Submitted by Philip Cox , Member of Planning and Development Committee
I’m thankful to Brenda for setting out her concerns about Sunnyhill’s housing futures project (“Hel*l is full of good intentions or desires”, February 3rd, 2020). Its a big and important undertaking; it needs for us to talk it through.
So here I go with my response hoping that it stimulates others to weigh in.
Brenda: “I am being led down a chute like a proverbial lamb to the slaughter, or more aptly put in Alberta, like cattle to the abattoir.”
Phil: We have been talking about this for ten years. It hasn’t been systematic; it has been halting and messy - it still is. We have been learning as we go, buffeted by shifts in housing policy, programming and funding, all of which have shaped our options.
Brenda: “We’ve had to weather several economic depressions in the past 30 years, and in our desire to keep things affordable, particularly for hurting families, we gave up some things in favour of affordability.”
Phil: Yes, we have had our economic ups and downs and, throughout, members have fallen on hard times. The coop has been ready to support to the extent that our subsidy-surcharge system has allowed. This is something to be proud of and continue with.
But, I’m not sure that this practice of caring and social protection, alone, has caused us to progressively fall behind in our financial readiness to address our structural frailties. Surely, there are multiple factors? One is that we have not had a long range planning orientation for much of the first 40 years. We have been on “auto pilot” - stuck with a high interest mortgage on leased land with few options. Another is that big capital items (like windows) are now, inevitably, at (or beyond) the end of their life cycle.
Brenda: “…we effectively have handed over a good deal of control to the City and left our future in their hands, at least so far as in how their decisions directly affect which course we are able to follow.”
Phil: We have handed over nothing. We started a conversation with the City understanding that our lease runs out in 2039. This is an increasingly untenable situation that, left unaddressed, would have continued to remind us of how little control we actually ever had over our destiny. As you said, “the City holds the key as the landowner”.
What we have done by engaging the City is placed ourselves in a conversation that for the first time casts us as an affordable housing asset rather than a commercial property. We are going down a path that could result in us gaining control over our destiny through ownership.
And, while we have certainly spent money to deal with the City and explore our options, we have also saved money too.
Brenda“…it is not just maudlin emotions that cause my aversion to having a four storey apartment building erected smack in the middle of our co-op complex.”
Phil: We have not looked at housing design. A new build is yet to be decided upon, and design is a few steps down the road. It is certainly true that if we are not thoughtful about the architecture we could end up with an ugly building. But there is plenty of scope for creativity here and we are in the driver’s seat re: design options.
Brenda: “Displacing people from their homes forever is also not optimal. I heard from our planning committee, that “we have empathy”, but I also heard the Chair of our Board say “lots of people have had to move when they didn’t want to…we have empathy”.
Phil: Agree, displacing people is not optimal. The Planning and Development Committee is very clear, the burden on those who would have to move is extraordinary. If we are not committed as a coop to mitigate that burden we are not committed to the project at all. It is a cost item that is as (or more) important than the infrastructure costs.
Brenda: “It is unfathomable how anyone can expect such a small group of individuals to foot the long-term bill/debt for such an endeavour.”
Phil: To upgrade and enlarge our assets at Sunnyhill will require financing, to be sure. But so too would a “like for like” replacement of the windows and doors, siding, railings and roof.
Servicing the debt is a long term proposition. The current configuration of 66 member households will only be expected to contribute to serving the debt for as long as they are in the coop. Future members will share the burden.
And, if we do our work right, the level of debt will remain within affordability parameters. The membership wants that, and likely the City will hold us to that too.
To think that our housing charges might actually go down as we finish paying down our mortgage isn’t realistic given the capital costs to keep the Coop structurally sound, serviceable and attractive.