a Homelessness Action Task Force after suffering political embarrassment on the campaign trail several months earlier. Mayor Lastman asked Dr. Anne Golden, then head of the United Way of Greater Toronto, to head a panel of distinguished people to report on a comprehensive strategy to end homelessness. One year later, Dr. Golden presented a detailed report with 105 recommendations.

Homelessness facilitator “best way to get action”: The very first recommendation from Dr. Golden’s Task Force was for a homelessness facilitator to be a “catalyst for action”. This recommendation, along with many other recommendations, has not been implemented. In calling for a municipal homelessness facilitator, Dr. Golden said:

Because of the problem’s complexity and the number of players involved, there are insurmountable obstacles to reducing homelessness within regular decision-making channels. The Task Force believes that the best way to get action on homelessness is to create the capacity for proactive leadership at the municipal level. Appointing a Facilitator is the best way to get action on homelessness. . . The Task Force believes that what is required is a Facilitator with a broad range of government and policy experience. This Facilitator should serve as a catalyst for action, a change agent, a “shuttle diplomat,” and a problem solver. He or she would need to have a status equivalent to that of a Commissioner in the municipal government and would report directly to the Mayor and Council. The special status of the Facilitator would allow him or her to communicate with senior public officials at all levels of government. The position would not be a permanent addition to the municipal bureaucracy; the Facilitator would be appointed for a five-year term. The Facilitator should be given a small staff and sufficient financial resources to support a variety of teams to carry out short-term projects.

Few new homes: When she delivered her final report at the beginning of 1999, Dr. Golden set a target of 2,000 new “low-cost rental housing units” in Toronto annually, along with 1,000 supportive housing units. She proposed a series of mechanisms to meet that target. Most housing advocates welcomed Dr. Golden’s recommendation as a good first step, but said that her target fell far short of the need. In August of last year, city staff reported for the first time on progress over the past year years. The city has only seen 418 new transitional, supportive and affordable housing units up to August of 2004.

Year / Golden target / Actual completed
1999 / 3,000 / 0
2000 / 3,000 / 6
2001 / 3,000 / 94
2002 / 3,000 / 158
2003 / 3,000 / 101
2004 / 3,000 / 59*
Total
/ 18,000 / 418

* To August only.

No new homes in 33 of Toronto’s 44 wards: There have been no new truly affordable homes in 33 of Toronto’s 44 wards. City councillors in those wards should explain why they have failed to deliver desperately-needed new homes. Here is the list of wards, and the names of councillors, that have seen zero new transitional, supportive or affordable housing from 1999 to 2004:

Housing cures homelessness – page 1

Ward 1 (Suzan Hall)

Ward 2 (Rob Ford)

Ward 3 (Doug Holyday)

Ward 4 (Gloria Lindsay Luby)

Ward 5 (Peter Milczyn)

Ward 6 (Mark Grimes)

Ward 7 (Giorgio Mammoliti)

Ward 8 (Peter Li Preti)

Ward 9 (Maria Augimieri)

Ward 10 (Mike Feldman)

Ward 11 (Frances Nunziata)

Ward 12 (Frank Di Giorgio)

Ward 16 (Karen Stintz)

Ward 17 (Cesar Palacio)

Ward 18 (Adam Giambrone)

Ward 22 (Michael Walker)

Ward 23 (John Filion)

Ward 25 (Cliff Jenkins)

Ward 26 (Jane Pitfield)

Ward 27 (Kyle Rae)

Ward 29 (Case Ootes)

Ward 31 (Janet Davis)

Ward 33 (Shelley Carroll)

Ward 34 (Denzil Minnan-Wong)

Ward 35 (Gerry Altobello)

Ward 36 (Brian Ashton)

Ward 37 (Michael Thompson)

Ward 38 (Glenn De Baeremaeker)

Ward 39 (Mike Del Grande)

Ward 41 (Bas Balkissoon)

