Blog » Ren Thomas

Participatory budgeting in Canadian municipalities?

In my previous post, I wrote that many Canadians don’t know much about municipal planning processes, the implications of the legal division of powers in Canada, and what this means for service provision in our cities. In this vein, readers might be interested in some examples of municipal efforts at citizen engagement that go beyond the often-uninspired public meeting.

Participatory budgeting originated in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 1989. It’s driven by core principles such as democracy, equity, community, education, and transparency. Thousands of citizens assemble in Porto Alegre each year to elect delegates to represent each city district, prioritize demands, serve on the Municipal Council of the Budget, and produce a binding municipal budget. Proponents of participatory budgeting say that because people with the greatest needs play a larger role in the decision-making process, spending decisions tend to redistribute resources to communities in need. In Porto Alegre, for example, there has been a marked increase in funding for badly-needed sanitary sewer projects and schools. Participatory budgeting is used in about 140 municipalities in Brazil as well as towns and cities in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, India and Africa. It is used for municipal school, university, and public housing budgets.

Several Canadian municipalities have also used the process: Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) allows its tenants to participate in decision-making on local, neighbourhood and city-wide spending priorities. TCHC’s participatory budgeting process first took place in 2001, when tenants were asked to help decide how to spend $9 million per year (13.5% of TCHC’s budget); 237 local capital projects were funded. In Guelph, residents allocate a small portion of the City’s budget through the Guelph Neighbourhood Support Coalition. Since 1999, neighbourhood groups have been sharing and redistributing resources for local community projects, including recreation programs, youth centres, and physical improvements to community facilities. In 2005 some 10,000 people participated in the process and 460 events and programs were funded.

In a review of participatory budgeting efforts in Canadian cities, Daniel Chavez and Einar Braathen outline several challenges for participatory budgeting in Canada: the fact that Canadians are extremely diverse in language and culture, the small scale of these efforts so far, the limited power of citizens in the process, the fact that none of them have fundamentally changed their cities’ political systems or created a more progressive social agenda, and the potential for the process to become co-opted by politicians.

City of Calgary Budget planning website

Other efforts at participatory processes in budget planning have included the Cities ofToronto, Calgary and Vancouver. In each case municipal officials encouraged citizens to get involved in the City’s budget planning. For the 2004 City of Toronto budget, Mayor David Miller initiated the Listening to Toronto consultations. A City Budget Community Workbook was posted on the website and seven public sessions were held. This wasn’t participatory budgeting (participants didn’t help formulate priorities that were then adopted); in a process similar to integrating feedback from public meetings, participants’ ideas were used to guide City Council during the drafting of the budget.

In February 2011, Calgary Mayor Naheed Nehshi opened up the budget planning process to the public through a citywide engagement process. In “Our City. Our Budget. Our Future.” the City aimed to help people feel like they were part of the process, make the budgetary process clearer by simplifying communication from city staff, and gather ideas on the budget. Their online budgeting tool allowed users to see how much each department currently spent, and what an increase or decrease in areas like transportation or safety would look like. The City heard from 24,000 people during this process.

“We used to do things like open houses and town halls when we had those discussions. And what we learned this time around is that the open houses and the town halls are the most expensive and least successful part of the process.”– Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi

Again, citizens’ ideas were considered in drafting the budget, which was adopted in November 2011. The new three-year budget resulted in property tax rate increases of 6.0% in 2012, 5.7% in 2013 and 6.1% in 2014 and included (among other things) additional funding of $1 million for Calgary Transit, a reserve fund of $3.5 million for snow clearing in 2013 and 2014, a $225,000 increase to the Calgary Arts Development Authority.

A screen shot from the City of Vancouver Budget Allocator

The City of Vancouver followed suit this year, encouraging citizens to get involved in the 2012 budget process. In addition to attending public meetings and completing an online survey on budget priorities, a section of the City’s website lets users to download a primer explaining how the budget works (how the city raises funds, what percentage of taxes goes to pay for utilities, fire and police services, etc.). The interactive tool lets them “be Councillor for a day, see what it costs to run a city.” This simple tool gives you options to remain at the current level of funding or to increase or decrease funding levels in each area. When you’ve finished making your budget, the Budget Allocator tells you whether you have a surplus or a deficit, and how much you would have to raise taxes to cover the increased costs. You can submit your budget, along with the reasons for your choices, directly to city staff: if you’re a local, go to www.talkvancouver.com/Budget 2012 before February 10th to have your say.

