Last year, Squamish was listed as having the second-highest cost of living in the province, surpassed only by Whistler. Adding to this, our property taxes due next week have increased by 12.8% – the highest increase out of all municipalities in BC – yet the amenities or infrastructure our taxes pay for still feel lacking. Despite this steep tax increase, and in part because of it, it feels as though it is becoming harder and harder for residents to have their personal needs met. To understand this disconnect, I think it’s worth examining local housing policy and how we are measuring its success.
The provincial government has been focused on increasing the supply of housing in BC. Under their Homes for People program, the province has mandated municipalities meet targets based on local housing needs reports. What’s implied with this approach is that once supply of housing meets the demand for housing, prices will fall. Our community has successfully administered this policy – adding more than 25% of its housing stock in the last decade. At the same time though, we have seen prices and property taxes steadily climb. How is it possible that we have accomplished the goal of creating more housing, but things seem to be worse?
The problem isn’t necessarily the plan. The problem is how government defines success.
Why does how we measure success matter? Because it informs how government directs its energy and resources. So much of what we see with government comes down to process.
- Municipal government defines a goal to resolve a community issue.
- They create a strategy, define objectives, and supporting policies.
- The strategy gets funded through the budgeting process and staff administer it.
- They monitor and report on their progress until the policy’s stated end date.
We can see this play out in Squamish’s Housing Action Plan. Its stated goal is “to make housing more livable and attainable for our residents”. In their action plan – that can be found on our municipal government’s website – the DOS has nearly completed all stated objectives, which have successfully supported the development of a ton of new housing.
The reason it feels like the plan isn’t working is because we are measuring success in the wrong way. Instead of measuring success on whether the DOS completed all stated objectives, we should be measuring success on whether those completed objectives are resulting in meaningful benefit to residents. More simply, has the DOS’s efforts resulted in housing that is more liveable and attainable? The available evidence suggests it has not.
To be sure, the objectives detailed in the DOS’s housing action plan seem to stand on their own merit and taken together it seems like a sensible plan. Over time these strategies might prove successful, however the best data we have is to look at actual results. What has been the result of this plan?
According to the District of Squamish’s 2023 Housing Needs Report, average sale prices of detached homes rose by 61% in just five years, from about $944,000 in 2018 to $1.52 million in 2022. Apartments climbed 44% (from $463,100 to $667,118), while townhouses rose 49% (from $663,633 to $986,581) over the same period. The report goes on to say that to afford an average detached home, a family would have to earn roughly $330,000/year – this is three times higher than the median gross household income of $111,000.
What’s the alternative then? We need a new governance model that results in better outcomes for residents.
Housing is only one example. The same pattern can be seen across many areas of government.
Consider Brennan Park. Despite spending $21M on the project, many residents are left asking whether the investment addressed our most pressing community needs. The question isn’t whether the project was completed successfully. The question is whether it delivered the outcomes residents needed most.
We need a government that can meet our needs for affordable housing, infrastructure to keep up with a growing town, amenities that promote health and belonging, and financial accountability.
Rather than following rigid processes to achieve predefined goals, an alternative approach would be for our government to act more like the community members they are elected to serve.
When working to resolve a problem people naturally:
- Have a clear understanding of what needs they are trying to meet.
- Create plans based on what resources they have, as well as what issues may impact them.
- Take action and fluidly respond to obstacles along the way.
- Keep going until their needs are met or they identify a better plan to meet them.
Herein lies the problem. People measure success on whether their needs have been met or not, while government often cites the completion of a process as success.
A process should be a means to an end, not the end in and of itself.
This is how – despite our government successfully completing all the tasks related to public engagement, council meetings, and strategic plans based on the OCP – our town is becoming more expensive and harder to live in.
A thought worth considering: can a government truly meet the needs of the people if it doesn’t behave like them?
I’d say no. Government often approaches problems differently than residents do, and that difference can result in community needs going unmet. We need our government to root their decisions in the true needs of the community, as understood by the people, and for them to act upon this information until those needs have been met. Success must be measured in outcomes.
A Squamish that does this will see housing being built that people can afford. We would have infrastructure that keeps pace with growth. We would have recreational facilities and community amenities that truly meet our needs. We’d see investment in projects that provide children and youth with low-cost year-round activities – like the Squamish Skateboard Association working to build an indoor skateboard park.
This Squamish’s government would truly engage with residents as collaborators to understand what this town needs; then it would direct its resources toward meeting those needs.
In this Squamish, which could be our Squamish, success would be measured on whether community members’ needs have been met.
This is resident-centered governance. This is what our town needs.
Until we start measuring success by whether people’s needs are being met, we will continue mistaking completed plans for solved problems.
