Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Vince Fedoroff

TIME, MONEY SQUANDERED – Antonia Zedda, of Kobayashi + Zedda Architects, estimates his team spent more than $20,000 worth of time and resources on developing its plans to erect afford- able housing, only to see the government suddenly cancel the Whitehorse portion of the territory-wide plan.

Program’s demise called ‘a horrible injustice’

Two developers involved in the affordable housing project which would have seen 75 units built in Whitehorse are criticizing the Yukon government’s decision to cancel the plan.

By Rhiannon Russell on July 30, 2014

Two developers involved in the affordable housing project which would have seen 75 units built in Whitehorse are criticizing the Yukon government’s decision to cancel the plan.

Antonio Zedda and Patrick McLarnon are two of the three developers in Whitehorse who made it through the government’s request for proposals (RFP) process.

Both have said they were shocked and disappointed when they heard in June that the project was cancelled.

“I own other rentals, and I know it’s impossible to get our rent prices down to an affordable rate without any kind of subsidy from the government so, because of that, I saw this as a great opportunity for Yukoners,” McLarnon said in an interview last Friday.

He said he feels Yukoners have been “robbed” by the government’s decision.

“I felt there was so much good in this project,” McLarnon said.

“I was proud to be a part of this, and to have it just taken away from the Yukoners, I really feel it’s a horrible injustice.”

Zedda, of Kobayashi + Zedda Architects, said he kept hearing from his staff about the difficulty of finding affordable housing.

“It started off with a practical concern about our own staff, but it became part of a larger idea of providing affordable housing downtown to meet a demand that I think a lot of business owners are facing,” he said.

McLarnon said he spent hundreds of hours working on his proposal, including getting quotes from contractors and working with his design team.

“It was a large investment,” he said. “For the local businesses out there to put in all this time and effort to go through these projects and find out they’re a waste of time.... That’s exactly what it is, a waste of time, effort, money and resources.”

Zedda echoed McLarnon on this. He estimates his team spent more than $20,000 worth of time and resources on developing its plans.

McLarnon planned to build 24 one-bedroom units and four three-bedroom units in Copper Ridge, for rent for $800 and $1,000 respectively.

He and the other developers each had a meeting with the Yukon Housing Corp., at which he and staff discussed terms of the project, including an income cap and proposed duration of the affordability.

McLarnon said the housing corporation suggested a $68,000 annual income cap on would-be tenants. He agreed to that.

Housing corporation employees felt the 10-year condition – rental rates must remain affordable for at least that long – was long enough, he said.

(The corporation defines “affordable” as rental rates remaining at or below 95 per cent of median rates. According to April 2014 data from the Yukon Bureau of Statistics, that was $900 in buildings with three or more rental units.)

Both developers hope the government reconsiders what Zedda calls “a bad decision,” and question what the remaining trust funds – about $11.5 million – will be used for.

“I’ve met with my partners, and we’re still interested in pursuing this project because we think it’s something the community needs,” Zedda said. “We just need to figure out if there’s another way to do this.”

He’s trying to set up meetings with the Yukon government and the housing corporation.

“Part of why we want to meet with them, now that the dust has settled a little bit, is to find out what exactly led to the cancellation, because we’ve heard a lot of different reasons for that,” Zedda said.

“It’d be nice to actually have a discussion with the various parties to see if those issues are surmountable and we can find a way to move ahead.”

McLarnon encouraged Whitehorse residents upset about the project’s cancellation to call and write to their MLA and MP.

Today, cabinet spokeswoman Elaine Schiman referred to comments Brad Cathers, the minister responsible for the housing corporation, has already made on the subject and said he has nothing to add.

The government has not spoken about its decision since June.

At that time, Cathers noted the Yukon Real Estate Association and the Yukon Residential Landlords Association had expressed concerns about the impact subsidized development would have on private development.

The government has not revealed what it plans to do with the remaining monies.

It did announce in June that nearly $1.5 million will go to the development of eight affordable units in Carmacks and Carcross.

Through the affordable housing initiative, the government would have paid 50 per cent of the cost to develop the affordable rental units.

The federal government developed the $300-million Northern Housing Trust in 2006 to address the need for affordable housing in the territories.

The Yukon government received $50 million. It negotiated with the First Nations governments that $32.5 million would go to First Nations to address priority housing needs.

The Yukon government kept $17.5 million to spend on affordable housing issues.

