Several properties in the municipality’s surplus inventory will now be used for affordable housing projects.
A report on the surplus properties was presented to Halifax regional council on Tuesday. A new category allows staff to recommend that some of the city’s surplus properties be made available for affordable housing projects. The properties in that new category are located throughout HRM, including on the peninsula, Fairview, Spryfield, Westphal, Upper Tantallon, and the Eastern Shore.
“This category of properties shall be disposed of through direct sale, or a call for submissions, open to eligible not-for-profit organizations meeting the submission requirements and program criteria established from time-to-time by the Director, or their designate, of the department of the Municipality that is responsible for planning and development,” the report wrote.
‘Pretty dangerous road to start going down’
But some councillors took issue with two properties included in the affordable housing category.
Coun. David Hendsbee asked that the property on Chamberlain Drive in Westphal, his district, be removed from the list. Hendsbee argued that under the HRM Charter, neighbours in the abutting properties on that street should have the opportunity to purchase the lot.
Mike Cooper, team lead with HRM corporate real estate, said he wasn’t aware of any part in the charter that gave first right of offer to neighbours to surplus property. Municipal solicitor John Traves said that council could seek a staff report on the particular property.
Coun. Shawn Cleary said removing properties from the list is a “pretty dangerous road to start going down.”
“The solicitor has already pointed out it’s not a requirement, and when we set up the whole category of affordable housing it was to look at opportunities, so that we could, frankly, help with the housing crisis we’re in,” Cleary said.
“Unless an abutting property owner is willing to build an affordable house next door, that is counter to this whole point of setting up this new category in AO [administrative order] 50 so that we can use this. I’m not going to vote for taking it off the list.”
Still, Hendsbee’s amendment passed.
‘That’s not NIMBYism’
Coun. Pam Lovelace wanted a property on Fox Hollow Drive in Upper Tantallon removed from the affordable housing list, arguing that property is parkland. Lovelace said she had emails from residents who want to keep that property as a park.
“This is a park that was deeded to the former county and has been municipal and public land since the subdivision was created,” Lovelace said. “The community is disappointed that the municipality would suggest that there’s place for affordable housing on this parkland when it’s outside the urban service boundary.”
Lovelace said it was difficult to have affordable housing in a rural area where there was no access to transit and other amenities, saying the property “is not a good fit” for affordable housing.
Cleary took issue with Lovelace’s amendment to remove the Fox Hollow property from the list.
“I love me a good NIMBY but affordable housing belongs everywhere, every district of HRM” Cleary said. “You could easily stick a duplex on here, you could easily stick a side-by-side and have a cooperative run this.”
“I think it’s ridiculous that we would consider removing this from the list given that it’s not parkland in any traditional sense.”
Lovelace pointed out that the homes in the neighbourhood are selling for more than $500,000 and the homeowners had cars to get around.
“The concept of affordable housing really fits well with areas that have transit, that have piped water, that have sewer lines, that have amenities, that are within an urban service area boundary,” Lovelace said.
Coun. Patty Cuttell said affordable housing should be in all districts, and said the Fox Hollow property was close to several amenities, including a grocery store and employment opportunities.
“While it’s not an urban setting, it’s not really a rural setting either,” Cuttell said. “It’s a suburban setting and you wouldn’t need a car to get to any of the daily services you need. … we need affordable housing and we need it everywhere.”
Lovelace doubled down on her argument, saying having the property on the list goes against efforts to support and create more parkland, pointing out that earlier in Tuesday’s meeting, council voted to join The Montreal Pledge — Cities United in Action for Biodiversity.
“That’s not NIMBYism,” Lovelace said. “That’s valuing naturalization, and open space, and parkland in our communities. We value parkland in this municipality.”
There was a tie vote, so Lovelace’s amendment didn’t pass.
Kate Greene, director of regional and community planning, said the planning department will reach out to local non-profits to let them know about the surplus lands. She said they’d focus on groups that are providing deeply affordable housing, but that could vary depending on the project.
Lovelace is simply voicing the concerns of her constituents which, after all, is what they elected her to do. It’s called representative democracy.
Not a good look for Ms Lovelace. No matter how she tried to spin it. Good thing it was voted down, but a tie vote is concerning too.
A $500k property is not an expensive property these days. What a pathetic stretch.
Anyway. I wonder where Pam thinks that poor people who work at the place presumably needing zero/low training come from ? (and I’m just going down the list from Google maps): First Choice Haircutters, Wing’in It, Canadian Tire, Juiced Grape, PetValue, Pizza Girls, Tim Hortons, Goodlife, Superstore, Irving, Growlies, Rustic Crust, Bay Equipment, Performance Edge, the Farmers Market, Home Hardware, Little Lo’s, Bike and Bean, Mayas Fish & Chips, Esso, Robbins, Sobeys, McDonalds, Lefties….. I could go on for a while.
I suppose all those employers are paying their staff enough that everyone makes enough for a $500k property?
The people who work those retail places aren’t taking transit and they aren’t walking. I think the location is actually pretty good if there was better transit in the area. The rest of the argument really doesn’t hold up.
This is what will kill any hope we have of fixing this. EVERYBODY wants to help, NOBODY wants it near them.
Is Hendsbee honestly that ignorant of real property policies and rules, or does he think he can just go counter to the existing framework? Maybe he’s just posturing for the sake of his constituents. Lovelace’s skating around her NIMBYism is almost as bad.
When I first saw the comments about Fox Hollow i was tending to agree, but did a relook at Maps and it’s within a mile of retail and services and also within a mile of schools. I think the big problem is that if you don’t have a car, you have to walk the HP Road which is sketchy in the summer but probably out and out dangerous in the winter with the snow and ice on the side. There is some transit but not enough to get by IMO