Why a Projet housing policy didn’t work

Ted Rutland had some interesting points this week on Projet’s 20‑20‑20 housing policy, but they were published to X and Facebook. He gave me permission to excerpt some bits here. (The policy meant new construction projects with more than five units had to include 20% of social housing, 20% affordable housing and 20% family‑size units. Developers mostly paid a get‑out fee instead.)

One of the most frustrating aspects of the debate about Montreal city politics concerns Projet Montréal’s “20‑20‑20” policy or “règlement pour un métropole mixte.”

The policy is widely described as a “failure.” It’s NOT. And I don’t see Projet folks providing a strong defence of the policy. So […] I want to explain why it’s a good policy and why we need to go FURTHER in that direction rather than backward (as Ensemble Montréal proposes).

[…] In practice, condo developers almost always pay a fee rather than follow the 20‑20‑20 requirement. That’s not ideal, but it’s not a policy failure. […] In sum: the policy doesn’t operate as people hoped, for reasons I explain below, but it does something essential. It redistributes wealth within the most out-of-control and life-destroying part of the economy – the housing market. This is good and fucking necessary!

While the 20‑20‑20 policy redistributes wealth from the top down, Ensemble Montreal wants to do the reverse. Developers will no longer be required to pay into a social housing fund. Instead, all of *us* will pay developers. So the average tenant, who pays property taxes through the rent they pay to their landlord, is now supposed to subsidize condo development.

The developer lobby is happy. And that’s really what’s at stake in the current election. Ensemble wants to talk about bike lanes because it doesn’t want to talk about how it’s a front for the developer lobby and police brotherhood.

[…]

The reason the 20‑20‑20 policy hasn’t operated as intended is that the CAQ eliminated the social housing program, AccèsLogis. Developers were never expected to PAY for social housing; they were expected to BUILD it with gov’t funding. That’s the CAQ’s fault, not Projet’s.

You can read the whole thing on Rutland’s social media.