The existence of large numbers of homeless citizens in our major Alberta centres has been noted and discussed for years. Considerable sums of money have been directed at the problem, and yet the numbers of this most disadvantaged group continue to grow.

Why, one might ask, couldn't we simply supply these folk with tents, just like earthquake or tsunami victims? The answer, of course, is that this would be against the law, or prohibitively expensive. Try, if you like, to set up a tent in a city park, and see what happens. (Of course, if one has a nice RV, it is quite possible to get away with living curbside indefinitely, with just a bit of cunning.) Camping, in the rare places where it is allowed, is usually $15 a night or more, and commonly there are restrictions on the length of time that one can remain.

Another way to view the problem: By their very actions, homeless folk are trying to camp out. It is mainly the restrictiveness of the urban environment that keeps them on cardboard behind dumpsters, or curled up in doorways, with (hopefully) enough warm clothing to prevent hypothermia. How many of the deaths that we often hear about could have been prevented by a cheap tent, sleeping bag, foamy, and cot? How much better off would an individual be in a wall tent with a small wood stove and candles than under a bridge? The answers, of course, are obvious.

Of course, not all of those without homes would be happy remaining under nylon indefinitely; some would make use of shelters, find a room somewhere or move into some other type of housing. And, of course, given the unstable lives that many of these folk live, some would be back again and again. Viewed as an alternative to a studio suite, a tent seems pretty stark, but relative to an old blanket in the rain, it would be downright luxurious.

There is more than enough land in our cities and large towns to afford space for those who need to set up a tent. In the Edmonton river valley, for instance, there are 4 golf courses! Even a couple of fairways would be sufficient. Also, in our major centres, there are huge swathes of land given over to parking lots; a small percentage of these would provide more than enough room to accommodate those who might greatly appreciate a nylon or canvas home.

Of course, tent cities would have to be reasonably controlled. Sanitation and water would have to be provided, at least at a basic level, and security and regulatory concerns would of course arise. None of these aspects would be particularly complicated or expensive to deal with.

The real difficulty in all of this would be to find the political courage to allow it to happen. The great god NIMBY would of course roar his disapproval. (If only he had a similar disdain for mono-culture snout houses without sidewalks!) The benefits, both to the homeless and to society at large, would be considerable; those without homes would at least have the basic necessities of shelter, and a rather difficult social problem would be at least partially regulated and dealt with, at a reasonable cost.

***************************************************************************

A Possible Partial Solution for the Affordable Housing Shortage

The current boom in Alberta, coupled with low interest rates internationally, has had obvious profound effects on our housing market. Individuals such as this writer who purchased property in the much gentler markets of yesterday have benefited greatly, at least on paper; renters, or those entering this market, are confronting increasingly high housing costs. This trend has been especially strong in the larger urban centres that have benefited the most from high oil prices and oil sand development. Despite a leveling off of real estate markets elsewhere, it is likely that this upward trend will continue in our province.

Not all of these housing cost increases can be explained by low interest rates and a boom economy, however. There is also considerable inertia built into our political and public administrative systems that serves to slow or prevent development that does not fall within the bounds of very traditional ideas of what housing in this part of the world should be like. Economists would refer to this inertia as a bottleneck. The rest of this submission will be an attempt to point out ways dealing with this situation.

Currently, it is very difficult to site premanufactured homes. In many acreage developments, this is expressly forbidden under the terms of restrictive covenants, and there have been relatively few recent instances where municipalities have allowed large scale development of this sort. In the current overheated Alberta labour market, it would make a lot of sense import these buildings from elsewhere, by the train load. This could only happen if provincial laws were adjusted, and if municipalities were prevented from being too obstructionistic. At the same time, obviously, there would have to be well guided oversight.

In the past, manufactured homes have been poorly made, with thin walls, skimpy windows etc. However, there has been considerable progress in these areas over the last couple of decades, and contemporary units have sloped rooves, R20 walls and so on.

Bearing all of this in mind, a reasonable recommendation to make would be that rational regulations be put in place to ensure that premanufactured homes installed in this province are safe, energy efficient, and well made. Furthermore, impediments to the installation of of these should be removed or scaled back. Especially, proper subdivisions that allow individuals and families to own both their premanufactured home, and the land that it sits upon, should be encouraged.

It is also difficult, particularly in our major cities, to purchase small houses on small pieces of land. Much of the recent housing boom has been in the profitable up scale condominium and large residential categories.

Finally, one overarching question remains: How can the great god NIMBY be appeased? As soon as any sort of low cost housing that is not between a slaughterhouse and a freeway is proposed, this formidable entity raises his head, seeking to cast asunder all who dare challenge the local status quo. In any quest to tame this rampaging deity it would be a mistake to simply strip municipalities of the right to regulate land usage, just as it would be totally counterproductive to leave things as they are; in the long run, any real change would have to be politically legitimized.

One way to do this would be to put together a number of reasonable choices, and allow the electorate to vote on them in a referendum. The sorts of housing issues that have been brought up in this little article might be part of a larger proposal, say, a revamp of the municipal structure, or they might be voted upon as a reasonably discrete package. Electorates seem to have fairly good sense when it comes to dealing with issues on a more abstract level, even given the propensity to selfishness that small groups can display when confronted with very particular issues.

Finally, low cost housing, like any other, should be designed and constructed in an environmentally and socially responsible manner. There is no reason for this to be expensive or complicated; a small, well insulated home with a sidewalk in front and low flush toilets will be less of a burden on our infrastructure than a monster snout house with a triple garage. It will cost its owners and society less in the long run.

Writings