In short, there are varying levels of participation in budget processes, from consultation to surveys to participatory budgeting. In addition to various levels of power for the participants, the educational aspects differ as well: one could argue that while Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver have made strides in educating the public on the budgetary process, they stop short of allowing residents to learn how to prioritize spending objectives and vote on them. Nevertheless, Canadians in other municipalities might want to find out how their budget works, when their budget is up for adoption and what the process is for citizen involvement. With so many online and interactive ways to get involved, there seem to be many opportunities to inform and involve communities that may not participate otherwise: young adults, immigrant groups, seniors living in facilities, etc. High school teachers, college and university professor could use the online budgeting tools in civics, planning, political science, or urban studies courses. Immigrant groups could organize online participation at a community event. Residents and health care support workers could help seniors participate. If your municipality doesn’t currently encourage participation in the city budget process, ask your councillor to suggest the idea.

The problems with democracy

“Rumours of the death of Transit City have been greatly exaggerated.” –Toronto Councillor Joe Mihevc, former vice-chair of the TTC

According to lawyer Freya Kristjanson, an expert in municipal governance, Mayor Rob Ford did not have the right to cancel the Transit City plan without council approval. In an article in today’s Toronto Star, Kristjanson says that generally, executive and legislative powers rest with full council, in a “weak mayor-strong council” system. The City of Toronto Act (2007) requires that any act approved by council must be rescinded or amended by a subsequent vote of council. That includes Transit City. The legal firm of Cavalluzzo, Hayes, Shilton, McIntyre & Cornish, who produced the report, says Transit City was approved by council in 2007 as part of the Climate Change, Clean Air and Sustainable Energy Action Plan. “After that, City Council considered and voted on the necessary elements of the program as they came before council.” So when Mayor Ford signed an MOU with the province pursuing his “subways only” alternative plan, he was acting without legal authority. The lawyers’ report says that council must vote on the MOU for it to be valid; until then, it is only an agreement in principle.

The legal ramifications of Ford’s decision, made on his first day of office in December 2010, are yet to be seen, as are the economic costs (the unofficial estimate is $65 million). When Ford announced his intention to cancel Transit City, city councillors asked the Mayor to put the matter before council, but he refused, denying that the plan ever had council approval. My Toronto readers surely remember that Ford rode a wave of local support to victory, and a provincial election was to be held a mere 10 months after the municipal election; there was significant momentum, legal issues notwithstanding, propelling Ford’s rash decision.

Transit advocates like myself are interested in any policy or procedure that might restore a more balanced transit plan to the City of Toronto (kudos to Marcus Gee at The Globe and Mail, whose frustration at the City of Toronto’s lack of transit infrastructure foresight was unmistakable in “Toronto’s transit planning: No way to run a railway”, Saturday, January 27, 2012).

“Transit planning in Toronto is a colossal, humiliating failure. It is hard to imagine how any city could make a better hash of it…A city cannot act like this and expect to build a decent transit system. Rapid transit requires long-term planning, firm, consistent leadership and huge amounts of money. Cities that do it properly come up with a plan looking decades into the future and stick to it. Toronto? Toronto plays politics, cancels projects in midstream, draws up plans only to rip them up and delays, delays, delays.”–Marcus Gee, The Globe and Mail

