Statistics Canada data indicates 25 per cent of Didsbury households live below the poverty line, with housing costs exceeding 30 per cent of household income. The Broadbent Institute and Manulife, amongst others, suggest a further 10 per cent of households likely live in financially challenged households struggling to make ends meet – the working poor, the house rich and cash poor, and those without employer pensions facing near term financial challenges.
Data from Statistics Canada also reveals the number of housing units in Didsbury requiring major repair are well above the national average.
Furthermore, a significant number require renovations to improve accessibility.
There is considerable research that these “tipping point” indicators foretell the presence of other significant issues and challenges within a community such as children struggling in school because they are hungry, family relationship issues, substance abuse, isolation, crime, plus a poor economic climate for existing businesses and difficulty attracting new economic development opportunities.
Didsbury is presently facing all these issues and challenges.
Town council has suggested responsibility for provision of affordable, attainable housing lies with the provincial government (Gazette, June 19, 2018), ignoring the fact the fore-noted consequences are borne by all residents of Didsbury, and society as a whole.
This position also ignores the shared stewardship responsibility of council and all residents to create an inclusive social-economic environment – using Land Use Bylaws and other policies – that attracts people and businesses to move to Didsbury.
There is no better time than the present to stop the discrimination and marginalization of the poor, and those facing financial struggles. Character counts – humility and compassion – as evidenced in leaderful communities where everyone is treated with dignity and respect. Does Didsbury have the right stuff to be a leaderful community?
Affordable, attainable housing can be the foundation of a “roof overhead” poverty reduction strategy (see Habitat for Humanity) focused on keeping housing costs low with the result households have more money, and freedom of choice, to spend on food and other needs – honouring the concept of social justice. This strategy is seeing greater sustainable success than any “fill the stomach” poverty tactic.
A modest start might be revisiting the four vacant community housing units in Didsbury provided by the province – that’s us --the people of Alberta – to determine the social/financial/operational model to make them available to the community.
The previous model obviously didn’t work as Mountain View Seniors' Housing (MVSH) has deemed them to be unlivable. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, is it unreasonable to ask the Didsbury councillor on the MVSH board how assets provided to the citizens of Didsbury by the province have deteriorated to the point of being unlivable?
Well-worn shoes have seen how forward-thinking communities have partnered with developers to allow new subdivisions to be developed to a greater density than otherwise would have been permitted in return for inclusion and assimilation of different types and tenure of affordable, attainable housing units.
Key to this strategy is the definition of “affordable and attainable”; these incremental units need to be priced to fit the needs of the community, not simply a discounted price to the “regular” price of other units.
Assimilated diversity promotes the concept of a “complete community” helping foster social cohesion and social capital. It also eliminates negative viewpoints associated with the concentration of housing types or socio-economic groups.
How can we change from “gatekeepers” to “door openers” in our approach to quality affordable, attainable housing in Didsbury? What are your ideas?
Kevin Bentley,
Didsbury
