Temporary housing solutions for Grand Forks, BC for displaced homeowners/renters

Transcription

1 1 Temporary housing solutions for Grand Forks, BC for displaced homeowners/renters Prepared by Spencer Tracy, citizen of Grand Forks June 16 th 2018 No part of this proposal has been sanctioned by the City of Grand Forks, the RDKB or the Province of BC. Rationale: Presently there are no firm numbers on the number of households that have been displaced by the 2018 Spring Flood in Grand Forks. Furthermore, it is unknown at this time whether some homeowners will ever be able to return to their homes due to unrepairable flood damage to their property or the very real danger from future floods. What we do know is that a significant number of families/citizens will be displaced from their homes until at least October of this year. It was well known that the City of Grand Forks was experiencing an acute shortage of rental housing before the flood. This proposal is meant to address the short term housing needs of flood impacted families but also serve to increase rental housing stock long-term. In speaking with local politicians and city officials, it is clear that the province is willing to support innovative solutions to addressing the current housing crisis in Grand Forks. Presently, many of flood evacuees are staying in a hotel, in a trailer, or with family, but many of these arrangements are not tenable long-term (3-months). In the aftermath of a disaster of this caliber, municipalities often house displaced families in rental ATCO trailers. More recently, however, many housing experts are challenging this temporary housing solution highlighting two key limitations: ATCO trailers are expensive and do not provide long-term benefits to the community in terms of housing or building community capacity. The average cost for an ATCO trailer is $5000/month plus a one-time $5000 mobilization fee. ATCO trailers often ghettoize the survivors of a traumatic event which may result in unforeseen negative social and mental health impacts. Integrating impacted families throughout multiple neighborhoods can often mitigate against these unforeseen consequences. This proposal provides a multi-pronged approach that aims to overcome the documented shortcomings associated with ATCO trailers. Please note that no one of the following options proposed will, on its own, address the temporary housing demand in Grand Forks. Additionally, several of the options listed are not economically cheaper than traditional ATCO trailers but rather provide meaningful long-term benefits to the community in terms of building housing stock and community resilience.

2 2 Option 1: Partner Families: Through a media release a call would be put out to homeowners of Grand Forks stressing the urgent demand for short to medium-term accommodations due to the flood. The hope is that private citizens with underutilized rental accommodations would make these spaces available. In order to entice homeowners to participate, they would be guaranteed a monthly payment just below what an ATCO trailer would cost ($4000/month). It is well known that there are many underutilized rental suites throughout the community. In some cases, home owners may need to make slight improvements (construct a private entrance, etc) but would easily recoup these costs with the inflated rent payments. An inspector would be responsible for ensuring the unit meets the necessary requirements of a self-contained rental suite prior to move-in. Stock exists so could become available quickly (< 2 weeks) Individual homeowner would make improvements and shoulder these costs not dependent on an outside agency Families are dispersed throughout the community and not isolated to one neighborhood Increases long-term housing stock in the community Investment stays in the community Community driven response Disadvantages: Adequate stock most likely does not exist in community to meet the overall need Does not provide long-term permanent housing for families who cannot return to their private dwelling EMBC payments to private landlords may prove cumbersome. May need a third party (Community Futures, Grand Forks Reality, etc to manage) May tie up local contractors already overextended Option 2: RV Purchase: Displaced families would be permitted to purchase an RV in lieu of an ATCO trailer. City could agree to waive fees associated with staying at community campground which is less than 2km from displaced neighborhoods. Families can stay at or near their property Avoids ghettoization Economic benefits to the local economy may benefit families longer term Overall higher quality of living compared to ATCO trailers and hotel rooms

3 3 Minimal strain on city resources to develop a temporary ATCO trailer site There are literally hundreds of adequate RVs for sale throughout the province. Many priced below $15,000. Disadvantages: Financially difficult to administer. Many families may not have the resources to purchase an RV without lump sum 3-month payout from EMBC ($15,000). Credit union may need to provide loans which could delay the process Does not provide a long or medium term housing solution due to weather constraints (Thanksgiving) Option 3: Mobile Home Purchase: Displaced families would be housed in a mobile home purchased by a local NGO, government agency, or private individual. Smaller mobile homes comparable in size to ATCO trailers are approximately $80,000. See page five for a photo. A displaced family living in an ATCO trailer for 7-months would pay $40,000 rent. Or, put another way, half the cost of a one-bedroom mobile home. There are a number of agencies in town that may be able to provide financing and rental management of these units. The city has multiple serviced sites available to house these units and is considering waiving utility hook-up fees. At this point the city would provide lease options for these lots lots would continue to be the property of the city and would not be privately owned. If non-profit or government agencies were unwilling to provide the upfront investment to purchase these units, the invitation would be extended to the larger community. Private citizens would be encouraged to purchase one unit ($80,000) and either manage it themselves or contract this to a local housing management agency. Again, the owner would charge rent in line with ATCO rental fees. As a result, the private owner would recoup half their upfront investment in just 7-months. Avoids ghettoization as mobile homes would be scattered throughout Grand Forks Increases housing stock long-term as units would be available to the wider community once flood impacted families returned home Could provide housing indefinitely for flood victims who are not able to return to their home. Homes could be relocated to flooded neighborhoods for those needing to rebuild from scratch. Overall higher quality of living compared to ATCO trailers and hotel rooms Increases long-term affordable housing stock in the community Investment stays in the community Community driven response Can be implemented by October

4 4 Community can have input into the look and layout of the modular homes Could potentially rely on local industry for building materials and expertise (Roxul, Interfor, Boundary Truss, etc) Disadvantages: Many neighborhoods not currently zoned for mobile homes Requires large upfront investment Additional burden on city (utilities, etc) Mobile home owners (investors) could been seen as financially benefitting from the disaster. Modular homes could prove a lucrative investment long-term. City or other stakeholders have no say in how housing stock is managed once flood impacted families move out as mobile homes are privately owned. Option 4: Tiny Homes: Private property owners to purchase tiny homes to make available for rent. Similar to mobile homes, tiny homes would be paid for by private citizens with the understanding that EMBC would pay exorbitant rent for a minimum of 6-months. Advantages/disadvantages to this option are identical to those highlighted with option 3, except: City recently passed zoning bylaw permitting tiny homes Tiny homes readily available throughout the province. Easily transportable. Disadvantage: Despite zoning amendment, no one has as of yet erected a tiny home in Grand Forks. There may be unforeseen delays tied to setbacks, utilities, public concerns, etc Tiny homes are expensive ($35,000 to 100,000) yet rarely exceed 250sf Not suitable for families, elderly, or people with mobility issues Proposal Concerns (need to flush this out):?

5 5 This tiny home is presently listed on Kijij in Kamloops for $47,500 (180sf) Katrina Cottage being put into place after the 2006 Hurricane in Louisiana. Nearly 1500 Katrina Cottages replaced FEMA (ATCO) trailers in the years following the hurricane. Houses were government subsidized with only two models available. This unit is 450sf. These houses became so popular Lowe s Building Supply began selling them as kit homes.

6 Mobile home constructed by Eagle Homes in Castlegar/Penticton (14x48 - $85,000 includes shipping, blocking, and skirting). Price to be confirmed. One bedroom with full kitchen, bath and living space. Is possible to add one bedroom off the side for additional cost. 6