Affordable Housing - 4 here, 4 there - not 8 in one place

More on affordable housing

 Protecting Landlords to House More Ottawans: A Smarter Path Forward

Ottawa faces a stubborn housing and homelessness challenge. Landlords are being asked to step up with infill units, secondary suites, and spaces for people who need them most. Yet many hesitate — and their concerns are understandable.

They worry about difficult tenants, property damage, unreliable payments, and eviction processes that feel slow and one-sided. These aren’t abstract fears; they’re business realities. When perceived risk outweighs reward, private landlords pull back. The result? Fewer units available, longer shelter stays, and a housing supply that fails to keep pace with need.

The good news? Ottawa already has several strong, landlord-friendly programs in place. With targeted expansion and a few smart additions, the city can turn hesitation into willing participation — protecting landlords while dramatically increasing housing options for vulnerable residents.

Ottawa’s Existing Strengths

Rent Supplement Program
This is one of the most straightforward tools available. Landlords who participate receive full market rent every month. The tenant pays their affordable portion directly to the landlord, while the City covers the difference through a direct subsidy payment.

During vacancies, the City can cover up to two months of full rent. Agreements can be short-term or ongoing, giving landlords flexibility. It’s a win-win: stable income for landlords and affordable housing for low- and moderate-income residents without the landlord absorbing the full affordability gap.

Housing First Partnerships (via Options Housing and similar providers)
Housing First isn’t just about giving someone a key — it’s about pairing housing with intensive, ongoing support. Programs like Options Housing actively recruit private landlords and provide a dedicated team that helps with tenant matching, move-in coordination, and 24/7 problem-solving.

Landlords report significantly less hassle. Rent is often paid directly by the City through housing allowances, and tenant retention rates are impressive — around 88% of clients remain stably housed after two years. This model directly addresses the “difficult tenant” concern by putting professional support in place from day one.

Landlord Damage Fund
For landlords participating in Housing First programs, the City offers a discretionary fund that reimburses significant damages beyond normal wear and tear. Proper documentation (photos, move-in/move-out checklists, and estimates) is required, but when approved, it provides meaningful financial protection.

This fund has already helped retain landlords who might otherwise have walked away after a problematic tenancy. It turns a major risk into a manageable one.

Ontario Renovates – Forgivable Loans
Landlords renovating existing units (or creating new infill space) can access interest-free loans of up to $15,000 per unit. The loan is forgiven over 15 years if rents are kept at or below Average Market Rent.

It’s an excellent tool for smaller landlords and infill projects, helping cover accessibility upgrades or essential repairs while committing to long-term affordability.

Adding Powerful New Protections

While these programs are solid foundations, Ottawa can go further by layering on tools that more aggressively reduce landlord risk:

• Master Leasing models — A nonprofit or city partner signs a master lease with the landlord and then sublets to tenants. The landlord receives guaranteed rent from one reliable payer, faces minimal vacancy risk, and deals with far less day-to-day tenant management. The master lessee handles screening barriers and provides support services. This model has worked well in other Canadian and U.S. cities and is already being piloted in Ottawa through groups like HousingWorks.
• Expanded risk mitigation — Building on the existing Damage Fund, the City could add limited rental guarantees or signing incentives for new units leased to supported tenants. Small bonuses or short-term lost-rent coverage (with reasonable conditions) can make the difference between a landlord saying “yes” or “no.”
• TIEGs (Tax Increment Equivalent Grants)
  Under Ottawa’s Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan, developers who include affordable units can receive annual grants of $6,000–$8,000 per affordable unit for up to 20 years. These grants are funded by the increased property taxes the new development generates. They directly offset the revenue loss from lower rents and can be stacked with development charge waivers and other incentives. Making TIEGs more accessible to smaller infill projects would be a game-changer.

Recent Provincial Tailwinds

Ontario’s Bill 60 changes (phased in during 2026) have shortened non-payment notice periods and improved some Landlord and Tenant Board processes. These reforms give landlords faster recourse in clear cases of non-payment while still preserving important tenant protections. Council should actively educate landlords about these changes and ensure local programs complement them.

