Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
I think it would be way more efficient to subsidize tenants than subsidize buildings. If someone qualifies, give them $xxx per month in rent subsidy. Even have it paid directly to the landlord if you don't trust the people you're subsidizing.
This efficiently uses our existing housing stock, because people can make the best choice for them. 20th Ave and 6th street NW is a "good" location, but if someone who is getting the subsidy works far from there they would likely be better served by liVing close to work, or family for childcare, etc. If you let people choose, they will pick what's best for them not just live where subsidized housing is available.
This also solves the NIMBY problem.
|
In “The Life and Death of Great American Cities”, Jane Jacobs described a version of this system when she spoke of Guaranteed Rent. It is a very intriguing system and one that I would be very interested to see implemented today. However, I’m not sure it is a sustainable option for the City as they lack consistent funding for affordable housing programs/schemes. Without this consistent funding, the money to ‘top-up’ rents would evaporate. While this situation could put pressure on the Provincial and Federal governments to cough up the cash, I think they would see this coming and refuse to allow/allocate funds to be used for a Guaranteed Rent system in the first place.