"The pathway to affordable housing is abundantly clear: Remove urban growth boundaries."Thus says a report by pro-urban sprawl "think tank" Demographia that's getting some press here. According to the report, Vancouver's high housing prices are the exclusive result of "artificial restrictions on the supply of residential land." In Vancouver's case, that would be the Agricultural Land Reserve, land which the province sets aside for farming. In total, the ALR covers approximately 47,000 square kilometres- roughly five per cent of B.C.'s total land mass. I'm not sure how much of Greater Vancouver's land mass is taken up by the ALR and the Province article above is pretty vague on that score. As you can probably guess by the fact I'm writing about it, I have a lot of problems with these people.
The main problem with the Demographia report is this: supply is determined by natural factors (the ocean, mountains and international boundaries) as well as by artificial constraints such as land use regulations and reserves. Demand, on the other hand, is virtually unlimited. Vancouver's market has gone apeshit in recent years and, with the Olympics just around the bend, won't likely cool off for a while. Given these and other realities (the never ending stream of internal migrants like yours truly who follow the lure of the west coast lifestyle; immigrants flocking to regional ethnic enclaves), I don't see much chance of the demand dropping regardless of the increase in supply. Any drop in prices that opening the ALR for development would bring would be temporairy at best (indeed, I would argue that, given the white-hot demand, developers would be crazy to set prices below current market values). It's a stop-gap measure and not a long term solution, akin to solving traffic congestion by building more freeways: an intuitively sound theory, but in the end, one that results only in more congested freeways. In the meantime, the loss of the ALR would be irrevocable.
It could well be that my economic analysis is shite and that paving over all the greenfields in the GVRD would actually mean I could magically afford to buy out here. Colour me skeptical on that score. But what really burns my toast is the bogus-on-its face "we care" stance developers take when their nostrils are flared with the scent of fresh cash.
Let's be blunt: the people pushing these measures don't give a shit about affordability. If they did, they'd be, you know, building affordable housing. I see little to suggest these guys are interested in anything more than making a quick buck: shocking, I know. I just wish these dinks would at least have the courage of their convictions to use slightly less transparent specious arguments to justify their rapacious greed, because when I read shit like this:
The ALR has become a "sacred cow," (Philip Hochstein of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association said). "Meanwhile, my kids can't afford to buy a house."or this....
Hochstein said 60,000 hectares set aside for agricultural use isn't being used for agriculture. He said it may be unrealistic to anticipate that the Lower Mainland could be fed by food grown on that land, a goal when ALR was born.*I want to hit someone with a ball peen hammer.
*because god knows land has to be used. It can't just, like, sit there. It will go bad, don't you know? Anyone else get the feeling this guy used the "blue balls" line a lot in high school?