What Ottawa City Council Should Do Next

To move from “strong foundations” to real scale, here are practical next steps:

1. Aggressively promote and simplify existing programs — Many landlords don’t know about the Rent Supplement Program, Housing First partnerships, or the Damage Fund. Targeted outreach, clear one-pagers, and landlord forums would increase uptake.
2. Expand and formalize master leasing — Scale the existing pilot and make it a core offering for both new infill and existing units.
3. Enhance the Landlord Damage Fund — Increase visibility, consider modest funding increases, and explore adding limited rental-loss coverage.
4. Streamline TIEGs for smaller projects — Reduce administrative barriers so more infill and missing-middle developments can access these grants.
5. Integrate supports across programs — Make it easy for a landlord using rent supplements to also access Housing First-style case management and the Damage Fund when needed.
6. Track outcomes and landlord satisfaction — Measure participation rates, retention, damage claims, and feedback. Use the data to refine programs and demonstrate success to the broader landlord community.

A Balanced, Evidence-Based Approach

Social science is clear: when landlords face high perceived risk, housing supply for vulnerable populations shrinks. When risks are shared through direct payments, professional supports, and financial backstops, participation rises — and housing retention improves dramatically.

Ottawa doesn’t need to choose between protecting tenants and supporting landlords. The most effective path forward does both. By building on programs that already exist and adding stronger risk-sharing tools, the city can encourage more landlords to say “yes” to infill and supportive housing.

The result? More units brought online, fewer people experiencing homelessness, and a rental market that works better for everyone involved.

Landlords aren’t the enemy in this crisis — they’re essential partners. It’s time Ottawa treated them that way.

Also refer to my Renters Responsibilities post.

---

Landlords need help to provide housing

I can confirm that landlords' concerns about difficult or irresponsible tenants and eviction challenges are common, rational, and well-documented across Canada and similar jurisdictions. 

These perceptions directly affect housing supply: when risks (financial losses from damage/non-payment, legal delays, or management burdens) outweigh rewards, private landlords—especially smaller ones—opt out of renting to vulnerable populations or participating in affordable/supportive programs. 

This reduces overall supply elasticity and exacerbates homelessness.

Social science evidence (including randomized trials like Canada's At Home/Chez Soi Housing First study) shows that with proper supports, many formerly homeless or vulnerable tenants achieve high housing retention rates (often 80-90%+ after 1-2 years) and become stable renters. 

The key is shifting from a purely punitive landlord-tenant dynamic to one with shared risk, third-party supports, guaranteed elements, and incentives. 

Mandates or overly tenant-favorable rules without offsets deter participation; affirmative encouragement through "carrots" (financial security, reduced hassle, supports) works better.

Ottawa already has strong foundations in its Rent Supplement Program, Housing First partnerships (e.g., via Options Housing), the Landlord Damage Fund, forgivable renovation loans (Ontario Renovates), Tax Increment Equivalent Grants (TIEGs), tax exemptions via the Municipal Housing Facilities By-law, and recent federal/provincial deals waiving development charges and property taxes for affordable/supportive units.

Provincial changes via Bill 60 (Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025, with phased 2026 implementation) have shortened non-payment notice periods (14 to 7 days in many cases), adjusted LTB processes for faster resolutions in some arrears cases, and made other procedural improvements for landlords. These help address "hard to evict" concerns without fully dismantling tenant protections.

Here is targeted, evidence-based advice for Ottawa City Council to affirmatively encourage and protect landlords while expanding infill, scattered-site, and supportive housing options:

1. Expand Risk-Sharing and Guaranteed Payment Mechanisms (Highest Priority for Landlord Protection)

• Scale and promote the existing Rent Supplement Program: Landlords already receive full market rent (tenant portion + direct city subsidy), up to 2 months' vacancy payments, and unit inspections/support. 

Market this aggressively to private landlords for infill or existing units. Highlight predictable cash flow.

• Expand the Landlord Damage Fund(already used for Housing First clients): It reimburses significant damages beyond normal wear and tear with proper documentation (photos, move-in/out checklists, estimates). Increase awareness, potentially raise caps or funding, and tie it explicitly to new infill or supportive placements. 

This directly mitigates the "property damage" fear.

• Adopt or expand Master Leasing models: A nonprofit, social enterprise, or city partner (building on Ottawa's existing HousingWorks pilot) signs a master lease with the landlord for one or more units and subleases to tenants. The landlord receives guaranteed rent from a single reliable payer, faces minimal vacancy risk, and deals with fewer individual tenant issues. The master lessee handles screening barriers, provides supports, and manages problems. This model has proven effective in reducing landlord reluctance in U.S. and Canadian examples.
• Add limited rental guarantees or signing incentives: Offer bonuses for new units leased to supported tenants or partial coverage of short-term lost rent (with conditions like allowing early support intervention or a short cure period before eviction filing). These lower perceived risk without unlimited liability.