But at the heart of this procedural debate is how little most of us know about municipal governance in Canadian cities. All of us, whether we are city councillors, planners, electricians, teachers, service workers, or students, need to familiarize ourselves with municipal and regional governance as it concerns service provision, local by-laws, and local budgetary decisions. Without a certain level of ignorance of our most basic legal principles (or an unwilingness to defend them, take your pick) Ford would never have been able to sign the fated MOU. Yes, legal principles on governance seem dry and uninteresting, and to be fair, the City of Toronto Act is only a few years old, so residents might be forgiven for not knowing all the details. But almost every aspect of our lives, from whether we can get our children into day care centres to whether our snow gets plowed on schedule, depends upon the division of powers between municipalities, the provinces, and the federal government. While Ford’s supporters allege that the defense of weak policy is a reliance on legal procedure, the office of Mayor compels adherence to specific legal procedures. Ford knows that, which is why his decision to cancel the Transit City plan hinged on his denial of its approval by council. Presumably, provincial Premier Dalton McGuinty is also familiar with these procedures from his career as a lawyer; yet, the MOU remains.

Maybe we need a new CBC series on the soap opera that has ensued since Ford took office. “…after DaVinci’s City Hall, tune in for Ford Twinmayor: Riding the Gravy Train.”

SCARP Symposium: Planning for an Uncertain Urban Future

Two weeks from today, SCARP students will be running their Symposium, a great event that tends to draw a crowd of current students, alumni, and planning professionals of all sorts. This year’s Keynote Speakers are Tony Dorcey (SCARP professor emeritus), Bill Rees (SCARP professor emeritus and co-creator of the Ecological Footprint), Richard Heinberg (author of The End of Growth: Adapting to our New Economic Reality), and Mike Harcourt (Premier of British Columbia, 1991-1996).

As a SCARP alumni, I’m putting together an alumni panel for students to learn about careers in planning, which will feature Deana Grinnell (Parklane Homes), Michelle Babiuk (TransLink), Lil Ronalds (City of Vancouver), Sawngjai Manityakul (Halcrow), and Diana Leung (City of Vancouver). Current students are encouraged to come out and ask these accomplished planners all about their career paths. Other panels include “Occupy Planning: The Future of the 99%”, “Stranger to Supper: Building Community Through Local Food Networks”, and “Beyond Just Asking Questions: Engaging Youth in Community Planning.” Every one of these is chock-full of planning experts who will tell you all about their initiatives, policies and programs.

All you SCARP alumni out there, come and join us for a fantastic day and meet up with old and new friends! SCARP now has an official designation as part of the UBC Alumni network, with a president and everything (thanks Adam Cooper for taking on this role!) Registration ends Feb. 6th, so make sure to sign up at www.scarpsymposium.ca.

The dream is alive in the Great White North

We can all rest easy. Despite many studies showing increased income inequality and a shrinking middle class in Canada, a rags-to-riches story is more likely to happen here than in the “land of opportunity.”

University of Ottawa professor Miles Corak, a social policy economist and former director of family and labour research at Statistics Canada, and his co-authors Lori Curtis (Professor of Economics, University of Waterloo) and Shelley Phipps (Professor of Economics, Dalhousie University) found that Canadians are three times more economically mobile than those in the US. The difference is largely due to those at the very top and the very bottom of the income distribution. In Economic Mobility, Family Background, and the Well-Being of Children in the United States and Canada, the three researchers found that social supports such as the Child Tax Credit, paid parental leave benefits, and schools funded through provincial income taxes help ensure that children receive better care and schooling than in the US, where these supports are absent and schools are funded through local property taxes, leaving poor neighbourhoods with failing schools. With sky-high tuition fees at universities, the richest Americans can buy their children the best educations and tutors. These differences between rich and poor mean that if you’re born poor in the US, you tend to stay poor; this also applies to the 1%–the very top of the income pyramid. For example, although “the average Canadian child is not as affluent as the average American, the poorest Canadian is not as poor in an absolute sense as Americans at the bottom of the income distribution.” This may help explain why discussions of class are more prevalent in the American literature and popular press.