Ward 42 (Raymond Cho)

Ward 43 (David Soknacki)

Ward 44 (Gay Cowbourne)

Housing cures homelessness – page 1

Less than 10 new homes: The following wards delivered less than 10 truly affordable homes in the past six years:

Housing cures homelessness – page 1

Ward 13 (Bill Saundercook)

Ward 14 (Sylvia Watson)

Ward 21 (Joe Mihevc)

Housing cures homelessness – page 1

Less than 50 new homes: The following wards delivered less than 50 truly affordable homes in the past six years:

Housing cures homelessness – page 1

Ward 19 (Joe Pantalone)

Ward 24 (David Shiner)

Ward 28 (Pam McConnell)

Ward 30 (Paula Fletcher)

Housing cures homelessness – page 1

Less than 100 new homes: The following wards delivered less than 100 truly affordable homes in the past six years:

Housing cures homelessness – page 1

Ward 15 (Howard Moscoe)

Ward 20 (Olivia Chow)

Ward 32 (Sandra Bussin)

Ward 40 (Norm Kelly)

Housing cures homelessness – page 1

“Affordable” vs. “truly affordable” housing: The City of Toronto’s current definition of “affordable” housing is based on the Average Market Rents (AMRs) calculated annually by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The AMR for Toronto for the typical two-bedroom apartment in 2004 was $1,052. Based on the standard affordability calculation (30% of annual household income to shelter), a renter household would need an annual income of $42,000 to actually afford the so-called “affordable” rent. Statistics Canada reports that there are about 100,000 households in Toronto paying more than 50% of their income on rent – pushing them to the brink of homelessness. The average income for these households is about $16,600 – about 40% of the amount needed to cover the so-called “affordable” rent. For these households, a truly affordable rent would be about $415.

Fix flaw #1 – Reject the proposed ban on “camping”

Proposed bylaw illegal, cruel, ineffective and counter-productive: The proposal to amend the Nathan Phillips’ bylaw to ban “camping” is simply an attempt to use municipal legislation to drive homeless people to a less visible location. It will almost certainly be challenged legally as a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the proposal is profoundly cruel and – as the New York City experience shows – it will be ineffective in reducing the number of homeless people. Driving homeless people away from the relatively safe location of Nathan Phillips will also frustrate the homeless outreach strategy that underpins the “Streets into Homes” report by making homeless people less accessible to outreach workers.

New homes, not new laws, required: The recent opening of a new emergency shelter on Edward Street helped to reduce the number of homeless people at Nathan Phillips Square. That shelter is set to close in the spring. The homeless of Toronto need housing, not new laws designed to harass them.

Fix flaw #2 – Commit at least an additional $14.2 million in new city dollars

Finally, city moves to spend municipal housing funds: The “Street into Homes” report does not call for any new municipal funding or other resources for desperately-needed new housing. Instead, the report calls for the allocation of at least $14.2 million from a city housing fund created in 2000, plus allocations from other existing funds. Most Torontonians would be shocked to learn that the city has had millions of dollars sitting idle in a housing fund during the worst affordable rental housing crisis in memory. It is long-past time that the city is finally moving to commit these housing dollars.

City should match re-allocated funds with at least an additional $14.2 million. The “Streets into Homes” report correctly notes that the bulk of the funding for new social (subsidized) homes must come from senior levels of government. However, the city needs to commit new dollars to demonstrate that it is prepared to be a serious partner in creating new homes. As a start, the city should double its commitment to new housing by providing $14.2 million in addition to the $14.2 million in existing funding. This would send a strong signal to senior levels of government. The city can get these funds either from other city programs (such as the police) or through tax revenues. This money, in addition to other city resources (such as land, reduced or waived fees, levies and taxes, and other incentives), will allow for an additional 1,000 new truly affordable units. It will also make sure that the new units offer rents that are affordable to low and moderate-income Torontonians – those which need the new homes the most.