Why this works: Landlords respond to reduced financial exposure. Direct payments and third-party backing turn "risky tenants" into more predictable arrangements.

2. Strengthen Supportive Services and Landlord Partnerships

• Deepen partnerships with organizations like Options Housing (which works with 135+ landlords and 1,700+ tenants in Housing First). They provide direct housing allowances paid to landlords, 24/7 tenant support, move-in coordination, mediation, and access to the damage fund. Retention rates are strong (88% stably housed after 24 months in their programs).
• Fund more wrap-around case management, life skills support, mental health/addiction services, and mediation. Evidence shows these reduce "difficult tenant" issues dramatically in Housing First models.
• Create or expand landlord toolkits/training (adapting federal Housing First landlord engagement resources) on working with vulnerable tenants, plus peer networks or advisory input from participating landlords.

3. Tie Infill and Development Incentives Directly to Landlord-Friendly Models

• Continue and expand TIEG*s ($6,000–$8,000 per affordable unit/year for 20 years), tax exemptions, development charge waivers, fee relief, and fast-tracked approvals for infill projects (including missing middle, ADUs/laneway housing, or conversions) that commit to affordable units, rent supplements, master leasing, or supportive partnerships.
• Offer additional density bonuses or priority processing for projects incorporating risk-mitigation features or set-asides for Housing First/rent-supplemented tenants.
• Use Ontario Renovates-style forgivable loans more broadly for private landlords renovating infill or existing units in exchange for long-term affordability commitments and program participation.

4. Leverage and Supplement Provincial Processes

• Educate and assist landlords on Bill 60 changes for faster non-payment pathways and other efficiencies.
• Enhance local eviction prevention (rent banks, emergency assistance) to reduce filings while preserving recourse for serious issues.
• Consider targeted local supports (e.g., mediation before LTB, pre-inspections) without overriding the RTA. Avoid measures that increase perceived eviction difficulty.

5. Implementation, Monitoring, and Collaboration

• Pilot and scale: Start or expand master leasing and enhanced incentives as targeted pilots, then evaluate landlord participation, tenant retention, damage claims, and costs.
• Data-driven approach: Track landlord satisfaction, unit turnover, outcomes for vulnerable tenants, and overall housing supply impact. Use this to refine programs and demonstrate success (countering stigma).
• Partnerships: Work closely with the Province (RTA/LTB advocacy if further balanced reforms are needed), federal funders (Housing Accelerator Fund), nonprofits, and landlord associations. Coordinate with existing Ottawa initiatives like the Affordable Housing Pipeline and Action Ottawa.
• Communication: Host landlord forums, share anonymized success stories and data, and position participation as low-risk, community-positive, and financially sound.

Expected Outcomes and Rationale

These measures affirmatively protect landlords by addressing core risks (payments, damage, hassle, eviction timelines) while encouraging more units for infill and vulnerable populations. Social science indicates incentive-based, voluntary programs with risk-sharing outperform mandates or pure tenant protections in expanding supply. They align with Housing First principles proven effective in Canada.

Ottawa is already ahead with tools like rent supplements and the damage fund—scaling and layering master leasing/risk guarantees on top would be transformative. This balanced approach respects tenant rights (stability reduces homelessness cycles) while making landlord participation attractive and sustainable.

Council should prioritize funding these enhancements in upcoming budgets, leveraging senior government dollars where possible. 

If implemented thoughtfully with evaluation, this can increase housing options, reduce street homelessness, and build a more resilient rental market. 

I recommend consulting local stakeholders (landlord groups, service providers like Options Housing, and the Social Housing Registry) for tailored rollout details.

* TIEGs stand for Tax Increment Equivalent Grants.In Ottawa, these are a key financial incentive under the city’s Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan (CIP). They are designed to make it more financially viable for developers and landlords (including those doing infill or new rental projects) to include affordable rental units.

