10 comments so far. We'd love to hear your thoughts.

• Alex
  May 27th, 2009 at 3:01 PM

  Affordable is a nice, politically correct way to say “less than equal”.

  Let’s face it, when a homes are made affordable, it’s an appeasement tactic and nothing more. It barely scrapes the problem.

• Norm Fisher
  May 27th, 2009 at 3:02 PM

  Alex,

  First, it’s great to see you again. I’ve missed you. Hope that all is well with you and your fiancé.

  Those that qualify for “affordable housing” are no doubt “less than equal” when it comes to average family earnings. Just the same, they value a safe and affordable place to live. Whether they are prostitutes seeking a way off of the streets or young families who are struggling to make ends meet, all of those who qualify for special assistance see a major improvement in their living accommodations when given the opportunity to move into one of these homes.

  Having spent a good portion of this past week with those involved in affordable housing initiatives I’d have to say that the implication of your comment is offensive, to say the least. I seriously doubt that you have much perspective on what’s happening in this area, who is involved, or what their true motivations are.

  These are good people, many of whom have committed themselves to helping those who may be less fortunate to improve their lives in many meaningful ways. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to tour existing projects which will provide housing for hundreds of families in the years ahead. These projects are located from Hampton Village to Willowgrove and everywhere in-between. Regardless of where they’re located, each door represents an opportunity for someone who is eager to improve their circumstances and thankful for the chance to do so.

  While much work remains to be done, the citizens of Saskatoon can feel proud of the efforts by organizations like the “Saskatoon Housing Initiatives Partnership” to address housing issues here.

• Alex
  May 27th, 2009 at 3:03 PM

  Norm, what frustrates me the most is that people being priced out of being able to afford a house are moved into the category of needing affordable housing.

  Driving up the need of such special offerings is not exactly a good idea and is more shortsighted than anything.

  There are people who would do well to have these homes, but I find it strange that those who are capable and earning decent incomes might end up being lumped into this category in the end anyway.

  I find it offensive that people still have yet to address how house prices have affected those who are neither poor nor stinking rich – but somewhere in the middle. It shows that the subject all together has been avoided and in the long term, this will make things worse.

• Norm Fisher
  May 27th, 2009 at 3:03 PM

  I understand, but that shouldn’t diminish the work which is being done to help those who most desperately need help.

  The market is already showing very strong signs of swinging back in the direction of the “middle class.” Apparently, Saskatchewan in now at “full employment” and incomes are growing faster here than almost anywhere else in the country. It looks like we now have close to a three month supply of housing, as opposed to the three week levels that we operated with through the first six months of the year.

• Alex
  May 27th, 2009 at 3:09 PM

  Norm,

  Saskatoon’s service sector continues to struggle I’d wager and it is not by the willingness of the nearsighted middle aged administrative cruft that the wages go up.

  I still find it sick and perverse that a quick skinny dip in some philanthropic projects serves as a kill-switch to the remaining 75% of the issue. I’ve always found the timing rather conspicuous for the advice given to the middle class coming from benefiters of the housing situation. It seemed to coincide perfectly with their aspirations of goading those who are being forgotten into the maw of the banks – so they can be wrung dry.

  And so now the government turns benefactor? It’s sick, it is really perverse and I doubt the middle class can afford a home any more than they could earlier this year. I for one know my former place of employment would rather lose employees in the hopes of lowering wages than retain them with even present-proof salaries.

  Slight tangent: Anywhere with policies like that should not be given pick of a local university. At my college of graduation, the practicum organizer would give companies sh*t for paying wages comparable to Office Depot jobs. His claim was “Why are they getting this education if employers are still going to strive to undervalue my students?!” He got well upset by it.

  Anyway…

  I HOPE that you are right and that this correction happens across the country. Canada in general is suffering from shortsightedness when it comes to ensuring the healthy development of the economy.

  Maybe it has something to do with our money-obsessed party-in-power?
  

• Norm Fisher
  May 27th, 2009 at 3:14 PM

  Some good points Alex. When I speak of the good work being done by organizations like SHIP and Habitat for Humanity, I’m not talking about the rich dude who comes out to swing a hammer in an effort to sooth his conscience. I’m talking about the people who drive these organizations. These are people who get up every day and make it their priority to find ways to get people into homes and I expect that they’re probably working for far less than they could be. For them, it’s not a quick dip. It’s an ongoing effort that many of them have been involved in for years. Good people doing good work.

• Jason
  May 27th, 2009 at 3:14 PM

  Norm,

  I would be curious to see the stats behind the income growth statistics for Saskatchewan. I have a hunch that this growth comes not from a rise in individuals hourly wage or salaries over the year, but rather that many people are now working two or three jobs, or putting in a lot of extra overtime to meet the demands of our “booming” economy and the resulting higher cost of living. I know for myself and my peers, yes; our income is going to be higher for this year. That said, this is the first year where I have worked an average about a sixty hour work week and found myself unable to take any vacation time. This was just my personal experience, but I can’t help but how many of these other individuals reporting income growth had to similarily sacrifice quality of life to achieve this. The disheartening thing is even with the extra effort and sacrifices, with the continually rising housing costs, I still feel like I am falling further and further behind. It is getting to the point where I am just beginning to think I would be better off to just continue renting, abandon my dream of home ownership, and at least have a life outside of work.

• Norm Fisher
  May 27th, 2009 at 3:17 PM

  Hi Jason,

  Stats Canada statistics are murder to come by. I’m only going by what I’m reading from sources like RBC, CMHC and others who track these trends. They typically reference StatsCan, but all I can find on their website is dated numbers. In any case, I don’t think their surveys provide the kind of insight you’re looking for.

  “this is the first year where I have worked an average about a sixty hour work week and found myself unable to take any vacation time.”

  Sounds like the real estate business.

  It is a tough go getting that foot in the door. I hope you can sort through it rather than giving up. Good luck!

• Alex
  May 27th, 2009 at 3:18 PM

  Jason, what I find worse are the impositions of lowered standards forced on people like us as the economy continues to bloat. Profiters have realized that the more they discourage people with broad and unfounded boosterism the better a coin they can turn.

  This comes in the form of the expectation where you should rent your home out to afford it. Or perhaps that you should take up residence in an area vastly worse than what your salary might have earned you only a few years back.

  They are more concerned with hurrying you and rushing through the details to their most profitable conclusion: “We have made it this way, so you must now live to serve our gains.”

  You see, it’s our effort to accommodate them. We are the ones being obligated to make sacrifices, not the investors.

  For one person’s gain, several must lower their standards and resign their ambitions?! I don’t think so…

  Don’t give up Jason, continue to assert the point that houses are for living in. You deserve to own just as countless generations before you have been able to modestly do.

• warren
  May 27th, 2009 at 3:19 PM

  I don’t know if it qualifies as affordable housing but I just saw about 20 new condo’s hit the market in Meadows Green for under 130 for the 2′s and under 110 for the 1′s. I was in Edmonton last week and there was a lot on the market, but nothing close to this, where a guy and his son can live well with a roof for just over 1000 a month. This is Edmonton in 2002.