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.
YIMBYism on the other hand is 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). Everyone should have a safe place to call home.
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.
Research Assistant Natalie Pilla