How TIEGs Work

• When a new development is built, it typically increases the property’s assessed value and therefore generates higher property taxes for the city (the “tax increment”).
• Instead of keeping all of that extra tax revenue, the city returns a portion of it to the developer/landlord as an annual grant.
• In Ottawa’s program, this takes the form of a fixed grant of $6,000 to $8,000 per affordable unit per year, paid for up to 20 years.
• The grant helps offset the lower rents charged on the affordable units, so the overall project remains profitable.

Key Conditions (Typical Requirements)

• A minimum percentage of units in the building (often at least 15% overall and per unit type) must be rented at or below Ottawa’s Average Market Rent (AMR) as defined by CMHC.
• The affordability commitment usually lasts for the full 20-year grant period.
• The grant amount is capped at 50% of the actual municipal property tax increase generated by the project.
• Units must comply with the Residential Tenancies Act (including rent increase rules).

Why This Matters for Landlords and Infill HousingTIEGs are one of the main “carrots” Ottawa uses to encourage private landlords and developers to participate in affordable housing. They provide ongoing, predictable revenue support tied directly to the new development, which helps de-risk projects that include below-market units or units targeted at vulnerable populations (when combined with rent supplements, Housing First supports, or master leasing).These grants can often be stacked with other incentives such as:

• Development charge exemptions/waivers
• Reductions in parkland dedication or community benefit charges
• Property tax exemptions under the Municipal Housing Facilities By-law

Recent examples include approvals for multiple projects (e.g., along Rideau, Carling, Somerset, etc.) where TIEGs helped deliver hundreds of affordable units alongside market-rate ones.

Stanley Park

 

Out meeting the dog walkers and baby strollers 

Although this set up seems innocuous, I met over 20 people. Those I did not meet still saw me.

One advised, " get good staff and hang on to them"

Another, " for $15,000 a year in taxes, I want peace of mind not infill, and I want my car!"

I am giving people a real and compelling choice.

Breakfast of Champions

 Bacon and egger

Affordable Supported Housing - we are getting mixed messages

 What the 2025 progress report says — and what the numbers around it are actually say:

The City's 2025 progress report on the 10-Year Housing and Homelessness Plan lists a set of results for the year:

• 1,017 households housed from the Centralized Wait List
• 1,037 households housed from the shelter system
• 109 unsheltered individuals housed from encampments
• 388 households housed through Housing First
• 193 households housed through the Indigenous Housing First Program
• 525 low-income households housed through new housing benefits
• 31 affordable and 48 supportive housing units completed
• 907 affordable and 87 supportive housing units under construction as of December 31, 2025

Does this look like a year of real movement?

 Read against the City's own companion data — and against the last two years of the same report — a different picture forms. This is a story about what gets counted, and what doesn't.

Outputs, not outcomes

Almost every number above describes a placement: 

a household moved from a wait list, a shelter, or an encampment into a unit, usually in the existing private market with a subsidy or support attached. 

That's roughly 3,200 placement events. It's a genuinely large amount of casework. 

The system REALLY is working IF it's also shrinking the number of people who need placing — and the City's own data says it isn't.

The Centralized Wait List sat at over 12,400 households in 2023. By the 2024 Housing Needs Assessment it had grown to more than 15,000 — a two-thirds increase since 2020, with typical wait times stretching past seven years. 

A separate 2026 city report on family homelessness found that the number of households exiting homelessness in 2025 actually dropped 41 per cent compared to the year before, even as the same year is being reported as a progress year in the plan document. 

Families living in temporary hotel and motel placements — the costliest and least stable form of shelter — grew 76 per cent since 2023, reaching 664 families and over 1,200 children by March 2026, at a cost of roughly $30 million in hotel placements in 2025 alone.

Those two data points were published by the City itself, months apart, about the same calendar year. 

One report says over 3,200 households were housed. Another says exits from homelessness fell sharply and family shelter reliance grew by three-quarters. Both can be true at once — housing more people from an ever-larger pool doesn't mean the pool is shrinking — but a progress report that only shows the first number is telling half the story.

The supply side hasn't moved in three years of reporting

Strip out the placement activity and look only at new stock, and the pattern gets sharper:

Report year	New units highlighted
2023 progress report	~700 new affordable housing options created
2024 progress report	Over 1,000 households housed from the wait list (no comparable completions figure highlighted)
2025 progress report	31 affordable + 48 supportive units completed

Thirty-one affordable and 48 supportive units completed in a single year, against a wait list north of 15,000 households, is close to a rounding error on the supply side. 

