3.1 Buyout solutions must be context-specific and creative

3.1 Buyout solutions must be context-specific and creative

Given the variable drivers which influence homeowners’ acceptance of buyout programs (Bukvic & Owen, 2017; Frimpong et al., 2019), it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to identify all drivers applicable to every homeowner in every situation. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, buyouts are constrained by existing programs, policies and ideologies found locally. Bukvic and Owen note:

“ To understand the circumstances under which residents would be willing to consider relocation, decision-makers need to look at communities on a case-by-case basis and account for the distinct cultural, historical, institutional, and socioeconomic dimensions of each costal locality…” (Bukvic & Owen, 2017: 120)

Without specific attention to local contextual constraints and opportunities, buyout coordinators run the risk of creating a socially and economically untenable program at best, and at worst, the program may erode trust between parties and further existing inequality (Gross, 2019; Mach et al., 2019; Siders, 2019). For example, the Oakwood Beach, NY buyouts were largely successful because community members used existing political ties to promote and influence the buyout and acquire funding (Siders, 2019). However, where political support is lacking, or where community members do not have the same political capital or financial wherewithal, similar pathways are not possible (Siders, 2019). Expecting small, rural or marginalized communities to adopt the same strategies and resources as larger, more well-connected and well-funded communities is unfeasible, so coordinators must thoroughly examine the actors, resources, history, and context before any major decisions are made about program structure.

As part of examining available resources, the literature suggests that special attention should be paid to potential funding mechanisms and existing coastal and flood management programs. Currently the Canadian government provides post-disaster relief through the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA) fund, which has granted over $5 billion dollars in assistance to territories and provinces since the 1970s (Public Safety Canada, 2020). The DFAA is a cost-sharing mechanism to provide aid when disaster damages reach a pre-determined threshold; as of January 2020, Ontario’s threshold was $47.6 million (Public Safety Canada, 2020). Although eligible activities listed under DFAA include “removal of damaged structures constituting a threat to public safety” (Public Safety Canada, 2020), buyouts are not mentioned specifically and the associated land acquisition costs of damaged structures are not mentioned.

Similarly, Ontario funds two financial assistance programs – the Disaster Recovery Assistance Ontario (DRAO) fund and the Municipal Disaster Recovery Assistance program (Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing, 2020). Like federal funding, these programs are designed to provide disaster recovery funding and thus have no mandate to support proactive buyouts. More importantly, experts note that neither the federal nor Ontario provincial governments currently have the capacity to prioritize proactive buyouts (Zuzek, 2020). As of 2018, Ontario faced an economic deficit of $1 billion (McNeil, 2019); decision makers are facing significant pressure to reduce spending where possible, and while McNeil makes recommendations to maintain or increase funding for flood efforts (McNeil, 2019), Ontario buyout coordinators must draw upon other sources to fund a buyout.