April 22nd, 2024 is shaping up to be D day on the RCG land use issue facing inner city Calgary when the only voters that actually count (the Council + Mayor) will cast a deciding ballot. I am sure the self appointed neighbourhood activists are marshalling support now while creating TED-talk like powerpoint slides to illustrate the profundity of their ideas against the evil townhouse developers. For insight into the minds of this cohort of society, all one needs to do is browse the Nextdoor app and scroll among the comments related to any development issue.
While it may appear unfair to post derogatory commentary on the quality of ideas put forth in opposition of infill townhouse development in the RC1 and RC2 areas consider it this way. Are the infill developers experts in dentistry and piloting airplanes? Do the developers comment on performing root canals and landing jets? However, in these development matters such as townhouses and affordability, the greed-addled developer is viewed as a biased and self serving entity, while the frozen in amber zoning advocate is a kindly matron of community character and family values. Here is a brief update on the zeitgeist of those opposing the city led land use change to RCG;
community members have expertise the planning department cannot possess - Mr. Jones has lived in his neighbourhood for 35 years so nobody can match his understanding of the fine grained urbanism of a street of homes. Mr. Jones term of residence has currency in his weight of opposition to any redevelopment which is based on the unique character and quality of the area. The local councillor needs to vote for Mr. Jones - If Mr. Jones emerges as the loser of a housing decision, then the democratic process is flawed. Mr. Jones needs to continue to benefit from zoning regulations - Mr. Jones’ financial plan depends on continually profiting from housing scarcity. Mr. Jones should not participate in offering housing solutions - Mr. Jones wants housing built, but it should not come at the expense of his tranquil enclave of detachedness, and sprawl is a good response to growth. Lets rebut this a little;
There is no expertise here that a city planner cannot comprehend - Mr Jones lives in a community with ‘park’ in its name, like Glenmore Park, Chinook Park, or Rutland Park. These communities are all from the same era, planned in the same way. There is no profound unique character justifying conservation, these communities are all similar, and contain detached homes. City Planners are smart enough to determine how townhouses can fit among 50’s bungalows and contemporary mansions.
Term has no currency - Mr. Jones has lived there so long that he suffers from a delusion that he has earned a degree of deference from society in land use decision making. Actually, the likelihood of him continuing to live there is annually decreasing dramatically, not increasing. Those that wish to move into the area in new housing that is yet to be built are the people that will be residing there for the next decades, long after Mr. Jones has vacated, and sold to a developer. Why would the opposition to redevelopment put forth by Mr. Jones (who has been comfortably housed for decades) matter more than a massive societal need for new supply? Mr. Jones enjoyed a great run of using regulatory power to keep out infill development, but the run is over now and it is time to rebuild these older, small homes occupying the best land in the City, and townhouses need to be part of the menu.
Council cannot vote for Mr. Jones self interest - Each community has a Jones, such that there will always be a voter that wants no infill townhouse development. If Council agrees with the populist angst against townhouses, then townhouses will remain illegal to build in the best locations where townhouses need to be built. The outcome will be…a housing crisis. Is that not what we have today? Council needs to exercise wisdom to do what is needed, not what is wanted.
Regulatory profit seeking is a poor means of managing ones personal financial affairs - The planning department cannot be used as a way to create scarcity so an entrenched minority can enjoy escalation of property value. This comes at the expense of basically everybody else who has to take on massive debt to buy overpriced housing, or faces horrible housing options. Individuals who base their personal financial success on sitting on the couch and having the house value escalate are enjoying a type of regulatory profit capture that doesnt need to exist. Mr. Jones can do what anyone else needs to do and find way to earn money outside of tracking MLS price appreciation from his enclave. The planners owe no debt to Mr. Jones and his retirement program.
Mr Jones is not presenting a viable pathway to housing solutions - There are not any great housing solutions for affordability, only tradeoffs. What perpetuates the problem are people like Mr. Jones that oppose townhouses because they feel they rent or sell for too much, but then only wish to allow new detached homes to be built that are vastly more expensive than townhouses. Somehow, they only see more detached homes as a way to solve the housing crisis. Unfortunately the housing industry is better at selling high margin luxury product than low cost entry level product, and the CREB stats typically portray massive low end demand, and an abundance of high end supply. The mismatch of housing cost vs the financial capacity of those underhoused is not going to be solved by RCG zoning. A good tradeoff will be enough market supply so that income earners can find housing without entering a bidding war, while city resources are spent to house those that would otherwise be homeless.
In the marketplace of ideas, you don’t hear much from the developers. These are solitary types that tend to be pretty busy building stuff, and are disinclined to monitor the political fray. Developers make tough calls on investment decisions, and feedback is merciless. Through this crucible of personal risk, and pressure of executing infill townhouse projects, the developer gains a level of insight and expertise that is unique. I’d like to hear more developers commenting on development issues to hopefully create more cover for the politicians to enable and de-risk infill development. Without the developers, the current ratio of 88:12 sprawl to infill will not change to be more balanced.