The 907 affordable and 87 supportive units "under construction" as of December 31 sound more substantial, but under construction is a pipeline status, not a delivery commitment — it says nothing about completion dates, nothing about how much of that count simply rolled over from a prior year without landing, and nothing about how it compares to what the 10-Year Plan actually targeted for this stage of its run. 

Council's own recently refreshed plan flags 550 supportive units and 450 households on the supportive housing waitlist as the scale of need still outstanding — a number that dwarfs 48 completions.

Supportive housing deserves particular attention. 

Forty-eight supportive completions against 109 people housed out of encampments in the same year is a mismatch worth naming: encampment residents disproportionately need supportive housing with wraparound services, not just an affordable unit. When the supportive pipeline can't keep pace with the people cycling out of encampments, some portion of that 109 is a reasonable bet to return to homelessness within the year — and that return doesn't show up anywhere in a report built around forward placements.

The context the report leaves out

None of the following figures appear in the 2025 progress report as excerpted, but all of them come from the City's own related publications from the same period:

• The 2024 Point-in-Time Count recorded 2,952 people experiencing homelessness in Ottawa, a 78.5 per cent increase since 2018.
• The shelter system was operating at over 81 per cent above capacity.
• Chronic homelessness, while a smaller share of the total, rose in absolute numbers from 813 to 1,279 people.
• Indigenous residents, roughly 2.6 per cent of Ottawa's population, made up 19 per cent of people counted in the 2024 Point-in-Time Count — useful context for reading the 193 households housed through the Indigenous Housing First Program against the scale of need in that community specifically.

A progress report is not obligated to be a comprehensive state-of-the-crisis document. But when the same department publishes both documents, and one shows steady placement activity while the other shows the underlying crisis growing faster than the placements can offset, accountability means reading them together rather than letting the more favourable one stand alone in public messaging.

What I'd want to see instead

If this were being reported the way a capital program or a construction schedule gets reported — the way my own PMP background says it should be — three things would be non-negotiable:

1. A net figure, not just a gross one. Households housed minus new households entering homelessness or returning to it, so the public can see whether the system gained ground or just processed more people through the same size funnel.
2. A multi-year completions trend, not a single year's snapshot. Is 79 total completions in 2025 up, flat, or down against 2023 and 2024? A single year's number, isolated, can't answer whether the pipeline is accelerating or stalling — and that's the number that actually reflects current council's delivery, since these projects have three-to-five year lead times from land assembly to occupancy.
3. A reconciliation of "under construction" year over year. If 907 units were under construction at the end of 2025, how many of those were also under construction at the end of 2024? A pipeline that grows every year without a matching rise in completions is a pipeline that isn't converting.

None of this is a case against the people doing placement work in 2025 — that's real casework, and it matters to the households on the other end of it. It's a case for reporting that puts the placement wins next to the same year's exit numbers, completion numbers, and waitlist growth, so residents get the full picture rather than the flattering half of it. The 10-Year Plan refresh underway now is the right moment to ask for exactly that.

---

Sources

• City of Ottawa, 10-Year Housing and Homelessness Plan — progress reports and background: ottawa.ca/en/family-and-social-services/housing-and-homelessness/plans-facts-and-data/ottawas-10-year-housing-and-homelessness-plan
• City of Ottawa, 2023 Progress Report — 10-Year Housing and Homelessness Plan 2020–2030 (PDF): documents.ottawa.ca/sites/default/files/2023HHReport_EN.pdf
• City of Ottawa, 10-Year Housing and Homelessness Plan 2026–2035 (refreshed plan, includes 2020–2025 "sunsetting" summary) (PDF): documents.ottawa.ca/sites/default/files/HousingPlan2026-2035_EN.pdf
• City of Ottawa 2024 Housing Needs Assessment, as summarized by the Alliance to End Homelessness Ottawa: endhomelessnessottawa.ca/ottawa_housing_needs_assessment
• City of Ottawa 2024 Housing Needs Assessment, as summarized by HelpSeeker Technologies: helpseeker.org/reports/city-of-ottawa-housing-needs-assessment
• CBC News, "City forges new plan to house Ottawa's homeless families" (reporting on the City's 2026 family homelessness strategy report): cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-has-a-plan-to-house-homeless-families-9.7172355

Note: The 2025 Progress Report  

One more time- get those 18 wheelers out of downtown

 

It is a definitive difference in policies between the King and I.