Housing Supply Strategy

The strategy document appears sound, though there does not appear to be explicit mention of the need to protect sensitive lands, wetlands, drinking water source watersheds, and so on. Such concerns are addressed to some extent in other documents which are reference in this Housing Supply Strategy, but clear mention and acknowledgement of the need to protect sensitive lands when allocating land for new housing construction should be made in this document itself.

This Housing Supply Strategy correctly notes that market housing development continues to create new detached houses at the high-price end of the spectrum. This both fails to address the key problems of housing supply, and fails to be an efficient use of land (which is noted as a goal in this document). Continued sprawl (whether at the edge of the city or on natural spaces near the city core) with high-priced detached homes is not in keeping with resilience to climate change, or with the other goals of this Housing Supply Strategy or of the Community Climate Change Adaptation Plan, referenced in this document. Explicit mention of this problem, and elaboration of goals to specifically address this ongoing problem (of developers consuming land to make high-priced detached homes) should be part of this Housing Supply Strategy.

It is very disappointing that the report does not speak enough to affordable housing options. This community invested in a partnership with one of Canada’s largest Nonprofit developers who have invested a lot of money here with plans to invest much more to create deeply affordable units across our community and it is not mentioned in the report. We have to start taking the non profit sector seriously as the solution to the housing crisis. The private sector will not be the answer.
Further, secondary suite incentives for private homeowners would encourage a significant increase in rental units and make homeownership more affordable.

Finally, the city must crack down on predatory developers that are buying up our starter homes and renting them out at astronomical rents without investing in their maintenance. Our stock of homes for first time homebuyers is deteriorating and young professionals and families are being priced out of entering the market. Out of town buyers should pay premium taxes, and derelict or vacant building owners should be taxed significantly to discourage this greedy behaviour.
This report leave a lot to be missed and does not get to the root causes of our housing crisis.

Recommended Focus area 2 of the HSS – Community Housing

I would like to acknowledge the considerable effort and resources that have gone into the development and writing of the draft Housing Supply Strategy by all parties involved and thank the CGS for the opportunity to provide feedback on this matter.

I will limit my comments to the Recommended Focus areas 2 of the proposed Strategy, as I believe this area is of greatest immediate concern in this very real housing crisis too many are experiencing. The following is offered not as a critique or criticism of the proposed HSS but for additional consideration in prioritizing resources and efforts where most needed.

I acknowledge that not one section of the proposed Strategy should live outside the context of the whole, yet I would offer that there is no other part of a Housing Supply Strategy that needs to be the focus of the city’s attention more than that of helping our citizens in greatest need; whether through its own mechanisms and resources, or by leveraging provincial and federal programs and funding to their utmost limits.

I offer these comments for your consideration because to the best of my understanding, based on what is offered in the proposed HSS so far, there is “no clear line of sight” to the development of substantive housing that is “deeply affordable and purpose-built” to meet even the present need of extreme low-income families and individuals, and much less of the future need projected by the research offered in the HSS.
The present developments cited in the proposed HSS are very welcome (Transitional Housing on Lorraine St and Spark St development = total of 54 spaces) but fall quite short of the near 275 + who continue to be unhoused while some 1,000 households await RGI options to housing. The Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness through its partnership with the National Housing Accord predict that homelessness will continue to grow through the next year, or two, and is advocating for the federal government to intervene and provide immediate assistance to prevent further homelessness and save present tenancies by various means. https://www.nationalhousingaccord.ca/ I believe the proposed HSS should strive to do the same where CGS can leverage provincial and federal dollars to do so.
“Homelessness is a result of structural, systemic issues, not the product of any particular individual”. According to Gregg Colburn, author of “Homelessness is a Housing Problem”, “We need structural, systemic responses to fix structural, systemic problems.” A short You Tube video presentation of this research can be found here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwibK603o7Y I am comforted somewhat that the HSS seems to want to respond to this aspect, by address systemic and structural issues, in the development of housing.
Further to this, according to the Federal Housing Advocate, Marie-Josée Houle, along with the Housing Policy research Expert Advisor, Dr Carolyn Whitzman, and the H.A.R.T. (Housing Assessment Resource Tool) housing supply need calculation must move away from investor and housing demand models of ownership, to calculate real housing need, focusing on rentals.
“Estimating Canada’s housing supply shortage using a human rights lens must be the first step of a broader plan to end inadequate housing across the country” Marie-Josée Houle. And,
The ultimate goal is a sustainable housing system. The key ingredient to get there is a human rights approach that puts people first, and programs that respond to their needs.” Dr. Carolyn Whitzman.
In conclusion, the studies and research on housing supply deficits and housing need clearly indicate the need for a human rights approach and consideration to “real” need, based on a deeply affordable rental market - and that not just any housing should be considered but the right kind of housing – Purpose built non-market rentals must be integral to our local HSS and I would say central to the “right kind of supply” now and into the near future - greater non-market investments through collaborations with all levels of governments are needed.
Thank you for this opportunity and please trust in my continued engagement and support in all endeavours that create a sustainable housing supply.