The authors caution that rising income inequality rates in Canada could erode the high rate of economic mobility that we see now. Indeed, a look at their graphs shows that we still have issues: 15% our poorest children may still grow up to have incomes in the lowest decile (Figure 3, p7), but they have a better chance at the 7th, 8th, and 9th deciles than they do in the US. More Canadian children are born in the lower income deciles than American children (Figure 8, p33). But Table 1 (p21) shows some clear differences in the characteristics of families and parents. In Canada, 2.1% of children are born to teenage mothers; in the US, it’s 8.3%. In Canada, 14.9% of mothers are single compared to 22.1% in the US. Far more mothers and lone mothers in Canada have completed some post-secondary education or a post-secondary certificate (but oddly, more American mothers have completed degrees). Health problems among the poorest mothers are also more prevalent in the US, likely due to the cost of health care. As the authors suggest, Canadians must protect policies such as paid parental leave, the right to return to their jobs after the birth of a child, tax-transfer programs that help reduce the severity of poverty, and funding for schools through provincial income tax, ensuring a more equal distribution of resources across municipalities and neighbourhoods. Although we have fewer barriers to health care, we need to ensure the lower-income population has sufficient knowledge on navigating the health care system and can pay for prescription medication.

Corak, Curtis and Phipps write that “The citizens of both countries have a similar understanding of a successful life, one that is rooted in individual aspirations and freedom. They also have similar views on how these goals should be attained, but with one important exception: Americans differ in that they are more likely to see the State hindering rather than helping the attainment of these goals. Yet, at the same time the citizens of both countries recognize the need for public policy to contribute to reaching this ideal, with Americans believing more than Canadians that a whole host of interventions would be effective in improving the prospects for economic mobility. One interpretation of these findings – an interpretation that only becomes evident in a comparative context – is that in some sense this need is going unmet in the United States.”

Vancouver’s social stalemate

If anyone needs proof that Vancouver is in a class of its own (our placement on the Most Liveable Cities and Worst Dressed Cities lists notwithstanding), here it is. Last May, Vanessa Richmond wrote an article in The Tyee which posed the question, “What the heck is wrong with men in Vancouver?” Considering the interest spurred by my blog post on Richmond’s article, I thought readers might enjoy Vancouver Magazine‘s dip in the tepid social waters of Shangri-La.

Katherine Ashenburg’s “Do Vancouver men suck?” (published on that most optimistic of dates, January 1, 2012) tears apart the West Coast male, citing passivity, lack of career motivation, over-attention to fitness activities like the Grouse Grind, and teenage fashion sense among the city’s singles. (To be fair, Vancouver’s third-place finish on the worst-dressed cities list can be attributed as much to women as men: Lululemon yoga pants are as common as the fleece-and-hiking-boots combo in this city.) Ashenburg writes, “The Grind is indeed a metaphor for the single life in Vancouver–daunting, strenuous, semi-natural, and so not romantic.”

As many readers commented, Vancouver men might be less likely to approach women, flirt with them, or assist them with daily activities like carrying heavy packages…but Vancouver women are also notoriously cold, treating harmless social advances as acts of harrassment. Ashenburg’s article opened with the tableau of a group of women bitching about the crappiness of men in this city, illustrating the unapproachable social characteristics that seem to evoke bitterness in the males of the species. One commenter, fedupvancouverguy, pointed out the mismatch between the overly-materialistic women portrayed in the article, who refuse to look past the scruffy, laid-back exterior that is the norm in a city where relentless pursuit of money is not the end goal: “The guys dressed in jeans and scuffed shoes sitting at the longbar at Joeys at 2 pm on a Tuesday might be losers, but there’s just as good a chance that they’re mining-industry guys discussing yet another deal to sell their find or project to a bigger firm for big, big money. Welcome to Vancouver.”