Meanwhile, on Thursday morning, Candice Bergen, the federal Minister of State for Social Development, will be in Whitehorse to sign a new Investment in Affordable Housing agreement with the Yukon, the details of which are not yet known.

See Uffish Thoughts.

Comments (16)

Up 3 Down 0

Old Ways might be the Best Some times on Aug 13, 2014 at 10:42 am

When you read this piece I want people to take some time to read it and to get to understand it. Government intervening in the market is not a good idea. So the questions still remain how do we support low income families into housing? How does government invest the northern housing?
I set on the committee back in 2007 when the northern housing trust was brought forward. If government puts out public money to low income people what will the average income workers feel and say? I have worked on cooperative housing many years ago in Nova Scotia and it works if done properly! Some of the advantages of cooperative housing you can get a better price for purchasing of materials to build a housing. The cooperative can employ a project/construction manager to manage the construction of the houses. There is no profit paid out on the construction of the houses. Some builders have made good money over the last five years in Whitehorse and that is good. None of the families in this income bracket ($68,000) will afford a home without help.
Have said all that these people do not affect the regular housing market because they do not have the means. But if a co-operative was set up and the remaining 11 million paid into the co-operative then it could be used to help this group. How this all would work is in the new River Bend subdivision set aside lots for co-op housing. Design housing that are cost effective with space and to operate. Provide each client with a interest free down payment. This down payment has to be paid back in five to eight years. If the family income goes up above $80,000 per year then the down payment kicks in. The advantages with the co-op are:
> they do not effect the market because these are people who do not qualify in the market.
> The cost of housing will drop because of no profit built in, better buying power for materials, management cost of construction can be spread over many units more effectively.
> The money is paid back so the co-op can recycle the money for others.
> Fixed cost of living.
> Once these people get some equity built into their homes they can sell them pay back to the co-op and move on with their lives.
> These people will become clients of builders, realtors, suppliers in the future.
> What is most interesting about this program is the cost saving is around 15% which equals the down payment on a house. These client already have equity in their houses by the 15% savings.
> For developers/builders/contractors/suppliers you still get the business because someone has to construct these houses.
> It is not good business for government just to give out money in a manner that effects the private sector market.
> This program helps the private sector market to grow and people who cannot afford a home has one, hence affordable housing.
> We are not talking social housing but affordable housing.
Many years ago as Government Employee with the Nova Scotia Housing Commission I help set up six co-op housing companies.
Three were for families or individuals just like above.
Three were people who saw the co-op way of building was a way to build a new home and receive the economic benefits identified above.
One co-op was a group of engineers in an engineering firm. After the houses were built they estimated they saved 22% on the cost of their houses.
That is more than the down payment. Back then the banks would take that cost saving and credit it as part of the down payment.
I some cases that was the down payment.
Another co-op was for a group of teachers and they final statement showed they saved 16% on the construction of their houses.
The three co-op for families, individuals and seniors was great because a lot of people got to work on their own houses during construction and when they moved in it was a great proud feeling.
One of the keys here is you don't need a whole big administration to manage this process, a project/construction manager and someone to look after the bills and managing the money.
Keep it simple and cost effective so keep government out of it.

Up 0 Down 3

Faroite on Aug 10, 2014 at 2:26 pm

I believe some Faroites are shaking their heads reading all of this while looking out the windows at all the empty dwellings in need of occupants.

Up 4 Down 10

Mike on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:07 pm

Luckily there is a very simple solution to the housing `problem` in Whitehorse. It`s called Free Markets! Fire 80% of the useless govt. fat in this territory they can all move home to wherever then allow for some real jobs up here eg. mining, logging, manufacturing, tourism etc, etc. Bam problem solved.

Up 17 Down 0

Spruce Woodland on Aug 2, 2014 at 5:47 pm

Let's let Yukon Housing manage projects like this.
To forgive grants of $2,000,000 after 10 years of 95% of the median rental price is just giving millions away.

I think Brad was right for perhaps the wrong reasons.

Up 14 Down 1

my opinion on Aug 1, 2014 at 2:55 pm

Granted, I don't have all of the facts on this issue, but I feel like people are maybe not viewing this housing grant for what it is. My understanding is that the money was earmarked for 'affordable' housing units. Not 'social' or 'low-income' housing units. This money was not to build accommodation for 'hard-to-house' people like those with mental issues and addictions.

I welcome the opportunity for a better stock of rental units. As a young professional, my standard of accommodation is higher than what is commonly available in Whitehorse. I don't understand why the public wouldn't want more rental units to be available at a cost that is affordable. Availability of quality rentals would help greatly in being able to keep people living in this town.

