Five Task Force ideas that will change tenants’ lives

This week news outlets were buzzing about the “transformative changes” recommended in the Mayor’s Task Force on Toronto Community Housing: a transition to a new non-profit housing corporation, increased income-mixing, accelerated development.

These are the “meta-changes” that will be the focus of discussion at City Hall and will require careful analysis from City staff. But tucked into the report are recommendations that have generated far less media coverage but will, quite literally, reach tenants where they live.

Here is my list of the Task Force’s “top five for tenants.”

Portable housing benefits

The recommendation is on page 60 of the report, but in my opinion it is the ticket to changing the lives of tenants, and the entire culture of TCHC.

What better way to create a “customer service culture” than turn tenants into true customers who can take their business elsewhere? Right now, TCHC tenants must join the back of the queue if they want to move into other City-subsidized housing, or lose their rent-geared-to-income subsidy if they want to live in a privately owned apartment. So unhappy tenants can do little more than complain, or wait, for things to change.

Portable allowances would allow tenants to “vote with their feet.” Because vacancies will be increasingly filled with tenants who can pay market rents, TCHC will have to “up its game” to avoid vacant units. And market rents will give TCHC more resources to bring the buildings up to a competitive standard. That’s good news for everyone.

These changes won’t happen overnight. The Ontario Government will need to change legislation to permit the conversion of rent-geared-to-income subsidies into portable shelter allowances. The City of Toronto will have to permit the 52,600 RGI subsidies now locked into TCHC to be provided in other non-profit or privately owned housing – something it has the power to do now. The good news is that the Province – with municipal officials at the table – are already discussing these ideas as part of the Province’s review of its Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy.

Staff where tenants live

TCHC employs 1,600 people. That’s one staff person for every 37 units. So why doesn’t a 200-unit TCHC building have, say, five staff permanently assigned to the building?

If might if it was an independent co-op or non-profit housing provider. I looked at the budget of one 200-unit Toronto co-op that wishes to remain anonymous. In 2014 its monthly operating costs were $854 per unit – one dollar less than TCHC’s monthly per unit costs. But for that $854 per month the co-op was able to cover all its bills – mortgage payments (which were $17/unit/month cheaper for the co-op), taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance – and still have five full- or part-time staff on-site. The administrator knows every resident by name, the property manager can inspect contractors’ work before they leave the building and a weekend cleaner can respond to after-hours emergencies.

In the co-op’s case, the entire budget is poured into the building. At TCHC, resources are divided between centralized services, a development arm, and the field. TCHC has already taken steps to bring more services to the front lines, redeploying Community Patrol Officers to 20 local patrol zones and hiring 60 new cleaners. But the Task Force’s call for a more decentralized model is a giant umbrella step towards fewer staff at head office, and more staff where tenants live.

Tenant input where it counts

For over a decade TCHC has tried to create a good tenant involvement system, but it has never really worked. It’s partly a problem of scale. The two tenants on TCHC’s Board represent as many households as most City Councillors, but with neither the staff that would allow them to communicate effectively with their constituents nor the majority needed to control the vote. As for the tenant rep system, there are communities where no tenant reps have come forward, and yet these same community include many tenants with good ideas but no avenue to turn those ideas into action.

The Task Force has proposed decentralized decision-making that would give local staff more flexibility to respond to local needs and more responsibility for quality service. And that is where tenants can make their mark, with Tenant Advisory Committees that coincide with the boundaries set in the decentralized structure.

These committees will all have tenant majorities, but can include local agencies where they might be helpful. I see a particular role for the local City Councillor. Most City Councillors are not housing experts, but every Councillor is a neighbourhood expert who is ideally placed to link up resources that will benefit both TCHC tenants and the entire neighbourhood.

Supports wherever vulnerable tenants are concentrated

The on-site supports at 291 George Street and 220 Oak Street have turned around buildings that many believed were unsalvageable. It’s a recipe that has worked in other TCHC buildings and right across Ontario: individualized supports for those with particular needs, an open door, expertise from a partner agency, and community activities for everyone.

The Task Force has called on Toronto’s five Local Health Integration Networks and the City to continue to work closely with TCHC to extend these successes to the many other buildings where vulnerable tenants are concentrated. It’s a money saver for the City and the LHINs. Why wouldn’t they say yes?

More money

There seems to be a strange notion that there are tenant issues, and then there are money issues. But let’s just say it: money issues are tenant issues. Tenants are the chief beneficiaries when TCHC can borrow more money for repairs, or get a better deal on interest rates, or finally develop a sustainable funding model – a topic I plan to delve into in a separate post.

Three yeses

Last September I listed seven questions I hoped the Task Force would ask before it recommended changes to TCHC. My top three:

• Does the change increase responsiveness to tenants?
• Does it promote self-determination?
• Does it lead to stronger neighbourhoods?

I believe the answers are, “Yes, Yes and Yes.” As for the other four questions on my list? That’s the topic of the another blog entry.