Whether or not readers agree with Ashenburg’s portrayal of the masculine, responses to the article consistently point out the social differences between Vancouver and international cities, notably a painfully strained cultural norm where cliquey behaviour and closed responses make it clear that your attempts at friendliness are going nowhere. VanMag’s editors published one reader response to Ashenburg’s article: Jorge Amigo’s “Do Vancouver women suck?” (January 9, 2012) Amigo cites the numerous attempts he’s made at conversation with women over the past five years. Whether on the bus, the beach, the park, Vancouver women have returned his friendly comments with panic, coldness, and even outright rudeness. Numerous responses confirmed his suspicions: Vancouver women find random friendliness threatening, because inevitably they’ve been approached/trapped in weird conversations/followed home/groped by men they’ve met in public settings. However, what is interesting is that again, nobody is questioning that this is the norm in Vancouver. Are female residents of other cities, like Toronto, New York, or London, any less likely to have experienced random creepiness? Having lived in many different cities, I’d say that women’s fear of being approached by strange men is pretty universal. But somehow in these other cities, men and women flirt, ask each other out, and date…and the crux of Richmond’s, Ashenburg’s and Amigo’s articles is that, outside of the random creepy advances that exist in every city around the world, normal conversation and friendliness between the sexes are much more constrained in Vancouver. This applies to people trying to make friends here as well: numerous responses highlighted the cliquey behaviour of those who were born and raised here, already have their group of friends, and don’t want to add any outsiders to their close-knit group.

In a city renowned for its banal social scene and steeped in social media, have men and women forgotten how to actually talk to each other? If this weren’t the case, dating and relationship coach Ronald Lee would have no clients. But there is hope in another cliché: according to Amigo, the only places women let down their guard a little is in the ubiquitous coffee shop. There, a woman might “temporarily defrost her Vancouver ice-wall” and “respond normally when you ask to borrow a chair, offer a friendly nod when you comment on the amazingness of the shoes she’s wearing, poke fun at your accent, and appreciate your healthy banter.” While it seems to be acknowledged that there’s something in the water out west that kills mojo, more efforts at friendliness would seem to be the solution. As one of Ashenburg’s female interview subjects stated about the single scene in Vancouver, “Men need to take more risks and women need to shut up [about how crap men are].”

“Don’t drink the housing market Kool-Aid”

Canada’s housing boom was recently hailed as one of the longest in the Western world. But as 2011 drew to an end, housing market experts issued dire warnings that the housing market is cooling. Merrill Lynch, the Bank of Canada, TD, Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal have all said that Canadians could face challenging markets for the next two years, particularly in BC and Ontario.

Despite Toronto’s red-hot market, Rob Carrick of The Globe and Mail says one of the best ways to build wealth in 2012 is to avoid “drinking the housing market Kool-Aid”. Among his other tips: “Explore your inner renter” (Gen X and Gen Y, and Boomer editions). Carrick is one of many experts advocating renting over housing as the market destabilizes. US apartment vacancies hit a ten-year low in December at 5.2 percent as rising foreclosures, tighter mortgage lending standards, and low housing starts made rental housing the best-performing segment of commercial real estate for two straight years. In addition to traditional low-vacancy locales like New York City, low vacancy rates abound in New Haven, CT, Minneapolis, MN, Portland, OR, and San Jose, CA; rents rose the quickest in Chattanooga, TN and Austin, TX. Canadians, holding on to the dream of homeownership with the grim desperation of Americans before the mortgage crisis, remain unmoved.

Last month, The IMF (that’s the International Monetary Fund, not the Impossible Missions Force) called for a review of the rules that govern Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, one of the largest financial institutions in the country, which operates without formal oversight. The IMF suggested the crown corporation needed stronger risk management because CMHC backs mortgages with less than 20% down through mortgage insurance, Canadians have record levels of household debt, and some cities have housing-bubble prices. With household debt at a record 150 percent of disposable income, the IMF warned that a drop in housing prices would be a blow to indebted consumers. The Canadian economy, which grew by 3.2 percent amid global financial meltdowns, is expected to weaken this year.

With the country in its 13th year of rising home prices, experts have been predicting a price adjustment for many years. CMHC has taken several steps to tighten mortgage lending and last year the federal government made changes to the National Housing Act to compensate the government for the risk it is taking through CMHC’s mortgage insurance. With the US housing market still in recovery and the Chinese government taking steps to prevent a housing collapse this year, Canada is poised for a tumultuous 2012.

Congratulations Dr. Silvia Vilches and Dr. Danielle Labbé

I’ve been much too preoccupied with my own doctoral exam and graduation from SCARP to celebrate the accomplishments of two of my fellow Ph.D.s, both of whom defended in October. This is long overdue!

