After months of work by HRM planners and public hearings this week, Halifax regional council unanimously passed the Housing Accelerator Fund.
Dozens of people spoke at public hearings that took place on Tuesday and Wednesday. The speakers were divided between those who were concerned about losing character of neighbourhoods in the city, as well as parking and privacy. Then there were those who spoke about the ways in which the housing crisis is affecting them directly.
Under the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF), the federal government is providing municipalities across Canada with money to increase housing stock. Halifax Regional Municipality will get $79 million. To meet the conditions of the funding, the municipality had to make new rules around zoning and housing.
Some of those changes include allowing four units per lot as of right within municipal service boundaries, reducing minimums for parking, creating and expanding heritage districts, and allowing taller building on particular transit routes. The changes mean up to 200,00 new units of housing could be built in the city and suburbs.
‘Generational divide’ among speakers at hearing
During council debate on the HAF on Thursday, Coun. Waye Mason said the majority of people who spoke against the proposal are from his District 7. During the public hearings, some of those residents said there wasn’t enough public engagement on the proposal.
Mason said HRM staff spoke with 700 people during the course of the HAF discussions and reworking the proposal. Mason said his newsletter that included details on the HAF went to 16,000 homes, he published op-eds on the HAF, and shared information on social media.
“I think part of why so many people from District 7 came and are against it is because of the outstanding job we did in informing my community about the changes,” Mason said.
Mason said he didn’t believe that the majority of District 7 residents are against the HAF.
“The people who I’ve gone and met with in their homes or met with at a coffee shop, and talked to them and convince them to support this, did not come to the public hearing,” Mason said.
Sam Austin said a “generational divide” among the speakers during the public hearing was “on stark display.” Austin mentioned the speakers at the public hearing who are concerned the HAF will mean losing the character of their neighbourhoods.
“There is a certain undercurrent to the discussion around this that was a little unsettling at times… frankly, a little bit classist,” Austin said.
“If your character is defined by the fact that everyone on your street is a homeowner of similar social economic wealth as you, is that character we really want to celebrate and hold onto? That I get to live in a neighbourhood where I don’t have to interact with people who are different than me? I don’t think that is.”
Discussion on affordable housing
Many speakers talked about how the HAF wouldn’t address the need for affordable housing and would only provide more market housing.
Coun. Shawn Cleary said that the municipality is still providing funding to non-profits to build affordable housing in the municipality. Cleary said $6 million in funding from the HAF went to non-profits this week to build affordable housing.
“Anyone who says us participating in the HAF won’t lead to affordable housing didn’t actually read the plan or know what we’re doing,” Cleary said. “We’ve already given previously, through our own bonus density money that we take from developers when they go over 2,000 square metres or whatever it is. Affordable housing will only come from government intervention and government investment.”
Mayor Mike Savage said he believes passing the HAF is the right decision for the city.
“We have to make decisions that we think are in the best interest of the municipality, and the years will tell us how we’ve done,” Savage said. “The work that preceded this and the discussion that was here was good.”
Glad it passed, despite it not helping with the main problem – affordability. At least we can make progress on reversing course from the failed experiment of suburbia. Though it’s worth noting that the city – and province – still plan on continued suburban expansion so perhaps it’s not so much reversing course as tapping the brakes.
The discussion about the housing crisis is like everything these days: unnuanced and polarized. If you disagree with some aspects of the HAF you are considered a ‘NIMBY’. It’s seems impossible to analyze the pros and cons of the HAF without being screamed out of the room. Of course we need more housing. But…..will this be delivered in the appropriate way by relying pretty much on the private sector? Example: developers are buying up old bungalows in my 70’s suburban subdivision. These houses sold for around $450,000, which would be considered affordable these days. They tear them down, build 4 units on the lot, and then rent them for ridiculous amounts ($3,400 a month per unit + utilities). If a person/family had bought the original bungalow the mortgage payments would have been approximately $2,800 a month. In this situation, how is the HAF making housing more affordable? Yes, density is increased but tenants are being milked by landlords and property speculators.
People accused of being ‘NIMBYS’ are rightfully saying that infrastructure will be overwhelmed. The small subdivision where I live 13 kms out of the urban core (I live in a semi in a subdivision of mostly semis – before you scream ‘entitled suburban McMansion owner’) experienced a catastrophic sewer system backup that flooded over half the semis. After that event my insurance company increased our sewer backup deductible from $0 to $5,000 because our sewer system is currently at capacity and at high risk of backup again. We have no sidewalks. Children have to walk and play in the street. With no parking required for multi-units the streets will be jammed with cars with no place but the street to walk. These are legitimate issues and because people bring them up does not make them ‘NIMBYS’.