Removed by moderator.

More affordable housing, don't leave it to the private industry. It saves costs elsewhere.

Land for development is owned by Developers who have developments quickly approved for underdeveloped uses, examples include Montrose South/LaSalle...and Cambrian Heights/Notre Dame..both sites are ideal sites for 10 story buildings of apartments with a main floor of commercial, yet are approved for yet more unneeded 1 story commercial uses. In fact most commercial buildings along Main Arterials ought to have multistory apartments rising above them. Sudbury has a antiquated zoning model, lands zoned industrial in residential areas get approved for 1 story commercial uses, all too often. Developers cannot be forced, however some of the Developers who own these lands can certainly afford to go bigger. How is this achievable in Southern Ontario at 1st Draft in planning but in Sudbury this is never done? What are the dynamics involved here that discourage the proper urbanization and development of the city, that Southern Cities dont?
Sudbury stuffs apartment buildings very far away from core areas, exacerbating the need for public transportation, rather than upzoning and infilling on roads like the LaSalle/Barrydowne/Kingsway/NotreDame Urban block. Again, each of these areas could easily see multistory apartment towers above the commercial buildings approved to go below. There is easy remedies to the business model that could make these buildings doable. However those who own such opportunities have no interest, given no incentive to do so.

Underground parking ought to be included in all developments in Sudbury, reducing need for winter maintenance as well as freeing up thousands of acres for housing, green spaces etc. Again that development on the corner of Cambrian Heights/Notre-Dame could easily have been several levels of underground parking, the 4 commercial shops above, followed by 5-10 stories of apartments. Was that option considered, thought of, encouraged, incentivized?

Industrial zoning in the Flour Mill ought to be high density residential, towers, row houses, and even tiny homes..the 1 area in particular abandoned for years, was allowed to be redeveloped for continued non-residential uses, that has no benefit to the Primeauville area, only creating a traffic problem that additional monies had to be used in effort to combat. When such industrial lots become unused, the City ought to change the zoning to residential, opening up the opportunity for Other Developers, aside for the Sudbury 5 who seem to own everything yet do nothing with it, to develop housing. There is plenty of commercial and industrial zones across the city that they can use.
Tiny Home boroughs, social housing, transitional housing, these are all things that the outlying communities could readily handle, would aid in breaking up the nefarious networks, allowing the vulnerable people who need such housing to be away from the networks that keep them in dire straits.

This Draft seems to make it appear that the city has very little ability or control (or however it is worded) to do much about affordable housing, yet there were hundreds of units built in the 1970s, as well as those recently built on Mont Adam geared toward affordability needs, seemingly by the City,, so that is confusing.

Which leads to the fact that a Southern Developer being allowed to purchase formerly affordable housing units, seemingly purpose built As affordable units, only to be approved to Renovict and flip the units into " " luxury " " units, with no punishment for exacerbating homelessness with the dozens(hundreds?) of renovictions.
I understand that the costs for construction are inflated now, however it appears as though there is a concerted effort by the 3 levels of Government, along with the Multimillionaire Monopolists to exacerbate homelessness.
Then there are the cases where other Developers are discouraged to develop great things in Sudbury, seemingly because they are not the Sudbury 5 Developers who have a monopolized chokehold on City Hall.
Greater Sudbury has enough lands in all 13 communities to build bigger, taller, better...yet only 1 story commercials, innapropiatly placed industrial and McMansions are built.
No commercial development ought ne approved without 3-10 stories of apartments above, underground parking below.
The city is still a 1970s version of itself, underdeveloped, sprawled, 2d, dismal.. there can never be the type of ricochet benefits that is needed if we don't do as Southern Cities have been doing for decades.

Rail lands downtown...yes a high purchase price, however the redevelopment would end up paying for itself in time. 140 acres of Residential areas with main floor commercial, underground parking, green spaces...Many major cities across the world have done it and succeeded for it.
Sudbury did it before with the Louis street rail area, however used it for social housing only.

The city motto "come let us build" has been for decades useful only for the Big 5 and otherwise it may as well be "Come, let us Demolish" So much demolition and many for gravel parking lots.
Thank you for the opportunity to write this, however I have come to the conclusion that it does not matter what I think, the City and its Elite have already long ago decided what will be done, what will be prevented and the 70s town it will remain.
Sudbury could be Greater...there is so much potential, everywhere I look..

Removed by moderator.

The City has a target to bring 3000-5000 residents into the downtown, but has no plan to get there. Therefore, the City needs to immediately create a Citizen's Downtown Committee to get the job done. John Lindsay's recent letter to the editor of the Sudbury Star contains concrete ideas. Many more of us have great ideas. Over to you, City of Sudbury.