Dr. Danielle Labbé has spent years studying how a small locality, Hoa Muc in Viet Nam, has made the shift from a rural village to an urban neighbourhood (access her dissertation, On the Edge: A History of Livelihood and Land Politics on the Margins of Ha Noi, here). Her analysis focused on the villagers’ livelihoods and land strategies in the context of state regulations and territorialization projects, demonstrating how local practices and norms interact with the state’s regulatory function to shape the periurbanization process. Dr. Labbé recently began her postdoctoral research at York University’s CITY Institute.

Dr. Silvia Vilches has also reached a significant milestone with her dissertation, entitled Dreaming a Way Out: Social Planning Responses to the Agency of Lone Mothers Experiencing Neo-Liberal Welfare Reform in Western Canada (click here to download). She used grounded theory and narrative analysis to explore in-depth interviews from a longitudinal study of 17 lone mothers over a three-year period. She argues that “without recognizing women’s agency, impoverished lone parent families will remain invisible and underserved by existing planning practices.” Dr. Vilches has just started a postdoctoral research position with Dr. Jane Pulkingham at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver. Since we shared the same supervisor (Dr. Penny Gurstein) Silvia and I have shared many experiences at SCARP. The most memorable include last year’s ACSP conference and this summer’s road trip to Calgary for the CAG/ACUPP conference, where we presented in a joint session with Penny and our colleague Naomi Bartz. I always say I learned as much from my colleagues as my professors, and in Silvia’s case this is particularly true!

Congratulations to two of SCARP’s best!

Economics 101

Obviously, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford only has a cursory knowledge of economics. He was, after all, elected to “trim the fat” from a city budget that he considered overflowing with “gravy”. He said he could do this without cutting city services. And yet, while city services get hacked to the bone, high-profile citizens like Margaret Atwood campaign to save Toronto library branches from closure, and nearly 1200 City employees await pink slips, Ford has personally wasted about $65 million.

As many of you know, Ford’s first order of business when he was sworn into office last December was to cancel Transit City. I leave aside the insanity of refusing to implement provincially-funded transit infrastructure in the largest city in the country. I won’t go into the fact that increases in TTC ridership actually resulted in a $60 million budget surplus in 2010 and the system even saw a 3% increase in 2011 (in what world is high transit ridership rewarded with intense cuts to transit services?) I won’t even dwell on the Scarborough LRT riders who will now be forced to ride buses for four years while their crumbling line is rebuilt. I will concentrate on just one fact: the man who said he could save taxpayers’ money already cost them millions of dollars in cancellation costs. In a single day: his first day in office.

Now, I’m no economist. But clearly, neither is Ford. The false duality between services or no services is a device often raised by the balance-the-budget crowd to enable cuts. Canada’s largest public-sector union recently slammed the federal government for forcing Canadians to make an “absurd choice” between a balanced budget and strong public services. Among the services provided by the Public Services Alliance of Canada are environmental protection, food inspection, infectious disease tracking and search-and-rescue. After years of fiscal restraint, PSAC is concerned that a government-wide austerity program will seriously disrupt services in communities across the country. Do we really want to risk increases in E. coli or Avian flu in our cities just to save a few bucks? As we enter the winter months, does decreasing search-and-rescue funding make sense? PSAC insists that balancing spending and services doesn’t require an either-or choice (check out their hilarious videos at ThirdChoice.ca).

As Jim Stanford writes in The Globe and Mail, running a government like a corporation cannot possibly work: while Canadian corporations have retained strong profit margins and benefitted from tax cuts, they’re too spooked by recent financial chaos to actually spend their growing cash hoard. Their reticence is deeply damaging to the system as a whole. Stanford argues that governments shouldn’t focus on decreasing their own spending and debt, but on getting people back to work. And for that, they need more spending, not less. Increased government spending during recessions has been a staple since the Great Depession. You would think Mayor Ford might have learned that over the course of multiple recessions in Ontario.

Housing innovations: the past is the future

The home building industry may not have recovered in the US, but apartment construction is making a comeback. Within a few short years of the foreclosure crisis, everyone from architects to developers to planners have begun turning back the clock to a time when renting apartments and living in rooming houses were affordable, socially acceptable alternatives to homeownership.

