In 2007, Naomie Klein published The shock strategy: the rise of disaster capitalism. It’s a rather fascinating book in which she attempts to demonstrate that the champions of unbridled free enterprise take advantage of crises to promote reforms, actions that, in another context, would not pass the ramp: deregulation, privatization, reduction taxes and levies, massive subsidies, etc.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
In our country, the phenomenon has begun to occur in the area of housing.
The daily The right of Gatineau reported1 that, even if the municipal council authorized the construction of some 4000 new doors in the last year, the industry does not accept that the municipal council blocked 34 of them… to respect its own planning! “There is a historic housing crisis, we are not going to get out of it by continuing with the current rules,” says the Association of Construction and Housing Professionals of Quebec. Other promoters, everywhere in Quebec, denounce the “not in my backyard” or even demand financial assistance to build. Because the crisis gives them a strong argument, there is a great danger of losing important public protection tools for a long time.
“But it’s in my backyard!” »
Promoters always denounce the “not in my backyard” (I’m not sure they would do the same if we were talking about theirs!). In particular, they denounce the ability of citizens to block by referendum a project whose realization requires a zoning change.
A zoning change can allow, for example, to increase the number of floors in a project or to add an economic activity that was not provided for in the regulations, an activity that can very well include nuisances for communities such as a significant increase in traffic on the street or even noise.
This possibility of demanding a referendum constitutes one of the rare really powerful tools in the hands of the communities. The very existence of this regulation forces promoters to talk to people and submit more interesting projects. This possibility must not be carried away by the shock strategy.
We build for a long time
If we have to change urban planning, which may be desirable, it cannot be improvised, for two reasons: firstly because the choices it frames are too important for the future, but also because that it is the result of extensive consultations.
Urban planning constitutes, in a way, a social contract between residents, business people and civil society. We can’t change it on the fly in the name of a major crisis, but still limited in time. You don’t build a house or a neighborhood thinking about the next three or four years, you build them for 75 or 100 years. People in a neighborhood will live for a long time with a building that was built too high or in the wrong place.
The free market?
The industry also claims that a freer market will solve the crisis. It is equivalent to asserting that if everyone were armed, there would be fewer gun deaths. The proposed solution is, in fact, the source of the problem.
The free market has never, ever met the demand for affordable housing.
While seniors often struggle to find housing, 11 Montreal boroughs are preparing to adopt zoning regulations to prevent seniors’ residences from being converted to more lucrative uses.
The challenge is even greater for people looking for affordable housing. In the context of debates at the Saint-Hyacinthe municipal council, a promoter declared frankly: “Usually, we give ourselves the objective of remaining at a low price, but at the moment, that is not possible. »2
Moreover, many cities are experiencing spectacular real estate growth, but this does not influence the crisis, the housing being built is too expensive.
Social and community housing is the only one for which affordability is guaranteed in the long term. It is also the one that best meets the needs of the most vulnerable tenant households. The issue is public funding. Thousands of housing units could be built across Quebec if funding for appropriate programs were increased3.
To compensate for the timidity of Quebec and Ottawa, cities now subsidize housing. In Gaspésie, some cities give up to $15,000 per door in subsidies to real estate developers. These are subsidies without obligation for the housing concerned to be affordable. It may speed up some projects that would have happened anyway, but it won’t solve the crisis for the poorest.
Weakening the regulatory framework, disempowering citizens, improvising changes to planning, subsidizing traditional housing are actions that will not resolve the crisis. Entrepreneurs will make short-term profits, and we will be stuck for a long time with poorly built neighborhoods and weakened public protection tools. The shock strategy will have worked. Let’s take care.