3 Million Reasons to Support the Missing Middle Initiative - and ONE very good one not to

 A back of the envelope calculation says that I should have about $3 million (or more) reasons to support the missing middle housing initiative (MMI) – it would after all be a boon cancel our existing project to rebuild our family home that wasn’t meeting our needs (built in 1939, it had asbestos, lacked a layout that could accommodate our 4 children or aging parents, and would at some point pose accessibility challenges - yet we made it made due for more than a decade) with a new single family home with a 2 bedroom suite that totals about 4500 square feet.

Who wouldn’t just pull the plug on that given the looming Missing Middle Initiative and become an out and out cheerleader for the proposed policy? After all the proposed policy would allow us to propose a 7427 square foot building with 6 units. That is what will be allowed – an FSR of 1 in exchange for the payment of $37,138.50 to the city’s affordable housing fund. And the market price of those 6 units? Well – our lot is waterview, in Fairfield, easy walking distance to Cook Street Village and Fairfield Plaza. Recently a condo built in 2009 at the end of our street that might have had water glimpses, a 2 bed, 2 bath 1500 sq foot unit was for sale for $1.4M and sold quickly. It is reasonable to expect a bit of a premium for a newly built condo with full water views – let’s call it $1.6M per 1200 square foot unit (which might even be a conservative price point). The back of the envelope developed value of a new six plex where I currently live: $9.6 million. From that deduct the existing mortgage (the lot cost), the cost of designing a new six plex, demolition (already sunk), cost of construction, building permit, etc.  Lets assume all of that would likely cost $700 a square foot – giving a build cost of about $5.2M. Our family could hypothetically “walk” with more than $3M – and with money like that, why fight the Missing Middle Housing Initiative? Why not just develop the property, take the money and move – to Saanich, or Oak Bay or Esquimalt? Live a life, mortgage free? Isn't this some kind of lotto?

It might even be reasonable to think that doing that under the missing middle initiative might be a lot easier than what our family has already gone through to rebuild our home. Because our lot is weird with 5 sides, and is technically a corner lot with two frontages, a mathematical formula determined that the “historical front” of our home was not the actual front of our home. Ironically had the formula determined the other street was the front we could build what we’re now building without any variance at all – the neighbours would have no say in the building as it would conform. However, the mathematical formula determined otherwise and as such the setbacks would demand that we build the narrow side to the view and would lose any protected rear yard. Unless, we approached the board of variance.

 We chose to approach the board of variance. We were not aware of the evidence the board of variance was considering with our first application until after the hearing had happened. To say we were surprised at the opposition would be a bit of an understatement – after we received and reviewed what our neighbours had written about our project, it was clear that the neighbour to our North had taken it upon himself to go around the neighbourhood to muster opposition to our project by misleading them about it. The neighbour who when my husband approached him about it earlier that spring had indicated that he didn’t want to know because they were planning on selling and didn’t want to have to tell any potential buyers about the project. Reading those letters was heartbreaking and frustrating – many feared what would happen if we needed to undertake blasting on the site (ironically, now that we’ve done some excavation it appears that no blasting will be needed for our project). We weren’t asking for a variance with respect to the size of the building, lot coverage or the height of the building or the use of the building – we had asked for a bit more than what was needed in order to maximize the backyard (the protected outdoor space) but were otherwise conforming to the requirements set out in the zoning. Our family needed a home that would meet our needs, and these neighbours who we had lived close to for more than 10 years were pleading to have our variance denied. The board of variance rejected that first application – and we went back to drawing board (at additional expense), returning 6 months later with a home largely similar to the first with the following exceptions, it was moved back on the lot at the expense of space in the protected back yard and the garage was detached rather than attached. Because it was deemed to be “the minimum variance necessary” – it was approved. We then applied for our building permit last July and after more than 290 days and going back and forth with the city 5 times, recently had it approved with construction starting this past month. All told the process has been at least a year longer than we had hoped.

I’m sure our neighbours would be nothing less than enthused to have a building 66% bigger with 6 units instead of our “McMansion” of an ultimately intergenerational SFH. I’m sure they’d love to have something much taller than what is being built. Something that would take up even more of the lot. Something that would have the new residents parking their vehicles on the street in front of their single-family homes (after all MMI doesn’t require off street parking). And here’s the real kicker: under the missing middle initiative, our neighbours might not even be given a say about it. The whole project could just be at the discretion of city staff under the MMI. Some might even consider the situation karmic.

 And yet, rather than shouting from the roof tops that everyone should support the Missing Middle Initiative and proclaiming it’s the best thing since sliced bread (a fully rational position to have given my personal situation), I find myself rather opposed to it because while it’s true “I’ve got mine” many others don’t have theirs yet and they deserve a fair shake at getting it for themselves. When I consider this policy as it is, not as it is “hoped to be”, it is fatally flawed and will likely result in the goal posts being moved even further away for far too many people. The policy, as it is, speaks only to the building form, it does not speak to how those buildings are used. It does not speak as to whether those who are buying these units are buying their one and only home or their 4^th investment property. It does not speak to whether or not those who buy them will reside in them. It does not speak to the level of income that will be needed to buy them (the market will determine that). It does not speak to how much they will rent for should they be rented (again this is for the market to decide). It does not speak to the displacement that is likely to result from it. Nor does it speak to the amenities that the community might hope to receive in exchange for the increased density, nor the costs of infrastructure to support it. It will likely fuel even more speculation in the market and cause competition for the very same resources needed for the Affordable Housing Initiative (aimed at co-ops and non-profits) to succeed.

Perhaps I can best explain my wholly irrational opposition (given the money at stake) best this way: I love this city, I care about those who live here and how this city will evolve in the years to come and that while I generally support more supply of housing for those who wish to contribute to our city by calling it home and making a living and a life here (and think the “missing middle” format is genuinely good), I can’t support this initiative, not as it stands. It will leave far too many locked out and displaced from our community.