Planning for City financial sustainability long term can be enhanced through using the lens of planet sustainability. Consider this: does the action reduce poverty or expand it? Is the activity extractive or regenerative? Housing needs to support those subsisting on less than a liveable wage, those making by on a liveable income ( 2 or 3 jobs and no quality of life) and those with an excess of income. Making any plan simply for profit is short sighted. Words matter as well. NIMBYism is meant to be a sneer, derogatory and a negative put down. Consider what a person wants in order to prevent flooding, save on energy bills and develop sense of place. Surplus parkland is considered differently if labeled as a carbon capture site. Hazard zones identify where human life is at risk if built upon or adjacent to. (higher risk of flooding ) Affordable homes are what is needed most but they must be built in consideration of the climate emergency and what adds value to a persons home.
Consider best practices from other areas please . Tiny home subdivisions built with a geothermal grid for energy sourcing. Intergenerational housing to build human to human support systems. Green spaces with large deciduous tree canopy reduce heat which reduces air conditioning demand during summer. Think inclusive not exclusive please.
Homes that are "flipped", removed from retail market and listed as VRBO or Airbnb rentals skew the housing supply strategy. While these provide income for the owner they reduce the total number of homes for sale or rent for people. These rentals change the environment of community and add to emissions when not occupied.

There is virtually no affordable housing and, as someone working two jobs and unable to find something within my means, I am beyond frustrated that myself and those with less do not have access to safe and livable housing. The City of Greater Sudbury needs to take action NOW or (more) people are going to die without this basic need. Those who do not understand the crisis need to educate themselves (or those who have the means to share knowledge need to educate) so that something can change for the better in this City, for the many who live here in desperate conditions, currently. Enough passing the buck! We need to care about people and do what is right and necessary - what we already know we can do to eliminate homelessness if we care to take the steps. Accountability from and cohesive action involving all levels of government is needed to combat capitalist structures that are essentially killing less fortunate people, human beings with a right to life just as much as anyone.

Recommendations to the City of Greater Sudbury Ward Councillors, Mayor, and Planning Committee of the City of Greater Sudbury, in regard to multiple story multiple dwelling housing complex buildings addressing housing crisis and affordable housing; to 1. be diversely approved in a variety of wards, not just in the central downtown in order to address quality of life and affordable housing in EACH areas of the city, to also please consider impacts of highly elevated building plans by developers proposed to raise multi story dwellings without supportive infrastructure able to sustain needs of dwelling residents, nor approved in little greenspaces left within the CGS that eliminates natural ecology/biology within the framework of neighbourhoods, rather; To 2. address environmentally sound housing solutions, recommendation to the City of Greater Sudbury to consider prioritizing encouragement of developers to utilize existing buildings that are not occupied, to rebuild or renovate where existing infrastructure already exists to support such amount of dwellings. There are currently hundreds of buildings unoccupied in the city of greater Sudbury that can be used to address the need for housing. Government incentives are available for developers to utilize with these buildings inclusive of existing infrastructure, electrical, water/wastewater as outstanding options that are financially efficient and ecologically sound among assist transform old, deteriorated areas, into beautiful living spaces for alternative housing needs and importantly detrimental to little natural landscapes our greenspaces provide that are left in our wards, negative impacts of removal of these greenspaces to human health, environment, plant, bird, animal/wildlife and insect species.

Please find our feedback at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KwnQ2LbTGqYLO8nz4d82FGT6C2oMMF93/view?usp=sharing

In response to the plan for tiny homes, a stepping stone process might be warranted. A systematic approach to help guide newly homed individuals in staying housed. The wait currently is not supportive for the current need, and the evictions are high for those without preparedness for caring for a space. A pallet-home community-style project might be a good stepping-stone for interim help, to keep individuals from the elements and to guide them with added training to maintain a home, with safety training and budgeting support, before moving into more permanent.
See palletshelter.com
Jan/Jansquest

Why was the hold hospital never made into a homeless shelter with all those rooms?

Define what IS affordable housing - the current situation is NOT affordable for myself let alone someone on OW or ODSP. Perhaps it is time to review the OW and ODSP programs to increase basic funding.
Transform old schools or other government owned buildings into transition housing equipped with rules (curfew, behavior, etc.), security guards, social worker, addiction worker, access to health care instead of selling these to private companies or individuals for money.
LISTEN to the ones that are working with the homeless poluplation. They have the solutions, they just need the City to implement them.

More housing needed in Capreol. The sooner, the better.

I read through the strategy and think there are some good plans. However, there are some things that I think could be helpful in increasing the accessibility of housing for low-income and homeless individuals. This includes using unused buildings to create temporary shelters (because our current shelters do not have the capacity for all homeless individuals). Using more buildings for warming shelters in the winter time to reduce cold related illnesses and deaths. Also, I think it's great that you looked into the possibilities of tiny homes. Perhaps this could be something to look into more as there are other cities that have begun to create tiny home communities for low-income and homeless individuals. Finally, putting funding into the Safe Consumption Site is crucial to help individual who use substances remain safe and focuses on a harm reduction approach. This allows individuals to have a safe space to use substances and access to health care to reduce illness and overdose. It also supports individuals to receive care from health care professionals and receive information on treatment options for substance use and mental health disorders. Let's work together to support those that need it!