Regina could harvest millions in federal grants if backwards values don’t sink our application

City Hall | Paul Dechene

Anti-poverty activists have been saying for years there is a homelessness crisis in Saskatchewan but the only relief they’ve seen from the provincial government are small incremental moves like increases to the number of shelter beds — and far too few to deal with the scope of the problem.

But, with a $40 million funding announcement in the first week of October to tackle homelessness in the province, it looks like the Saskatchewan Party might be finally willing to admit that their efforts so far have been inadequate.

Wow! It’s almost like setting up a tent encampment someplace visible — like on the city hall grounds in the provincial capital — is an effective way to shame a government into action!

This new funding is coming under the Provincial Approach to Homelessness (PATH) moniker and represents a collaboration between the ministries of social services, health, and corrections, policing and public safety. The money will be directed towards emergency shelter and supportive housing spaces.

But while this PATH funding is definitely good news, once you start doing math the amount starts to look less impressive.

That $40 million is to be spread over two years. And the money has to be divided among all the urban municipalities in the province grappling with homelessness.

Which would be pretty much all of them.

$14.1 million will go towards 120 new permanent shelter spaces split between Regina, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw and Prince Albert, while $7 million will go towards 155 new supportive housing units in Saskatoon and Regina. The remaining $19 million will be spent on low-barrier shelter spaces in Regina and Saskatoon, where intoxicated people can stay for up to 24 hours under medical supervision.

The money is welcome. But when you break down how many people it will actually help province-wide, it isn’t nearly enough.

If only we hadn’t squandered $450 million of our 2022 budget surplus on one-time $500 cheques for Saskatchewan residents. If we’d hung onto that cash, we could’ve funded 11 and a quarter Provincial Approaches to Homelessness programs.

Oh, the paths not taken.

Fortunately, PATH isn’t the only program out there.

What’s Good For Fake London Is Also Good For Real Regina

In September, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his government had struck a deal with London, Ontario, under the Housing Accelerator Fund. Fake London will receive $74 million to support construction of 2,000 new homes over three years.

The Housing Accelerator Fund is a $4 billion federal initiative launched in March that’s meant to increase housing supply across the country in just a few years.

To qualify for funding, London submitted a multi-part plan to achieve their housing goals, which most notably included allowing up to four-unit housing developments (fourplexes) on lots in low-density neighbourhoods.

During the funding announcement, Trudeau lauded their plan as “ambitious and serious” and “visionary”.

He also noted that the agreement with London would be the first of many.

Which is good news for us, as Regina submitted our own Housing Accelerator Fund application in June.

Our hope is, if successful, we could access $36.2 million in HAF money to support building permit approvals for 1,100 housing units over three years. To that end, administration put together an 11-point plan which includes action items like, enabling high-density development in the city centre; enabling mid- and high-rise development along corridors and transit routes; support greater housing diversity in established neighbourhoods; and easing bureaucratic barriers by reducing the need for council approvals of housing-related discretionary-use applications.

This all sounds very good, especially as it hints at loosening restrictions on housing types that can be built in existing neighbourhoods.

According to the media release that accompanied the London HAF announcement, that’s the kind of policy change the federal government expects of funding recipients: “Every agreement under the Housing Accelerator Fund will require municipalities to end exclusionary zoning… Local governments are encouraged to think big and be bold in their approaches…” [emphasis mine].

But is Regina bold enough?

While city council enthusiastically endorsed administration’s plan during the asking-for-money phase, it will be interesting to see how enthusiastic council will be when it’s time to implement the changes the plan contemplates.

It wasn’t that long ago that we re-wrote our zoning bylaw — 2019, in fact — and administration’s draft version of Zone Forward contemplated loosening the exclusionary zoning we have in single-detached residential neighbourhoods.

Oh, we weren’t going to do anything big or bold or visionary like Fake London, where their HAF plan will allow fourplexes in low-density neighbourhoods.

No, admin just wanted to permit duplexes.

But Regina residents who lived in relatively affluent, single-detached residential neighbourhoods revolted.

Their avatar at council was Ward Two councillor Bob Hawkins, who fought to retain exclusionary, single-detached zoning like so: “I rise in praise of single family home residential neighbourhoods.

“They’ve taken a bit of a knock lately… because they’re said to offend the idea, very much in vogue, of densification,” continued Hawkins. “Densification has a time and a place. The time and place is downtown. The time and the place is not in single family home residential neighbourhoods where they risk threatening the character of those neighbourhoods…
“The single family home neighbourhood gives you a place for your family to grow… Gives you a place where you can park a car. Gives you a place where you can keep the place neat and tidy and show your family pride and your civic pride in that way. Those are valuable things that people throughout this city value highly and this council needs to hear what they say.”

That NIMBY attitude won the day and Regina retained exclusionary zoning in our new bylaw.

And based on rhetoric over the past two years from Councillor Hawkins and Ward Four councillor Lori Bresciani, they have little appetite for ending exclusionary zoning, preferring to direct densification to the city’s core and away from the prickly constituents of Regina’s sprawling single-family neighbourhoods.[1]

But that attitude won’t get us very far if we’re going to be the kind of municipality that gets described as bold, ambitious and visionary.

Get With The Times Or GTFO

Regina has historically been very good about providing housing incentives like grants and tax abatements and then sitting back and letting the market go from there. But municipalities have policy levers they are often too timid to use, like easing zoning restrictions, ending parking minimums [2] and lifting bureaucratic obstacles to development. Our track record has been less than awesome on those.

But the scale of the housing crisis is such that the old ways of doing business aren’t going to cut it.

And council had better recognize quickly it’s time for them to lead, or they will be left out.

And us with them. ■

1. Speaking of NIMBY (“Not In My Back Yard”) attitudes, while Regina has been the beneficiary of two Rapid Housing Initiative awards (that’s another federal government-led housing program), our first successful application was thrown temporarily into chaos when the neighbourhood selected for that RHI project grew angry at the prospect of transitional housing being built near them. It wasn’t a good look. And sadly, it was not the first time that housing for low-income people faced strident opposition in this city.

2. Lifting parking minimums is a proven tactic to encourage development of more housing and as a result cities like Edmonton, Kingston, Portland and dozens more have done away with theirs. But just this year, Councillor Bresciani converted a motion to explore easing or lifting our parking minimums into a motion to increase parking minimums on certain types of housing. Her motion was ultimately successful thanks to the support of councillors Hawkins, Nelson, Findura, Mohl and Mayor Masters. It was a regressive move, one that was out of step with best-practice trends across North America.