Up 8 Down 2

truth on Aug 1, 2014 at 10:17 am

YHC would’ve only subsidized UP TO 50% of the project cost, using funds from federal contributions under the Northern Housing Trust. The purpose of Northern Housing Trust is to help meet short-term pressures with regard to the supply of affordable housing in the North. Funds needed to build these 75 affordable rental units in Whitehorse would’ve been around $6.5 million ( Zedda mentioned on July 9th paper, “The housing corporation was prepared to cover $2.5 million of the $6 million construction budget”. McLarnon said that his project was approved for $2 million on July 23rd Yukon News. ( On June 27th Yukon News, Rich Thompson from NVD said, “The company was offered $3 million in government money to help build the rental complex. That would have covered about 20 per cent of the costs and wasn’t enough”. ) Let’s assume the third developer was also approved for $2 million.)
Interest earned since NHT funds first deposited into YG account in 2007 until now is approximately $2 million.  
With contributions from private sectors, YG could've provided approximately $15 million worth of buildings/rental units by only spending $ 6.5 million (NOT $11.7 million) of Northern Housing Trust funds. Whitehorse could’ve had 75 brand new, up to code and clean affordable rental units within a year or two for the next 10 years.
The first project drawn from NHT to build 10 suites (Betty’s Haven) which was opened in 2013 costs $4.5 million.
The purpose of Northern Housing Trust is to help meet short-term pressures with regard to the supply of affordable housing in the North. 
Affordable rental is a critical issue in Whitehorse; 10 year terms is the short-term solution. 
Federal Government has different affordable housing fundings injected to YG, one of them is the Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH). Federal Government, YG and CMHC equally or not has to contribute to these projects under IAH. It was announced that another senior housing will be benefited from this $16 million freshly injected funds. ( I suspect YG is going to use the NHT funds as its contribution part...which means the feds will contribute all for this 75 units senior housing project. Isn't this place going to charge over 2K/month for each senior who lives there ? Where's the affordability of that ??)

Up 8 Down 3

bobbybitman on Jul 31, 2014 at 1:54 pm

Groucho, if you are reading all the comments surrounding this issue, you should know that a very small fraction of the units being built would have gone to families. Like maybe 5 out of 75.

The projects approved were almost exclusively bachelors and one bedrooms which could be rented by anyone, save a small proportion that were to be set aside for people earning less than $68,000 a year. It was a joke so far as meeting the real needs in this town. It was one heck of an enormous give away for three project proponents, one of whom is keeping his head down but I do know who it is as do a lot of people. You might be surprised at that person's connections. Cathers did not can this project lightly. It stunk.

As for suggestions, I agree with poster Sandy Helland that a High Country Inn sized hostel open to people with mental health issues, people on welfare, and people with addictions as well as those simply shopping the market might be a very good idea. Perhaps more than one building.

I also suggest a semi-rural project along the lines of Gruberville. A place where a person can get a cheap cabin in a calm and somewhat regulated environment for people who do not quite fit in with townie life.

There's just two suggestions. Hey, two more. Give Karl and Jenny Gruber some money to build a dozen more cabins - they'd probably be able to do it for $40,000 per cabin and half that would be govvie $$. A lot less than Tony's $200,000 + little suites. And give money to the Sally Ann which is already filling desperate gaps in our community, so they can continue their work and improve on what they offer and also offer more.

Up 7 Down 2

bobbybitman on Jul 31, 2014 at 1:44 pm

Do the math, Tony. There was nothing in the contract saying that your bachelors and one bedrooms had to go to couples. Therefore we are not talking about two people making $35,000 each as the maximum income, but of one person making $68,000 a year as the maximum income threshold. Logic Tony.

Up 1 Down 4

Stephen on Jul 31, 2014 at 12:23 pm

Actually there is two things that would make this work. Government enter into an agreement with developers to cover say 10% or an agreed to percentage above the actual cost to build the building. Second make it a co-op and rent is based on your income. The more income you have the higher the rent you pay. First come would go to those that are low income earners or stipulated by the ministry. Anything left over would then go to those Rich renters Cindy indicated who would then be paying more for rent and subsidize the other lower rents.

Pretty simple plan actually. The only thing it would do is tick off the realtors and rich landlords.

