The Mayor’s Task Force on TCHC has been mandated to consider “big and bold” ideas for TCHC’s future.

They are needed. Getting it Done, TCHC’s response to the recommendations in the Mayor’s Task Force’s Interim Report, points the way with great ideas — 60 new cleaners, community safety officers assigned to regular beats, the possibility of live-in supers, and the inspiring Re-Set initiative. But I confess that I, backed by decades of experience, lack confidence that TCHC will be able to execute these great ideas without structural change.

The challenges TCHC faces are not new. More than forty years ago, the landmark Dennis & Fish study, Programs in search of a policy (1972) concluded Canada’s public housing was stigmatizing, expensive, badly located and insensitively managed. The study’s recommendations led to the end of big public housing projects and the rise of community-based non-profit and co-op housing, but TCHC inherited the legacy of these early public housing buildings.

Fifteen years ago, the City amalgamated this public housing stock with Toronto’s Cityhome and Metro Toronto’s Housing Company, using little more than back-of-the-envelope thinking. Add in an entirely inadequate funding formula, and it’s hard to imagine even the most thoughtful action plans making much headway.

Solutions that make the upheaval worthwhile

There is no lack of ideas for revamping TCHC – everything from making TCHC a City department to selling off the entire stock to fund rent supplements. But before we contemplate a new round of bold changes, let’s stop to consider what we hope to achieve.

We know that structural change disrupts tenants’ lives, puts workplans on hold, and, at least in the short term, diverts money from tenant service to pay for lawyers, business planners and HR experts. That means any solution must make the upheaval worthwhile. It must produce better results for tenants, for neighbourhoods and for Toronto.

What does “better” look like?

I hope the Mayor’s Task Force will create its own checklist to evaluate any proposals to restructure TCHC. Here are seven questions I’d like to see on the list.

1. Does the change increase responsiveness to tenants? What is the structure that would put staff in every medium-sized building, and ensure consistent staffing at even the smallest sites – staff who would take responsibility for their community, know every tenant’s name, spot problems before they become crises, and follow up on problems when they arise?
   Increased responsiveness will mean redeploying resources from TCHC head office into the field. It will also mean giving up on “one size fits all” policies and standards. The aim will be to ensure the seniors in Etobicoke and the street veterans at Dundas and Sherbourne each get what they need and want – even if those things are quite different.
2. Does it promote tenant self-determination? What changes would make it easiest for tenants to make good things happen in their buildings and neighbourhood, without climbing through layers of bureaucracy? And what changes – including changes to both provincial and municipal policy – will help them enjoy the same opportunities as everyone else to fix up their units, earn money, save money, or move when they want to?
3. Does it lead to stronger neighbourhoods? – with increased connection to local services, and opportunities for TCHC tenants to work alongside neighbouring businesses and residents for the good of the entire district.
4. Does it take full advantage of the benefits of scale? TCHC’s development, re-development and revitalization capacity has no equal anywhere in the non-profit sector. There may be other activities, such as government relations and IT, where big really is better. Good structural changes would take full advantage these economies of scale to serve not only TCHC, but non-profit and co-op housing providers as well, without affecting the autonomy of those providers.
5. Does it offer “accountability without the drama?” Last year I wrote a blog about the harms caused by the “hyper-politicization” of TCHC. They include abrupt changes in leadership, the exorbitant costs of dancing to the media’s tune, and the price tenants pay with every demeaning comment following each news article. We need a structure that restores TCHC’s chief accountability to its present and future tenants, that promotes long-term planning, and ensures decisions are based on evidence and experience.
6. Does it protect the public’s investment by ensuring continued control over public lands, either through direct municipal ownership, a land trust or non-profit ownership?
7. Does it engage civil society to promote the wellbeing of tenants and neighbourhoods? In some ways this is a “bonus outcome.” Most private and non-profit landlords operate well with minimal public involvement. But I look at the enormous public enthusiasm that led to the employment opportunities, sports facilities, arts programs, and so much more in Regent Park. I look at the ability of the United Way or the Toronto Community Foundation to bring all sorts of people together in a common cause. And I think, “why not?”

What changes would you like to see?

Over the past few years I have enjoyed many conversations about the possibilities for a renewed TCHC. I hope to explore some of the strengths and weaknesses of these options in upcoming blog posts.

In the meantime, is there anything you would add – or subtract! – from my “outcomes checklist?” What do you think is the measure of a “big, bold and better” idea for TCHC?