New Roles Amidst Crisis: Comparing Municipal Affordable Housing Strategies in New Brunswick
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Affordable Housing in New Brunswick is desperately needed. New Brunswickers have faced major challenges since the start of the 2019 Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, including record-breaking rent hikes, extreme increases to the public housing waitlist, full shelters, and growing encampments. Despite this crisis, the provincial government has rolled out only modest improvements in tenant protections and social housing investments. At the core of the province’s approach to the rental housing crisis is a decidedly neoliberal focus on increasing supply through tax cuts and encouraging housing starts. At the same time, the government of New Brunswick has embarked on municipal reform that gives cities additional capacities, including the ability to mobilize inclusionary zoning by-laws. In response to the housing crisis and against the backdrop of municipal reform, municipal governments across the province have been rolling out new affordable housing strategies. This paper analyzes the most recent strategies in two of New Brunswick’s mid-sized cities: Fredericton, the capital city, and Saint John, a port city and an industrial hub of the province. These strategies have, notably, been developed in a period of dramatic municipal reform and crisis. Attending to the distinct policy mechanisms proposed in these different strategies, we ask four key questions: How is the affordable housing crisis characterized within the municipal strategies? What roles are identified for municipal governments? What solutions are proposed? How do these strategies differ? This comparative analysis will provide a much-needed interrogation of the ways that the two municipal housing strategies have been developed amidst an aggressive neoliberal policymaking campaign in the affordable housing arena on the part of the province. It will also add to the literature a needed focus on the Maritime region, which is often neglected despite facing some of the highest rent increases in the country. At the same time, the government of New Brunswick has embarked on municipal reform that gives cities additional taxation capacities and the ability to mobilize inclusionary zoning by-laws (GNB, n.d., Community Planning Act, 2017). In response to the housing crisis and against the backdrop of municipal reform, municipal governments across the province have been rolling out new affordable housing strategies. This paper analyzes the most recent strategies in two of New Brunswick’s mid-sized cities: Fredericton, the capital city, and Saint John, a port city and an industrial hub of the province. These strategies have, notably, been developed in a period of dramatic municipal reform and crisis. Attending to the distinct policy mechanisms proposed in these different strategies, we ask three key questions: How do the municipalities understand the affordable housing crisis? What solutions are proposed? How and why do these strategies differ? This comparative analysis will provide a much-needed interrogation of how these two municipalities are incorporating and/or resisting what has been an aggressive neoliberal policymaking campaign in the affordable housing arena on the part of the province. It will also add to the literature a needed focus on the Maritime region which is often neglected.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».