Recently, journalist Neal Peirce advocated the return of rooming houses to address the need for smaller, more affordable units for young people, who have been adversely affected by the US recession (“Bring back the rooming house?” citiwire.net, November 12, 2011). Like other notable writers (Edward Glaeser, Richard Florida, Mark Hinshaw, Joanna Pachner), Peirce argues that it’s time to turn a new page on the postwar suburban single-family home:

“Unquestionably, tens of millions of oncoming youth will disconnect from the American vision of home as a “homestead”–the self-contained units of our American forbears, translated since World War II by a suburban home occupying its own lot.” Neal Peirce, Washington Post Writers Group (citiwire.net)

Among the reasons young people will need new, affordable housing options: lower salaries, lower employment rates, delayed marriage resulting in more single-person households, a desire to live in mixed-use neighbourhoods near transit, and lower car ownership (does this sound familiar?) In Canada, the rising demographics (youth and young adults, immigrants, single-person and single-parent households, seniors) would probably jump at the chance to live in rooming houses, worker housing or affordable rental units, considering housing prices across the country. For example, where do you live if you’re an immigrant in Canada on a temporary worker permit? Your only real choice is renting a market-rate apartment, likely sharing with people you scarcely know. Downsizing senior? Good luck finding a condo that costs less than your house once maintenance fees are added in. Young adult working in your first job? You’ll be forking over about one-third of your salary to rent, even if you live in a mid-sized city.

Hinshaw, a Seattle-based architect and planner, argues that the recession has forced cities to think about Smart Growth rather than rushing forward into new development faster than public investments can be made (“Recession is producing a needed reset on land use”, www.crosscut.com, September 30, 2011). Now, cities and counties have the time to decide how and where to move forward. Some areas where local governments have made progress, according to Hinshaw: economic development through the construction of shared public spaces, redesigning streets to encourage different travel modes, and the development of rental housing.

“For far too long, elected officials and citizen groups have treated apartment developments like a pariah, relegating them to noisy arterial streets or slamming them behind strip malls. It’s as if only decent folk are those who own single family homes. If we learned anything from the past five years it is that the American ideal of home ownership has been cruelly oversold.” Mark Hinshaw, www.crosscut.com

Changing development conditions (stricter lending standards, foreclosures, and a rapidly growing rental market) have made investing in multi-family rental housing a safe move for developers who, just a couple of years ago, would have built high-rise condos. Increased demand for rental units has resulted in rent increases in many cities that can provide developers a reasonable return on their investments (“Demand for Denver apartments exceeds supply”, November 29, 2011, NPR). NPR reports that this could be a lasting trend; one that harkens back to an era of when renting was more common than owning in many countries. In Canada, for example, pressing postwar housing needs were met through a boom in apartment construction during the 1950s.

If only Canadian provincial and federal governments would enable developers to build rental housing, rooming houses, granny flats and other housing types that would provide alternatives for various demographic and income groups. We’d have to turn back the clock to the 1970s, when experiments like co-operative housing became popular in Canada as foreclosures and interest rates rose. It seems that during economic crises, homeownership loses its rosy glow. Renting, co-housing, co-operatives, rooming houses, and rent subsidies make more sense to policy makers, developers, and planners during economic downturns, when few can afford to buy and governments are too poor to subsidize ownership. And yet, as all the authors cited in this article point out, North Americans still display a slavish dedication to the “dream of homeownership”; most have long forgotten that the “dream” was enabled by dirt-cheap postwar mortgages, artificially-low interest rates and government incentives for first-time homebuyers. If the current rental housing trend persists for more than five years in the US, and Canada finally passes its national affordable housing strategy, we might see the beginnings of a paradigm shift to rival the one that gave us single-family suburban homeownership in the first place.

