Province and Feds Kick In Cash for Senior Rental Housing Units

Sunday, August 29, 2010 05:31 AM

Preparations to pour the footings for the new seniors' rental housing units on Dagg Road are underway

Prince George, B.C.- The construction of 30 rental housing units for seniors in Prince George, was one of the more than 32 projects announced by Federal and Provincial representatives.

The construction of the 30 units on Dagg Road, behind the Hart Pioneer Centre has already started, and is valued at more than $5.3 million dollars with the Federal and Provincial Governments contributing $4.7 million of that total.

In all, the federal and provincial governments are contributing a combined total of over $62 million for more than 400 Seniors' Rental Housing (SRH) apartments in British Columbia.

Municipalities and community partners contributed a total of approximately $6.2 million to the SRH developments through a combination of property tax exemptions, waived developmental costs charges, land equity and/or capital cost contributions to support their local SRH developments.

The Seniors’ Rental Housing units under construction in Prince George will be managed by the Hart Pioneer Centre.

Other projects in the central and northern regions include:

100 Mile House

Number of Units: 8
Development Name/Operator: Pioneer Haven Federal-provincial
Contribution: $1.46M

Mackenzie

Number of Units: 8
Development Name/Operator: Autumn Lodge
Federal-provincial Contribution: $1.56M

Tumbler Ridge

Number of Units: 12
Development Name/Operator: BC Housing
Federal-provincial Contribution: $2.28M

Fort St. John

Number of Units: 8
Development Name/Operator: Heritage Manor 3
Federal-provincial Contribution: $1.54M

Taylor

Number of Units: 8
Development Name/Operator: BC Housing
Federal-provincial Contribution: $1.54M

Fort Nelson

Number of Units: 6
Development Name/Operator: BC Housing
Federal-provincial Contribution: $1.33M

McBride

Number of Units: 10
Development Name/Operator: Beaverview Lodge
Federal-provincial Contribution: $1.63M

Valemount

Number of Units: 10
Development Name/Operator: Golden Years
Federal-provincial Contribution: $1.48M

Telkwa

Number of Units: 8
Application process underway
Federal-provincial Contribution: $1.35M

New Hazelton

Number of Units: 10
Development Name/Operator: Roche View Lodge Society
Federal-provincial Contribution: $1.62M

Terrace

Number of Units: 24
Development Name/Operator: BC Housing
Federal-provincial Contribution: $3.79M

Prince Rupert

Number of Units: 10
Development Name/Operator: BC Housing
Federal-provincial Contribution: $1.6M

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2010 05:31 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Andyfreeze on August 29 2010 7:12 AM

I'm curious.
Anyone know what the rental rates will be?
I assume it will be based on income?

Posted by: BCRacer on August 29 2010 8:48 AM

I am wondering why they think 400 units for seniors is going to be anywhere near enough...
I would hope rental rates are based on income....

Posted by: Retired on August 29 2010 10:02 AM

Yah, 80% of a seniors income. Very generous.
Cheers

Posted by: gus on August 29 2010 10:50 AM

That works out to $175,000+ per unit. I wonder how they compare to the units on the Queensway at 18th. They were considerably more expensive. LEEDS? Geothermal? Larger units? Fewer support spaces? Different economic times?

Posted by: dnakamura on August 29 2010 11:00 AM

Finally! This project has been discussed and planned for a long time. 30 additional units will be very helpful and easy access to the Hart Senior's Centre. This is awesome news!

Posted by: charles on August 29 2010 2:12 PM

Canada's baby boom generation is about 10 million strong. The leading edge of it starts to turn 65 years old next year. This means there are going to be a lot more people "riding in the cart", and a lot fewer people "pulling the cart" going into the future. Canadian consumers and their Governments are in debt up to their eyeballs, and both are still piling on even more debt. It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Don't forget the only thing anyone in this world is entitled to is that which they can afford to pay for.

Posted by: gus on August 29 2010 6:09 PM

"Don't forget the only thing anyone in this world is entitled to is that which they can afford to pay for."

Interesting thought. Even primitive societies work on principles that are quite different than that.

Most work on a simple principle.

The children are brought into the world and are nurtured, protected, and educated by their parents, extended family and community.

As the children mature, they contribute more and more to the families and community's well being.

Eventually, when they are ready to go on their own, they form their own family and the cycle continues.

When their parents grow too old to fend for themselves they return to their children and are taken care of very similar to the way children were taken care of. They continue to provide as much physical labour as they can and add wisdom and experience to guide the younger members.

Especially in Canadian and USA society, there has been a breakdown of this tried and true system of support throughout one's life. At some stages one receives more than they takes, at other stages that is reversed.

I am sorry, but if we were to follow your philosophy the system would come crashing down. Your philosophy is the philosophy of the "ME" generation. The generation I sometimes call the generation of spoiled brats who have no ethics and no social conscience.

Posted by: Oldun on August 29 2010 7:54 PM

This project has been planned for years and is finally going to happen. 30 units might not seem like much, but it is a step in the right directon.

Posted by: Banner on August 29 2010 10:59 PM

One of the rumours floating around is that the government is recycling Olympic athlete housing for the Hart project. Is there info about who won the contract(s) for construction and/or completion dates?

