Dec 3 Public Hearing Recap: Council Kills Crucial Transit-Oriented Development (and some positive non-market news!)

Or: Why we have a housing crisis.

This week we learned that opposition to housing is surprisingly organized and well-funded. We at More Neighbours want to make sure that the voices of pro-housing Calgarians are heard. To that end, we’ve got some exciting news: We have a bank account now!

If you have a few bucks to spare and want to support what we do (organize informative events and show up to council with vocal support for housing mostly) then please consider sending an e-transfer donation to info@moreneighbourscalgary.ca. We love this grassroots community and want to keep it healthy, engaged, and active!

First off, we want to say thank you so very much to everyone who spoke up during this week’s public hearing. Truly know that your voice made a difference.

This week’s hearing was a surprisingly difficult one, dragging on for three days. Several of the 20+ agenda items drew significant, and often baffling opposition. In particular, organized opposition seemed to be directed at low income housing, transit-oriented development, and a church that wants to build mixed-use supportive housing around their church instead of… just a church.

It was hard to watch many of our fellow Calgarians frame more housing as a polluting, crime-attracting eyesore instead of the opportunity for enriched communities that it is. It was hard to hear voices – understandably frustrated by the obfuscated and complex beast that is the Land Use Bylaw and redesignation process – cling to misinformation. When councillors offered clarity and reassurance, residents insisted it was not good enough.

But it was not all bad news. Many of you came to speak in favour of low-income and transit-oriented housing. Our community continues to amaze us, and the people we support. And that the end of the day, two of the three controversial projects moved forward.

A Quick Recap

There ended up being three items with particularly organized opposition. We will walk you through them and the results quickly.

Trellis

Trellis Home is a 5-storey, 50-unit affordable housing development focused on family life and being deeply affordable (e.g. tied to income) instead of just “below market”. We had the pleasure of speaking with some of the Trellis team last week at our “Non-Market Housing 101” event where we packed a room full of Calgarians to talk about the challenges of building affordable housing. You can read more about that in a previous post if you would like.

The big sticking point is that although the land they are building on is (and has long been) zoned for housing, it has a playground on it, and some local residents are very worried about the loss of the playground. Trellis themselves have recognized that families in their development will need playground space, and have offered to support building a playground on underutilized greenspace at the end of the block.

Unfortunately, as part of the City’s (understandable) push to approve non-market housing quickly, the playground plan isn’t fully locked down. And so the debate seemed to be: Is housing 50 very-low-income families worth very likely moving a playground down the street?

Apparently to five of the 14 on council, the answer is no. Including - and we must point this out - the local area councillor Sonya Sharp.

Our Favourite Moment: Councillor Sharp tried to ‘gotcha’ Greg Miller with a question about his favourite business in Bowness. After rattling off several, it was clear Greg was no stranger to the community. After that, many speakers (and even Councillor Spencer) joyfully announced their favourite business in Bowness.

The Springbank Yes-In-God’s-Backyard Project

Because many of us had focused on the Trellis project and Glenmore Landing, this project came as a pleasant surprise. A church that has some land next to Rundle College wants to - instead of building a traditional church - redevelop into a mixed-use facility that includes affordable housing just steps away from the Blue Line terminus at 69 Street.

Their neighbours did not seem so excited. After much pushback from Rundle College in particular, they came to council with a bespoke Direct Control (custom) land use district to appease concerns. That was apparently not enough, as folks in “Rundle Rocks” shirts lined up one after the other in opposition: How many units exactly will be on this site? Where will the shadows fall at night? Where will the beloved community moose migrate?

These are real questions posed. And many more focused not on the land use but on the suggested rendering of the building and the eventual development permit. But that’s a symptom of our confusing process as much as anything. Thankfully this one passed.

Our Favourite Moment: Learning a fun procedural quirk when an attempt was made to delay development by withholding a second and third reading of the land use change bylaw: Only councillors present for the first reading can vote on the second and third. If this goes over an election, that can cause some… problems. Thankfully the attempt failed.

Glenmore Landing

This was the first stage of a long term vision to transform the Glenmore Landing strip-mall into a multi-use transit-oriented residential and commercial area, supported by the MAX Yellow BRT. This is an ideal location, giving residents easy transit or cycling access to Rockyview Hospital and Mount Royal University, as well as the natural beauty and recreation of the Glenmore Reservoir.

Nevertheless, a parade of residents in yellow shirts showed up to city hall with a myriad of concerns: The development would poison our water supply, the infrastructure couldn’t handle the increased population, the traffic, the parking, too many additional pets… Many of these concerns were addressed by city admin, but people simply weren’t ready to take the city’s experts at their word.

There were the usual arguments about height, and some specific concerns regarding mobility through the area — but as our new friend Stephanie Chipeur demonstrated, you don’t actually need to oppose housing in order to support mobility upgrades!

Ultimately, the concerns rattled a few of the councillors, and the proposal was defeated. This is a massive loss for short-term housing supply, but there will be broader ramifications too for other large development projects: is it safe to invest in a city that is so capricious in its land-use decisions?

Our Favourite Moment: A lawyer for the Palliser-Bayview-Pump Hill Community Association tried to litigate that the CA was not properly engaged. Councillor Penner revealed that the Haysboro CA had no such issue, and that the PBPH community association simply didn’t follow the procedure to view protected documents at City Hall.

Conclusion

With Councillor Richard Pootmans stepping back from his post, the battle to secure housing for Calgarians is one vote tougher. As we crawl toward next year’s municipal election, councillors are testing the waters, to see what kinds of issues and stances play well with their constituents.

We hope the City (and the city) follows in the precedent set by Rezoning for Housing: Simplifying and streamlining the labyrinthine, red tape-laden land-use process. This will allow housing developers, City administrators, councillors, Community Associations, community members, and advocates to focus our energy on the discussions that actually matter: Getting people into homes, building a better quality of life for Calgarians, and building communities that we are all truly proud of.