Affordable housing is all relative

A $250,000-$400,000 apartment condo (plus condo fees) is considered "affordable" housing in a city with a median income of $52,000/year?

Median means the middle not the average, so by definition 50% of incomes in this city are equal to or less than $52,000. That's gross - net's about $37,000.

So a $350,000 condo is nine times the yearly income. Unfortunately Banks and Mortgage companies indicate that housing should affordably be no more than 50% of income and the purchase cost of a home no more than four times an individual's yearly income.

And that "affordable" apartment condo comes with just enough storage space for your skis, but not your bicycle, snowshoes or kayak. If you are living in Kelowna for the "lifestyle" you will need another $100/month for a storage facility for your playthings because they won't fit in your 900-1200 square foot apartment.

I guess you could store stuff on the balcony.

Do not insult the intelligence of the people of Kelowna by trying to spin this money making development scheme for a couple of unneeded condo towers as a commitment to affordable housing.

There are dozens of owner-unoccupied condos for sale in this city for less than $250,000 already. Young professionals that come here have toys and two cars per couple because they go hiking and boating and to the mountains to ski and to the regional wineries.

They don't want a small box downtown where the other units are empty or rentals. Young families need communities and neighbours not concrete.

Four potential condo developments on Pandosy-Lakeshore are now empty lots for sale and there are numerous empty or transitionally "vacation rental" occupied condos in this city. This is not in any way an affordable housing proposal, be honest.
 

Pamela Leco