The province's definition of…

The province's definition of affordable should stay aligned with those of our municipal and federal governments ie

up to 30% of a household's gross income

period. Any definition that is not directly tied to household income is meaningless. Distorting that definition by tying it to incomes in the "60th percentile" disregards the needs of MOST households struggling to find affordable housing. Case in point: in Stratford, where I reside, the median household income is apx $77 000. Our 60th percentile is $93 000.

At 77,000 shelter cost 30%  gives rent of $1925/mo
At 93,000 rent could be $2325/mo

So the question is, AFFORDABLE FOR WHOM?

Defining affordable as up to 30% of the 60th percentile puts single, single income, low income and even median income households at a BIG disadvantage. As such the proposed definition is disrespectful to working class Ontarians.

Coercing municipalities to forfeit our limited resources (development charges) to incentivize developers building homes that the majority of the population can't afford is dangerous and short sighted.

If this proposed definition becomes law it will exacerbate and perpetuate the housing emergency. Thus, further frustrating local employers ability to attract and retain employees. Lack of affordable housing puts more strain and financial demand on our social supports system too.

Flying a disingenuous banner of incentivizing "affordable" housing while actually siphoning municipalities' finite resources away from genuine efforts to provide sustainably affordable homes for their residents is unjust and unkind. Shame on Minister Calandra for feigning to improve the province's affordable definition while actually making it much worse. And shame on my MPP, Matthew Rae, Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Vice-Chair, Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, for not better advocating for the majority of Stratfordians on this integral issue.

One final criticism: These proposed changes repeatedly tie their definition to the "Affordable Residential Units bulletin." eg:

For ownership housing, where the price of the residential unit is no greater than the lesser of,
i. the income-based affordable purchase price for the residential unit set out in the Affordable Residential Units bulletin, as identified by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and
ii. 90 per cent of the average purchase price identified for the residential unit set out in the Affordable Residential Units bulletin.

A search for the Bulletin turns up nothing. Thus, is this a document, planned to be created in future, based on data that will be drawn from future average resale purchase prices, or in the case of rentals, the future average market rental? This further confuses and frustrates the definition being proposed.