NIMBYism stands for “not in my backyard” and happens when residents of a neighbourhood oppose a new development or redevelopment in their area. This can happen for a variety of reasons, and often arises when affordable, supportive or transitional housing is proposed in a neighbourhood. The opposition is often based on the assumed characteristics of the people who will live in the new development (The Homeless Hub). Often, these assumptions may not be true, and the potential benefits of these developments are ignored. As a result, NIMBYism encourages many myths about affordable housing, social housing, or supportive housing.
Myth: Property values go down when affordable housing is built.
Reality: Many studies on affordable housing conclude that affordable housing has no impact, neutral, or even positive impacts on property values.
Myth: Crime will increase.
Reality: A Canadian study (Glaster, 2002) of 146 supportive housing sites concluded that “there was no statistically significant evidence that supportive housing led to increased rates of reported violent, property, criminal mischief, disorderly conduct or total crimes”.
Myth: Traffic will increase where affordable housing is built.
Reality: Any new development with higher density must meet municipal planning standards. Multiple-family dwellings near quality transit services are likely to attract those who will use transit.
Myth: There will be a strain on public services and infrastructure around new affordable housing.
Reality: Higher-density housing in areas with existing infrastructure will need less infrastructure than new developments elsewhere. Higher-density developments can provide the larger customer base needed to increase the range and quality of city services.
Myth: New residents won’t fit into the neighbourhood.
Reality: Often, the future occupants of new affordable housing already live in the neighbourhood. They may live in shared apartments with family members or are struggling to pay market rent by sacrificing food and other necessities.
Myth: Affordable housing won’t fit the character of the neighbourhood.
Reality: Affordable housing must comply with the same building restrictions and design standards as market-rate housing. It will be designed to fit in with the character of the neighbourhood. Newer housing is based on good design and minimal impact.
There are other common misconceptions about affordable housing that arise out of a lack of understanding around housing issues. These can also fuel attitudes against affordable housing developments and negative attitudes about those who would benefit from housing supports.
Myth: Social assistance is available to everyone who needs it.
Reality: The waitlists for social housing and rent-geared-to-income programs in Toronto have waitlists than are 10-20 years long. Many will pass away before attaining affordable housing.
Myth: Social housing is the same as affordable housing.
Reality: The current federal and provincial definition of affordable housing is when housing costs less than 30% of a household’s before-tax income. Social housing refers to housing developments that are subsidized and are owned and operated by non-profit housing organizations and/or government (Source). Depending on the household’s income, a housing unit that is affordable may or may not be subsidized.
Myth: The issue isn’t the cost of rent, it’s money management.
Reality: To afford a the median one-bedroom monthly rent and the cost of living in Toronto, a single person must earn at least $79,000. This estimate does not include accessing other important costs like education and professional development, savings and debt, childcare, and personal care and hygiene. Minimum wage workers, a group that has doubled in Ontario in recent years, earn about $25,000 annually.
Myth: Affordable housing only benefits the very poor; everyone else pays.
Some people impacted by a lack of affordable housing including minimum wage workers, seniors, students, people living on low incomes, immigrants, and those working entry level jobs. The cost of living has increased for everyone. More housing improves city and business revenues and raises the standard of living for lower- and middle-class individuals and families.
Myth: Landlords are just trying to get by, too.
Reality: Tenants are concerned with paying for rent, food, and the necessities of life. Landlords are concerned with continuing to pay the mortgage on their extra property that they don’t really need. They have access to more resources than renters do, whether or not it’s tied up in investments. Landlords are people or corporations that invested extra financial resources into more property (sometimes multiple) than they need to profit off others.
While these myths have fueled NIMBYism, the alternative is YIMBYism: a pro-housing position that supports increasing the supply of housing within cities where housing costs have escalated to unaffordable levels. It recognizes that housing is a human right. Many of us take for granted that we can buy or rent a home without getting permission from neighbours. People have a right to be free from discrimination in housing, and everyone needs a place to live. This is outlined in the Ontario Human Rights Code: “Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination”. (Ontario Human Rights Code, Section 2(1), Accommodation).
However, YIMBYism has been co-opted by some who take the ideas behind it to push for the increase in market-rate housing as a solution to the affordable housing crisis. This is not what we’re referring to. We need relief for folks who can’t afford market-rate housing, who are facing housing insecurity, or living in inadequate housing units. From multi-tenant housing, laneway and garden suites to inclusionary zoning, we need more affordable housing that reflects current income levels and costs of living. Other solutions that can be used to maintain and increase housing affordability include: preserving the current affordable housing stock, implementing rent controls, using rent-geared-to-income, maximizing the number of affordable homes through inclusionary zoning, and making units affordable in perpetuity.
In South Etobicoke, only those making $70,000 a year or more can afford to rent a 1-bedroom unit at the federal definition of affordability. With more affordable homes and rent geared to income, everyone would have a home they can afford, so they can thrive in all parts of their lives in a more equitable way.
Please stay connected https://linktr.ee/southetobicokeha
Written by
Research Assistant Natalie Pilla
