I urge you to disallow the…

I urge you to disallow the inclusion of Tewin in Ottawa’s Official Plan.

For some context and rationale as to why I make such an appeal to you:

- My family’s home backs and sides onto Tewin. In fact as I type these words I am looking directly at Tewin out my home office window.

- I am pro-business and pro-development. If Tewin were to be developed, it would likely be beneficial both in terms of city services for my home (we might finally get proper city water, sewage, fire hydrants, natural gas, etc) and financially (our lot is nearly two acres; I expect such a property would become more valuable as development occurs around us). I include this to hopefully make clear from the outset that I am not writing simply on the basis of some selfish NIMBY-ism. The simple reality for Tewin is unfortunately it has far too many red flags and uncertainties to be allowed to be included.

- The Ottawa Council has conducted absolutely zero formal public consultations on including Tewin in the expansion area. Considering the degree to which the City generally conducts exhaustive consultations on everything from public washrooms to parking spaces, it is an inexcusable dereliction of their democratic responsibility that such a massive change could be made without providing citizens an opportunity to be heard. They even chose not to hold an information session for the community, virtual or otherwise! This first City of Ottawa Information session took place after Council included Tewin in the Official Plan. This is backwards and inexcusable – how could council vote to include the land or not if they haven’t first talked with residents so that our wishes could be acted upon? This is not how municipal democracy is supposed to work in Ontario.

- City Staff, who are the professional city planners, did not recommend including Tewin. They ranked other lands, to paraphrase, lower hanging fruit to be developed. Council then swapped poorly-ranked Tewin land in in place of higher ranked lands in other parts of the city. The only possible conclusion of such a swap is that it’s politically motivated. Politics has absolutely no place in a decision such as this. If the professionals say this is the most difficult place to develop, and other lands would be easier, we should listen to them.

- Given the poor ranking of Tewin based on soil conditions, access to infrastructure connections, and so on, the cost to develop Tewin is likely among the most expensive options that the City of Ottawa could possibly undertake. At a time when we need to be prioritizing cost-effectiveness, building affordable housing, and building efficient public transit, selecting the most expensive and disconnected development option on the table is incompatible with sound planning.

- The developer has apparently sold Ottawa Council on the idea that the exorbitant costs are not the City’s concern, since the developer will pay for everything. Based on recent history in the City with targeted development charges, I am skeptical that this development charge would ever actually be paid by the developer. However even if somehow it does, all it means is the developer will pass the costs onto homebuyers resulting in more expensive houses. The City of Ottawa (and much of Ontario) has an affordable housing crisis, yet the City is proposing to go down the most expensive housing path possible in Tewin.

- On reconciliation, at the very best, this is a mixed bag, and the remainder addresses that topic, which is closely linked to Council's support for this proposal.

- Several of groups of Algonquins are in dispute as to whether the goals of reconciliation will be served by this project and whether the Algonquins involved even are really Algonquins. I cannot possibly referee such a dispute, however I can insist in the strongest terms that my home not be put in the middle of it. (I’ll note that Council has also claimed not to be able to referee the dispute, however they have nevertheless included Tewin lands, which clearly does place them on one side of the Algonquin dispute.)

- Related to the above is that this project, over the past year, has been presented to residents as an opportunity to advance the cause of reconciliation. Yet recently, thanks only to local journalists, we’ve learned that the majority of the development land is not actually owned by the Algonquin partner; it is owned by the developer Taggart. At a recent Council meeting when the developers were asked to what extent the Indigenous community would actually profit from this development (given the revelation that they don’t actually own the majority of the land), the question was deemed too offensive to be answered. Despite being an entirely reasonable question – at least if this really is a reconciliation project – it has, to date, not been answered. That the intentions and benefactors of the project have been so substantially misrepresented to residents over the past year should, on its own, be cause to pull the lands from the official plan. I'll also be clear that I hold no ill-will towards Taggart and don't begrudge them, as a business, earning a profit for their work. I do take issue with dishonesty being rewarded.

- Finally on reconciliation, it is important to think long term. If this development project is ultimately unsuccessful, our community’s shared goals of reconciliation will be set further back. Given the added importance of success, it should follow that the project be held to a higher standard, rather than lower. Yet at each turn, good intentions have somehow been allowed to be used as a shield in avoiding answering important questions put to the developers. This is especially concerning. The City’s good intentions will not build highway lanes, interchanges, pipes, sewers, transit, improve soil conditions, create affordable housing, save wildlife and forests, farmland, and so on. While difficult to set the good intentions and emotions of this project aside, it is crucial for this development project to succeed first and foremost as a development project. Only then will the cause of reconciliation be able to be advanced. There is no information (even at a low standard) to suggest that this project is likely to be able to succeed in a cost-effective manner, versus the other potential development areas. In fact the opposite is true: the professional city planners have explicitly recommended that other areas are more readily developable. Reconciliation is being set up to be harmed if Tewin is in the official plan.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.