——SS

In view of these advantages in social values and economic savings why do we not have more of this type of housing you may ask.

The answer to this question lies in several _ problem areas. No government in Canada, except perhaps Nova Scotia, has seriously attempted to encourage Co-operative housing. In fact, the way the National Housing Act is administrated actually discourages Co-operative housing. Only in recent years have some attempts been made by the Federal Government to experiment with these new ideas. The project of United Co-operative Housing Society received a seven percent interest long term mort- gage loan under the “Innovative Housing Program”’ administrated directly by the previous Minister re- sponsible for Housing, Robert Andras.

Also a grant of $50,000 to the Co-operative Housing Foundation of Canada was given by the Federal Government. With this “large sum’’ plus other non- government contributions the Foundation, which has its Head Office in Ottawa, attempts to promote Co- operative Housing all across Canada.

To our best knowledge the lending of mortgage money to some projects and the mentioned grant as well as some “‘local initiative’? and ‘‘opportunities for youth” grants by the Federal Government is the sum total involvement of the federal government in Co-operative Housing in Canada.

Our Provincial Government is sympathetic but has not extended one penny to the furtherance of Co- operative Housing.

For the 60 to 75 percent of Canadians who cannot find suitable housing and see Housing as a National problem equal to Unemployment, National Defence or Balance of Trade problems, these government’s inactivity must seem unexcusable. However, such is the mentality of politicians in control — that they see housing as a commodity that is to be merchandized by private business even though the failure of this policy is obvious.

To produce an effective stock of Co-operative Housing for those people who cannot afford housing on the open market today but have too high an in- -come to qualify for the insufficient number of subsi- dized housing we need support on various levels:

Groups of people who come together to build their own homes co-operatively cannot be expected to have the expertise to bring a project together. Housing is an extrernely complex field where even “experts” have only a partial understanding of their particular little specialty. It requires, therefore, a group of dedicated experts who can work together to initiate and carry a project through to completion. To build up such a team and make it work requires money for office, personnel, hiring of professional advise and optioning of land.

Since Co-operatives and Societies that could sponsor co-operative housing projects cannot make a profit (according to their legal charter) like a busi- ness, equity, investment funds cannot be found. Also those who usually have investment funds available are unlikely to be particularly sympathetic to en- courage effective competition in housing by non- profit organizations such as a Co-operative Housing Society. Only government funds can therefore be expected in large enough quantity to provide for such a nucleus of experts.

In addition, the Central Mortgage & Housing

IS CO-OP HOUSING THE AN

. RPM Se ee mF

A

\ hod — Fe _- ‘ey ; an KS

~

>» * See vreer 5 as foe,

4

<e Lae?

*

EXTERIOR VIEW of 110 unit De Cosmos Village, a co-operative townhouse project at Boundary Road and 49th Avenue, Vancouver, sponsored by United Co-Operative Housing Society.

Corporation, the Federal Government’s housing arm, effectively prevents the formation of sponsor- ing societies by demanding that 80 percent of a project is presold before a co-operative may apply for a mortgage loan or be rejecting existing organization’s charter for mortgage loans under the National Housing Act because it includes other social objectives besides housing.

The Burquitlam Co-operative Housing Associ- ation was formed to overcome the latter problem be- cause the Westminster County Co-operative Building Society), it’s founding organization, was rejected by C.M.H.C. since it had other social objectives than just that of building lowcost housing.

When the cost of pre-selling a project to 80 percent is considered it becomes apparent why funds cannot be found to start a co-operative housing organization.

The Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board considers its selling services worth approximately six percent in commission on the value of a home when it is sold. In the case of the Smith Avenue project which has a value of nearly one million dollars six percent would be equivalent to $60,000. In addition to this cost a sponsoring organization requires funds for optioning of land and preparation of plans to municipalities to obtain their proper zoning. Funds for optioning of land and preparing of plans are risk funds because a Municipal Council is as unpredictable as the wind in its decision making.

Provisions in the National Housing Act for Co- operative Housing clearly assume that a co-oper-

ative is formed before a project is planned. This as- sumption has proven itself to be totally unrealistic in a country like Canada where people are conditioned to examine their product first before they buy it . An airy-fairy idea of a housing project somewhere in the future does not attract people or the necessary funds.

Finally, one of the problems Co-op housing sponsors are facing is the lack of understanding of their problems by all sides concerned. It is a rela- tively new concept in Canada even though 25 percent of housing in many European countries is provided this way.

Institutions in our country are setup under the assumption that a private developer or government agency provides housing. Expertise and risk capital to initiate projects are assumed to exist. Neither is presently available in sufficient form for co-op housing groups. It is incomprehensible to a Municipal Government why the proper type of zon- ing and ownership of land has to be guaranteed before planning for a project can start; our ex- ae in Coquitlam and Vancouver has proven this.

We can only hope. that through articles like this and more real experience of actual projects like the one in Smith Avenue a better understanding of Co- operative Housing develops. The funds whose lack presently appears to be insurmountable have to come when governments realize that adequate hous- ing for all, however it be provided, is their social re- sponsibility.

RECORD TWELVE AREAS TO HOST LOGGERS’ SPORTS

A record 12 areas in British Columbia have been awarded sanctions by the Canadian Loggers’ Sports Association (CANLOG) to stage loggers sports event in 1972.

Loggers Sports is the official

Industrial Sport of British .

Columbia. ;

With a Canlog sanction goes the right to stage a Canadian Championship event in loggers sports competition.

Canlog chairman, Bill Moore of Downtwon Winter Harbour, has announced that Canadian Championships will be held in the following events this year:

Obstacle power bucking, team relay race, double hand bucking, tree climbing, ob-

stacle pole bucking, power saw bucking, birling, spring board chop, axe throwing, standing block chop, chokerman’s race, singlehand bucking, horizontal

- underhand chop and molly

hogan race.

Ten sites hosted national championship events last year, Canlog’s third year as the sanctioning body for loggers’

sports. The two new areas”

sanctioned to hold events are Alberni and Kelowna.

They join the other Canlog areas of Terrace, Woss Lake, Mission, Gold River, Sooke, Port Hardy, Squamish, Alberni, Prince George, and Hope.

The aim of Canlog is to bring a central organizational struc- ture and safety standards to the sport. Ultimately, Canlog hopes to sanction events across Canada.

‘Highlight of .the Canlog™ season will be the Festival of Forestry show during the Pacific National Exhibitions, August 19 through September 4, Athletes from many of the logging nations of the world will compete for more than $31,000 in prize money and North American titles.

Together with the PNE money, total Canlog prize money this year amounts to more than $60,000.

| CANLOG SCHEDULE — 1972 CANADIAN CHAMPIONSHIP TO BE STAGED

‘May 21— Alberni Obstacle Power Bucking May 22— Victoria Team Relay Race May 27-28 — Terrace Double Hand Bucking June 3— Woss Lake Tree Climbing July 1— Mission Obstacle Pole Buckin g July 8— Gold River Power Saw Bucking July 15 — Sooke Birling; Spring Board Chop July 29 — Port Hardy Axe Throwing August 5 — Squamish Standing Block Chop;

Chokerman’s Race F August 5 — Kelowna Novice Cham : August 12-13 — Prince George Singlehand Beckie

Horizontal Underhand Choy September 10 — Hope Molly Hogan Mas 4

August 19September4—PNE North American Championships