f— VANCOUVER — An estimated 25 percent of city households, some 40,000 households in all, are in need of housing assistance, a major report from Vancouver city hall’s plann- ing department revealed last week. The report, the most com- prehensive analysis of the housing situation commissioned by the city in recent years, contains startling figures which show a full 33 per- cent of city households paying more than they can afford for housing. The report also shows that Van- couver’s vacancy rate in rental housing has once again slipped below one percent, that there has been a sharp decline in family housing in the city and that the current vacancy rate for family housing is virtually nil, and that there will be a serious shortfall in senior citizens housing by 1986. “Our report is a reminder that the housing crisis is still there. It isn’t making headlines the way it did a few years ago when it was at- fecting middle income groups. The needs of those vocal groups may have lessened, but the needs of the poor, the elderly, families with children, the handicapped are continuing,’’ report author Ann McAfee told the Tribune Tuesday. The nine part report zeroes in on the 25 percent of households in the city that are either in need of financial assistance to bring hous- ing costs into line with income or else in need of better housing con- ditions, and then offers a number of policy options for the city and higher levels of government to ake to meet the situation. Housing crisis affects 40,000 op city households EB McAfee will be conducting a series of discussions with citizen groups in the city this week before tabling the report with city coun- cil. Council will debate the report’s findings and recommen- dations in early July. To arrive at its estimate of how many households in Vancouver are paying too much for housing, the planner’s report used the traditional standard that a max- imum of 25 percent of income should be expended on housing. As many as 33 percent of both renters and owners were found to fit that qualification, and 15 per- cent of renters and owners were found to be paying more than 40 percent of their income on hous- Ly ing. If the standard was raised to 35 percent of income, still more than 35,000 city households were found to be paying too much. Almost all of the households with affordability problems had family incomes of less than $12,000 per year. Single parent households and the elderly also made up large portions of these paying more than they could af- ford. The second major group facing serious housing problems are families with children. McAfee cites some interesting figures that suggest a close corelation of the decline of family housing in the ci- ty, and Vancouver’s dropping population. Between 1971 and for families, ground level and with two or more bedrooms, was reduced by 6,080, a figure remarkably similar to the 6,035 families with children that left Vancouver over the same period. In pure numbers there are still about twice as many units suitable for families in Vancouver as there are families with children, but most are unavailable or unaffor- dable. In terms of affordable and available housing for families with annual incomes of below $18,000, the study estimated, there is presently a shortage of 16,000 units. For the 60,000 Vancouverites over the age of 65 — 22 percent of the city’s households — the crisis is even more pressing. Hardest hit are those who have to find their own way in the. private rental market, some 10,569 elderly households, and almost all of them pay more than 30 percent of ‘ income on housing. Even 13 per- cent of seniors who own homes pay more than 35 percent of in- come on housing. . According to McAfee’s projec-- tions the situation for senior citizen housing will grow worse over the next eight years, assum- ing that the policies of the past . few years will remain in effect. By 1986 the senior citizen population will have climbed to over 65,000, she estimated, and 12,600 renter households, some 55 percent of senior ~renters, will be paying in excess of 30 percent of income on rent. : In addition to, the 36,400 families paying more than 35 per- cent of income for housing in 1976 the stock of housing suitable - - some new housing must be prov Vancouver, there are ano 11,200 families living in ‘na quate or inappropriate housing That figure should be high because it does not include rool! ing houses and hotels im Downtown Eastside. ; But McAfee is most concer! about affordability. “*Mosl] households are experiencing an come as opposed to a housing Pl? blem,”’ the report quipped. To meet the needs of both tho) who can’t afford proper housilié and those in unsuitable housife income assistance is needed af ed McAfee contends. She offers® range of possibilities for assiStte) incomes for housing, 1008 grouped as ‘‘shelter allowances: For $13 million in shell allowances, and another » million for new construction, ¥” |) housing needs of the city’s 40) | households in need of assistan@| could be met in a substantial 74) says McAfee. “Peanuts’’ in terms of oven government spending and “onl half of one of Danson’s plane") the $23 million is still more tha" Vancouver city council is likely put out, she admits. Federal provincial involvement will bé must. Fs : Beyond direct financl@ assistance to renters and owne!® | the report goes on to detail the op” tions open to the city to influen “| the housing market itself. Ne*] week the Tribune will review thest choices and consider the questi" | of whether the city of Vancouvel] should be engaged in a large s¢4™ | housing construction program 7 Poin back at the records of the last two Tory governments — those of R. B. Iron’ Heel Bennett and John Diefenbaker — working people can expect few- answers to unemployment from the latest crew of Tories which managed to put together a minority government this week. But few will shed any tears over the defeat Tuesday night of Liberal employment minister Bud Cullen — particularly when they remember his record on unemploy- ment insurance. It was he who devised the latest crippling restric- tions to the Unemployment In- surance regulations and then saw them through the House over country-wide labor opposition. It was Cullen who told young people ‘that they should get out and work instead of ‘tsucking their thumbs.”’ And his letter to the Vancouver Labor Council earlier this month is but another case in point. ‘There had been a flurry of protest over the new regulation stipulating that UIC claimants must have 20 weeks employment with the same employer, since many workers, par- ticularly those in construction, might work for several employers over that period of time. Because of that, they were not eligible for benefits. Undaunted, Cullen wrote in response that such workers should go to their various employers and vet their agreement that only one of them should be the ‘‘real’’ employer for purposes of income tax, UIC premiums and other such payments. Of course, Cullen hastened to add that he could not impose such an arrangement on employers and that workers would have to depend on their own resources to try and convince employers to follow the suggestion. Yet the possibility of an employer agreeing to such a scheme — con- ‘sidering that it would mean main- taining records for several other companies, some of them in dif- ferent cities — was so remote as to be beyond consideration. Even Colin Snell who, as chair- PEOPLE AND ISSUES unemployment committee, has en- countered Cullen’s programs many times, was so astounded by the ab- surdity of the scheme that he told delegates: ‘‘This is so incredible that it’s ridiculous.”’ * * * < ince the U.S.-based Advanced Management Research was here only some six months ago with its packaged anti-union § seminar, “Strategies to Stay Union-Free,”’ we can only conclude that some employers in this province are slow learners. Perhaps it’s because dur- ing previous seminars they spent too much time hiding out from reporters in the washrooms at the~ Hotel Vancouver, but we see that the latest AMR seminar slated for. July 23 and 24, is exactly the same as that held by the outfit in January — designed specifically for union- busting in the province of British Columbia. And inflation hasn’t caught up with AMR yet, since the price — $550 for the two-day event — Is the same as it was in January. Of course, AMR waited until the Socreds were back in office again before proceeding» with its -pre- seminar publicity — the brochures were received in Vancouver only days after the election. And they’re becoming more brazen — we understand this time that the brochures were sent to the Carpenters Union and the Boiler- makers. : * * * ver the past several weeks, there have been many people who have stopped by our offices to ask after Dorothy Vint and to add that they miss her precise bookkeeping which has always managed to keep the chaos of the press drive under con- trol. And no one misses her more than we do. - She returned to the hospital the week before last and is now in the Morgan Evans Clinic at Vancouver | General Hospital where she expects to be for some time yet. She’s in Room 21 and she’ll happily receive visitors. Our best wishes to her for a speedy and full recovery. oe S eq kaa (2) the size of the City Council; -(4) qualifications for candidacy; Wed. June 6 7:30 p.m. Thur. June 7 9:30 a.m. Fri. June 8 7:30 p.m.-10:00 p.m. Tues. June 12 8:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m. Wed. aun 13 7:30 p.m. Thur. ne 14 7:30 p.m. Tues. June 19 7:30 p.m. Wed. ane 20 7:30 p.m. Thur. June 21 7:30 p.m. Tues. June 26 9:30 a.m. Wed. June 27 7:30 p.m. Thur. June 28 7:30 p.m. City of Vancouver Governmental Review Commission City Hall 453 West 12th Avenue -Vancouver, B.C. V5Y 1V4 Telephone: 873-7171 (3) the length of the term of office of Council Members and the fre Governmental Review Commission, 1979 © ~ The Commission has been appointed to consider a number of issues that arise in the field of civic government, namely: (1) a consideration of the merits of the present ‘‘at large’’ system as well as some form of a ward system for, Val couver, and the implications that may be involved, including consideration of the plebiscite results in 1973 and 1978. If a form of ward system is recommended, then the Commission should extend consideration to the elements of such a ward system, including the number of wards, ward boundaries, and other relevant matters. Options should be brought forward in any event; (5) the role and powers of the Mayor and Council. ALL PERSONS desiring to be heard by the Commission are requested to forthwith send to the commission at the bea : noted address, a Notice of Intention to Appear. Written briefs are preferable and it would be appreciated if they cou! 4 be received by the Commission Secretary in advance. Such persons will be notified in due course of the date, place an¢ | time their respective submissions will be heard. — . HEARINGS ARE SCHEDULED AS FOLLOWS: City Hall, 453 West 12th Avenue City Hall, 453 West 12th Avenue Killarney Community Centre, 6260 Killarney Street Mt. Pleasant Community Centre, 3161 Ontario Street Kitsilano Community Centre-Lounge, 2690 Larch Street West End Community Centre-Auditorium, 870 Denman Street Hastings Community Centre, 3096 East Hastings Street Marpole Community Centre-Auditorium, 990 W. 59th Avenue Kerrisdale Community Centre, Room 10, 5851 West Boulevard City Hall, 453 West 12th Avenue City Hall, 453 West 12th Avenue City Hall, 453 West 12th Avenue’ By order of the Commission Judge L. S. Eckardt, Chairman Enquiries are invited for information and scheduling of Hearings throughout the City. Please send enquiries to City of ; Vancouver, Governmental Review Commission, 1979, at the address indicated above. . hk S80ck: on Ts quency of elections; man of the labor council’s Rass ae aah : Sea eas : PACIFIC TRIBUNE=MAY 25, 1979—Pa e 2