Those who regularly peruse the pages of the Rocky Mountain Outlook (and thank you for supporting community journalism by doing so) won’t be surprised that the topic of affordable housing goes all the way back to the newspaper’s beginning in 2001.
That’s right, affordable housing was a main topic of conversation back in 2001 – and it remains so today. The term affordable housing has appeared often, no doubt many hundreds of times over the years, and we’re now wondering if, as a term, it needs further elucidation.
At this point in time “affordable housing” almost seems to be too much of a catchall phrase, being that it may refer to official PAH (perpetually affordable housing) administered by our municipal governments, to rental accommodation affordable for our seasonal workforce, to housing made affordable due to limited size and finish.
Being that the term affordable housing has recently been used in regard to the 7th and 7th project in downtown Canmore, which, it’s hoped, will fall under the umbrella of Canmore Community Housing Corporation (CCHC), as well as for a Devonian Properties garden suite (or tri-plex) project in Stewart Creek, which has been dubbed “entry level” housing, and in a Banff satisfaction survey which suggested the lack of was the most often mentioned reason by those who thought their quality of life in Banff had worsened since the municipality’s last satisfaction survey in 2013, we believe the term needs to be further broken down in future.
Let’s face it, to some in our valley, a $1.5 million home is easily affordable. For others, a half million dollar home is wildly unattainable. Further, with vacancy rates constantly hovering near the zero mark, particularly in Banff, just getting into a rental unit at the going rate is difficult.
So we feel some clarity is needed going forward. Land use bylaws are plumb full of terminology to properly address all manner of uses and issues, so it’s a possible a battery of terms to properly describe “affordable housing” might be in everybody’s best interests as a means of avoiding confusion.
What a kick in the head
We feel bad for the Banff man charged and kicked in the head by a cow elk last week (page 17).
First thoughts when hearing about the incident, of course, sparked an image of some doofus approaching too close for the holiday photo of a lifetime.
Rather, it was a local who tried to properly give the elk a wide berth and not have the cow feel its youngster was threatened.
Of course, the incident only highlights how careful people need to be around unpredictable wildlife. If someone who correctly tried to avoid contact with the cow and her calf was charged and kicked, how surprising would it be that people who are compelled to approach wildlife too closely end up injured?
Hopefully, locals and visitors alike take heed of this story and take, or continue to take, proper precautions in future. With many more visitors predicted to arrive in our valley this summer, it’s possible there will be more human-wildlife interactions than ever.
Let’s hope none of them prove to be fatal.