Posted by: metalman on August 30 2010 12:21 AM

Gus, are you kinda stirring the pot a little? Looking for someone to respond to your cost per unit comparison between this seniors housing project and the flop house at 17th $ Queensway? I'll bite!
We are told that the Friendship Lodge cost $8,100,00.00, 30 units, thats $270,000.00 per unit. The Lodge was originally coceived as a LEEDS silver project, but was awarded LEEDS gold this past May.
A federal grant through CMHC provided $2,000,000.00 and the balance was covered with a mortgage, guaranteed by ???????
The Native Friendship Centre planned to offset operating costs (and make payments on the $6,100,00.00 mortgage I hope)
by charging rent. Rent is based on the applicant's income.
To qualify for a room at this inn, you have to earn $16,500.00 per year or less, and face significant barriers that restrict your ability to access independent housing. Point being, the tenants are not going to be paying much in the way of rent.It is my belief, though I do not have proof, that the Native Friendship Centre and its' many and diverse operations are funded largely by government. For that reason, I take issue with the fact that the project was undertaken to LEEDS standards. For what is basically low income housing, with on site counselling and life coaching thrown in, a more conventional structure would suffice.
metalman.

Posted by: SummerSoul on August 30 2010 6:47 AM

Shame on "Charles" and hooray for "Gus". If Charles had had to pay for his milk as child he would have starved. You only are entitled to what you can pay for? Humbug. We have some mutual obligations as human beings and citizens.

Posted by: pansy on August 30 2010 7:13 AM

I am very happy to see these units coming up. That's good use of my tax dollars.

Perhaps, now, the city can put a sidewalk along Dagg. I used to walk there alot, but it was such a pain trying to move over everytime a car came by, which is very often. It's a very busy little street and a sidewalk up one side (at least) would be good use of my city tax dollars. (also, better for seniors that want to go for walks.

Posted by: Retired on August 30 2010 10:22 AM

Canada's baby boom generation is about 10 million strong.
How is it that we could have 10 million baby boomers born in 1946. If I recall correctly the population of Canada at that time was around 18 million. That would mean that over half of the population of that time is still alive. Is this a Fraser Institute statistic?

Im going out on a limb here but Gus tells us that he came here from Ottawa where all the politics is born. I would think that he will be able to explain this baby boomer stuff to us. So go Gus go.
Cheers

Posted by: gus on August 30 2010 11:11 AM

So "retired" think it is all political, eh? .. LOL....

It is a demographic and, as the linked site says, a sociological term referring to the increase in births in North America, not only the USA, after the war for the generation that was of child bearing age. That makes it about 20 years.

If you look at the chart, it actually started at the end of the depression, continued during the war and kept on going in the improved after war times to the mid to late 1950s when there was a steady decline with a leveling off by mid 1970s.

Of course, what few people talk about is the after the war huge influx of people from war torn Europe. Those people were typically in their twenties and thirties and often brought children with them as well as parents who may have followed afterwards. So, the country was supplemented with additional bread winners as well as those who still needed to be supported, whether young or old. Generally, those people were highly productive and brought excellent skill sets with them that enhanced both Canada and the USA.

Notice that the post first world war era did exactly the opposite to the birth rate.

When you look at the graph, it took about 40 years for the birthrate to drop down to where it left off in the mid 1930s.

The other thing that is not factored into the graph is survival rate within the first year after birth. In the early 1900s that was still relatively high but was starting to drop.

I see more and more people who are opting for larger families. Traditionally that has been partially the case at times when parents want to make sure that they have enough kids that the family group will be supported.

If we are going to return to the type of philosophies that are promulgated by some on here that we have to take care of ourselves rather than rely in part on the community, then that is exactly what will happen. Being a bit blunt about it, it is an insurance policy as long as the children are raised with that thought implanted in them.

Traditional families used to do that. Some of the current immigrants do that as well. Of course, those very people who frown on people who suck at the teats of the state are the ones who all too often frown on that. A very sad case from my point of view.

Posted by: gus on August 30 2010 11:14 AM

oops... here is the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomer

Posted by: gus on August 30 2010 11:26 AM

Of course the one thing that we forget is that likely a larger than normal component of that generation are quite self sufficient as are even the generation just prior to that.

The generation before, especially those who were in continental Europe during the war, were brought up to fend for themselves. And so many of them did and saved for the future rather than spend for the now. Those people are quite well off, as are the children who picked up some of those approaches to life.

In fact, many of both generations have had to support their children and grandchildren, even to the extent of taking them back into the household years after they left.

I am not sure whether that is any different from the early 1900s, but I suspect so.

So, I suspect that a larger percentage than normal is able to take care of themselves rather than having to rely only on social security which, in this country is not much security at all.

Posted by: gus on August 30 2010 11:46 AM

Basically the real problem in the USA and Canada is that there is not enough money in the system to pay out what is needed. So, they will have to rely more and more on the population of "bread winners" still working.

We should also remember that there are more breadwinners proportionately than there were in the early 1900s. In those days there was closer to one income per family. Now we have closer to 2 per family.

Some will say that is because of taxes. Others would say it it because of LCD and Plasma 50" TVs and now 3D TVs.

Our expectations are through the roof both in what we expect from the government and what we expect for our entertainment and other obsessions.

I think some organization that has the knowledge and capacity to do some research in this area should take it on to show us what is really happening rather than us just put-zing around the perimeter of this issue of the Boomers coming through the system.

Posted by: gus on August 30 2010 11:50 AM

BTW, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that politics in Canada is mostly born in Toronto as per Peter Newman's book, The Canadian Establishment. I don't think much has changed since he wrote that.

Posted by: Retired on August 30 2010 4:29 PM

Gus Like I have said before, you are full of it. We are talking about baby boomers that were born 65 years ago plain and simple. Who mentioned the first world war?

What basicaly said that this baby boomer crap is all BS. Why the big ditter. Get a life Gus.
Cheers