Treading a new path: Indigenous planning at SCARP

The multitude of planning concerns faced by Aboriginal communities across Canada hit national headlines a few weeks ago when Attawapiskat, a First Nations community of about 2,000 in northern Ontario, declared a state of emergency. Horrific health conditions exacerbated by poor water supply, sewage problems, inadequate housing and schools resulting from decades of wrangling over governance and funding have devastated the community. The conditions prompted the Red Cross to provide emergency relief, provoked international criticism and launched intense debates in the House of Commons (“NDP challenges Harper to visit Attawapiskat himself”, The Globe and Mail November 30, 2011, “Aboriginal Affairs Minister dispatches team to Attawapiskat“, The Globe and Mail November 25, 2011). This is, in fact, the fourth time Attawapiskat has declared a state of emergency due to chronic infrastructure failures. Many serious health and housing issues persist in Aboriginal communities. The need for First Nations, Inuit and Métis (who comprise Canada’s Aboriginal peoples) to use their own knowledge and self-determination in planning their communities, for planners to help with the development of local plans and help negotiate collaboration, has never been greater. On a hopeful note, the UBC School of Community and Regional Planning (SCARP) is embarking on a new initiative in 2012: the launch of the Indigenous Planning concentration within our current Masters program with the First Nations House of Learning.

SCARP professor Leonie Sandercock has been working with First Nations communities for several years. Her most recent work, the documentary film Finding Our Way, highlighted the decades of turmoil faced within the Ts’il Kaz Koh First Nation (Burns Lake Band), the Cheslatta Carrier Band, and the Village of Burns Lake, BC. Dr. Sandercock has been instrumental in working with the First Nations House of Learning and members of the Musqueam, Carrier, Nisga’a and Cree Métis Nations to develop the Indigenous Planning concentration at SCARP. Professor Ted Jojola of the University of New Mexico Community and Regional Planning program also advised UBC on the creation of the program; the planning program at the UNM School of Architecture and Planning has an Indigenous Planning component and hosts an Indigenous Architecture lecture series. Dr. Jojola visited UBC recently for an “Indigenous Planning Teach-In” hosted by SCARP and the First Nations House of Learning. At this event the Tsawwassen First Nation, Musqueam First Nation and Westbank First Nation presented their community plans, highlighting public participation processes and the role of external planners as consultants in plan development. Several non-Aboriginal professionals specializing in law, governance, community economic development, and cross-cultural planning spoke about their work with Aboriginal communities across Canada. (Watch a video about the development of the degree, featuring scenes from the Teach-In, here.)

There have been some fantastic examples of Aboriginal community planning in recent years: the Seabird Island First Nation in BC built its own housing in partnership with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), National Resources Canada (NRCan), and 25 building industry and community groups in 2003-2004. They later launched the Seabird Sustainable Community Project to provide “information to First Nations and other communities across Canada solve housing challenges in an environmentally sensitive, healthy, energy-efficient and affordable way.” The Ty-Histanis Neighbourhood Development, about 10km from Tofino, BC, is a new community being developed by the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations (TFN) in partnership with CMHC and NRCan (ecoAction and EQuilibrium Communities Initiative). It is applies the TFN concept of Hishuk nish tsawaak (all is one), through practical, sustainable community development principles. The new community will include 171 single-detached units, 32 duplex units and a 12-unit elders’ complex; a school, health clinic, pharmacy, recreation centre, youth centre and elder centre are all located in the core area. The project target is a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gases, mostly through building and energy efficiency. Forty per cent of the development site will remain undisturbed protected habitat, bogs will be used for natural water retention, and walking will be encouraged through footpaths and the mixed-use design of the site.

Clearly, there are many opportunities for planners in Aboriginal communities, whether they are local, community-based planners or external consultants in the planning process. SCARP’s new Indigenous Planning concentration will consist of five core courses covering law and governance, community economic development, regional sustainability planning, cross-cultural skills, and indigenous planning as an emerging paradigm. It will also feature a one-year practicum working in a First Nations community in BC and an optional internship with a First Nations community in the Lower Mainland. It is hoped that graduates (both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal) will go on to ensure immediate infrastructure concerns are addressed, help communities across the country plan for their futures and, over time, prevent crises like Attawapiskat.

Ren Thomas

M.A., Ph.D. (Planning)