As the planning coordinator…

As the planning coordinator for the Beasley Neighbourhood Association, I wish to convey our profound disappointment with the proposed inclusionary zoning (IZ) regulations released in December for public comment and feedback.

Downtown neighbourhoods in Hamilton are experiencing fast-rising rents and housing prices and a steady loss of affordable housing stock, especially for our low and moderate income residents. At the same time, we are on the cusp of a serious building boom. It was our hope and expectation that IZ would assist us in ensuring our neighbourhood can remain a welcoming, inclusive, and diverse place--a "complete community" in the parlance of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which designates a significant portion of our neighbourhood an Urban Growth Centre.

We are active with respect to planning and development issues and support efforts to add new housing to our neighbourhood. We have long been advocates for affordable housing to be part of the mix in new developments. With the addition of the West Harbour GO and planning underway for the forthcoming B-line LRT now it is crucial for Hamilton to be able to require a minimum % of units in new developments be affordable.

5% is too low. 10% generally and 25% near transit stations is needed to make a real impact longer-term. If the latter requires more funding and direct involvement from senior levels of government to work then move in that direction with a housing program (be real partners). Also, it makes little sense to put a sunset clause on the affordable units produced. Transit stations, especially, are destined to become more desirable over time as the City's BLAST network is built-out and GO service increases. Unless there is a constant supply of new units being added as others fall out of affordable status then this plan will ultimately land us back where we are now: in a housing affordability crisis in major urban centres.

Also, the inclusion of language that allows municipalities to identify "appropriate locations" for IZ appears destined to enable NIMBYs to resist the inclusion of IZ in their areas. If a policy like this involves a choice it will be difficult for powerful property-owning stakeholders to resist advocating for IZ to be applied elsewhere and somebody else's backyard. This would be counterproductive and undermine the integrity of the policy in practice. It needs to be rethought. A better approach might be to establish a framework of sub-areas or neighbourhoods for which minimum targets could be applied.

Finally, why leave out rental buildings?

These are our basic concerns with the proposed IZ regulations. We fear they will not be very effective and we hope the Government will take heed of the criticism being leveled at them and could back with IZ regulations worthy of the name.

[Original Comment ID: 212327]