Up 18 Down 17

Antonio Zedda on Jul 31, 2014 at 1:38 am

Thanks Cindy for your opinion and misinformation. All successful Whitehorse proponents agreed to a condition requiring tenants to provide proof of total family income not exceeding $68,000.00. Do the math: a couple each making $35,000 a year (hardly "richer renters" as you claim) would exceed the allowable income cap. Your claim that lower priced units would "force private industry to lower their rates" might be taken seriously if the vacancy rate hovered above 10%. Unfortunately, the average rent has not exceeded 5% in the past 8 years. I doubt that 75 units of affordable rental housing proposed for Whitehorse will make any appreciable dent in the housing needs of those unable to pay the median rent charged in the market. It is the mis-information by you and other real estate agents and landlords that has only clouded the real needs of the community to access affordable rental housing. It also discourages the private-sector from partnering with the government to meet a housing need best provided by Yukon based developers and contractors. The Yukon Housing Corporation Northern Housing Trust Affordable Housing project is meant to address only a small portion of the acute affordable housing needs in Yukon communities. It is not the only strategy planned to provide affordable rental housing.

Up 18 Down 5

June Jackson on Jul 31, 2014 at 12:13 am

It must be pretty hard for contractors to see 50% of the cost of their project slipping away from them... A horrible injustice? I hardly think so..this was a honeymoon deal for contractors, 10 years down the road they would own million dollar properties and we still wouldn't have affordable housing.

Has anyone agreed on affordable? There are over 200 units on the market in whitehorse to buy or rent..is anyone bringing their prices down? Nope..
Cindy is right..call it subsidizes housing and just build it.

Up 18 Down 9

MSG on Jul 30, 2014 at 9:48 pm

Poor Zedda, I'm sure the 20 g's that they just lost will be made up for on some other lucrative govie contract. I mean how many more corrugated aluminum bird houses can this town take.

Up 10 Down 8

Groucho d'North on Jul 30, 2014 at 6:40 pm

I have read numerous reader comments about how the proposed process and resulting projects were flawed and did not address the real issue in the current Yukon housing market. I have yet to read a suggestion for a solution to spending all that money ear-marked to improve affordable housing and not to have some associated impact to the local housing market - that is what it was intended to do. Is government's mandate to protect the interests of the well-healed, or is it to support the ability for young families to have an affordable place to live while they save enough for a down payment and eventually own their own home? That's the way my young family did it when we moved here back in the 70s, but rent costs were much more affordable than today. It took lots of work, discipline and strict budgeting but we did it, and I believe if there was some affordable places for rent, others could do it today as well.
I hope government sees the light and moves ahead with the submitted projects as originally planned.

Up 7 Down 6

Sandy Helland on Jul 30, 2014 at 5:52 pm

The best housing Whitehorse offered was the hostel which became the High Country Inn.
25 years ago,
A warm welcome to a northern city. Cheap rent while one scouts the market.
Less pressure having a roof while looking for work.
The Yukon Inn would have been an ideal welcome wagon hostel.

Up 14 Down 3

melba on Jul 30, 2014 at 5:30 pm

Funny, I don't feel 'robbed' by Mr. Cathers cancelling this massive give-away. Tony and Patrick are the ones feeling robbed because they just about had those free millions in their mitt.

The idea of partnering with the private sector in order to double the investment (and then some because the land had to be paid for by the developer), was a very good idea. Also because it meant that ongoing management was paid for through rents and done by the private sector.
However, this plan had not nearly enough emphasis on providing housing for people who can't find housing. Nor did it focus on people with low income, on welfare, with addictions or suffering from mental health problems. These are the people who the existing private market does not serve, these are the people to whom the public money should be directed.

Next, the cost of these bachelors and one bedrooms seemed outlandish given that the cost being billed to the government was supposedly only HALF the actual construction cost. There should have been a formula for a maximum of how much would be paid per square foot based on actual material costs and an upcharge per sq ft for labour, but not for management of the project.

This project was obscene and I am so glad it was cancelled. Let's get that money to projects for the poor and the people who need it, not Tony's staff - even if he had 'evolved' his vision as he now says.

Thank you.

Up 19 Down 17

Cindy Billingham on Jul 30, 2014 at 4:17 pm

Affordable housing for the working poor must be provided by the Government. Private industry cannot successfully fit this bill. The proposed affordable housing units were not marked for low income only. Richer renters could take up these units at lower prices and force private industry to lower their rates...a form of rent control, which never works for the benefit of the poor.
Thank goodness the government backed out of this deal. The need for social housing would have not been addressed - only lower rents and new units for those who are already able to pay more would be served. This is not how to address our housing issue.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.