The housing crisis is rife despite programs aimed at increasing supply or directly or indirectly subsidizing rent. Vacancy rates are at their lowest, almost zero in places, and prices continue to climb excessively. The horror stories of people left behind are piling up.
The existing measures are helpful, but clearly they are not enough to get us out of the crisis. This observation may stem from their common point, namely to target only the tenant. Landlords, hardly affected by these measures, continue to do as they please, because they do nothing to change the rules of the game. Even those that impose a number of affordable housing units on them are not up to the task: nothing guarantees the level or duration of this affordability.
It is time to change the rules of the game. The current problem stems from the fact that housing is used as a commodity rather than a structuring and essential social infrastructure. And who says commodity says market economy. The goal is no longer to house someone, but to get rich. But don’t get me wrong: investing in a building to create a good retirement fund is completely legitimate. Owners and developers also have rights.
Two-speed regime
So why not create a two-speed regime from scratch? On the one hand, there would be a housing stock that would obey the laws of the market and, on the other hand, a housing stock whose housing prices would be capped by a public body, such as the Administrative Housing Tribunal. Like doctors, who can treat people privately or publicly—under the umbrella of the Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec, or not—owners would have the choice of registering their buildings with one either of the regimes.
Those who would choose the “private” regime would be in competition with each other and would set the prices as they saw fit. The others, adhering to the “social” regime, could not set prices beyond established thresholds, but would receive, in return, incentive benefits: financial aid for maintenance, payment of credit checks for prospective tenants, tax relief, guarantee of bonus of the capital invested during the resale of the building, etc.
Obviously, the social system would favor access to housing in its housing stock for people on low incomes or in a situation of vulnerability. And nothing would prevent the public authority from setting several price thresholds applicable to different categories of tenants, according to different needs.
Certainly, the details are to be refined. Experts would be able to formulate recommendations that hold water. But let’s concede that we cannot hope for different results by continually introducing the same type of programs. The time has come to take a critical look at this market and transform this “commodity” into an indispensable, universal and equitable social good.