This City Council Must Prioritize Affordable Housing
City Council unanimously supported the vision and direction of the newly formed Housing Secretariat and the City’s new Housing Sustainability Investment Roadmap in 2023. I remember the vote well. Among other things, we unanimously directed City staff to go away and look at City lands to determine which could be most quickly and cost effectively used for affordable housing. They did just that. They brought back a plan on December 6, 2023 to use 6 City owned properties to help with our affordable housing goals -
171 Main Street East (Ward 2) - parking lot; already zoned residential (currently undergoing a feasibility study)
9 Clarence Street (Ward 2) - empty land; needs to be rezoned residential
70 Hope Avenue (Ward 4) - parking lot; needs to be rezoned residential
5 Lake Avenue South (Ward 5) - parking lot; already zoned residential
13 Lake Avenue South (Ward 5) - parking lot; already zoned residential
1126 Garth Street (Ward 14) - empty land; needs to be rezoned residential
Of the 6 proposed City owned properties initially put forward by staff, all of the land is either empty or being used as surface parking lots, including in Ward 2. This is low hanging fruit and, especially where the land is zoned for residential use already, the quickest and most cost effective way to deliver on our affordable housing goals.
For reasons that I’ll explore in some detail, the only member of Council objecting to repurposing City owned land for affordable housing in the Ward they represent was Ward 5 Councillor Matt Francis. I’m pushing for more affordable housing in Ward 2, and neither Ward 4 Councillor Tammy Hwang nor Ward 14 Councillor Mike Spadafora have objected, in any way, to projects moving forward in the respective Wards they represent on lands identified by City staff.
The big arguments I’m hearing against the proposals in Ward 5 are about loss of parking, but they’ve been tangled up in a web of straw man arguments including supporting veterans, accessibility, the success of small businesses, empty lots elsewhere, the ownership of the parking lot, free parking, and making space for events.
It’s important to note that currently there are 162 free parking spots in the lot bordered by Lake Avenue South and Mountain Avenue South. City staff’s proposal recommends using 57 of those parking spaces to build 67 units of affordable housing for approximately 100 people. That means 105 parking spaces will remain. Additionally, staff say that the remaining parking lot can be reconfigured to add several more spaces.
As you can see, just from the map that Ward 12 Councillor Craig Cassar shared (above), there’s plenty of parking within a 400m radius of these parking lots. The proposal, which staff outlined in a presentation to concerned Ward 5 residents in a town hall held on January 18, 2024, shows that only 35% of the parking would be allocated to affordable housing.
The City’s own evidence, from an analysis of the parking lot’s use, says the remaining 105 spaces, in addition to nearby parking, will adequately serve the community’s parking needs.
City staff have also been saying, for at least a decade now, that we need to change the way we think about surface parking lots. It’s something I completely agree with. Surface parking lots are not a good use of our very limited land assets.
But, more than this, and most concerning to me - I don’t see any solutions being proposed to address the concerns being raised by residents opposed to this conversion of parking spaces to affordable housing (evidence based or not).
Here’s a breakdown of the main straw man issues I’m hearing from those opposing this -
Supporting veterans - There is a misinformed suggestion that Veterans Lane will be entirely closed, despite the fact the lot lines for these properties clearly show only a fraction of it would be impacted. As the Mayor said at the recent meeting on this at the General Issues Committee, even if the lane was closed, there are many more ways to honour our veterans. We can do better than designating neglected asphalt in their name. In any event, if he chose, the Ward Councillor could propose shifting all of the density away from Veterans Lane and adding it to the height of the building proposed at 13 Lake Avenue South. In essence, rather than individual 3 storey and 5 storey buildings, all 8 storeys could be built in one place.
Accessibility - Everyone agrees and acknowledges that seniors, including those with disabilities, use the nearby medical building and often park in this lot to access it, if the medical building’s own spaces are full. There has been a claim that reducing the parking by 35% will eliminate much needed parking for those with disabilities who need access that’s close to the facility. The Ward Councillor could propose earmarking a portion of the remaining spaces for those with disabilities, including those who need access to the nearby medical facility.
Ownership of the parking lot - There’s been some talk of this lot being owned by the Stoney Creek BIA (or another entity) and that it was given to the City of Stoney Creek (before amalgamation) with the implicit (or explicit) agreement it should be used for parking. While I’ve not seen the original agreement, City staff say, in their report, that it has been owned by the City (and formerly by the City of Stoney Creek) since before the 1970s. The Ward Councillor could solve this problem, in part, by proposing the remaining 65% of parking (105 spaces) be moved from free to paid parking and a portion of the proceeds directed to the Stoney Creek BIA (as happens with BIAs in other parts of the City).
There are empty lots elsewhere - Yes, there are, but none of those proposed by others are already zoned residential and owned by the City of Hamilton. That’s important. This is not a matter of “only these lots” but, to borrow from Ariana Grande, yes, these lots, and others. The Ward Councillor could propose finding, and even acquiring, other nearby lots to build affordable housing, in addition to these already zoned City owned lots.
Small business success - The overwhelming majority of evidence on the subject, especially in recent years, suggests that parking is not a major factor that helps small businesses thrive (studies suggest the opposite). In fact, it’s having more people living nearby that does this. The ability for people to walk or cycle to nearby businesses helps those businesses. Parking doesn’t. The Ward Councillor could propose massive improvements to pedestrian and cycling infrastructure in the area, which is proven to help small businesses thrive. We need only look at Locke Street or Westdale Village as local examples of thriving retail streets with on street parking only and no municipal parking lots.
Making space for events - As the map at the top of this article shows, there’s plenty of nearby space from which to stage events or add overflow capacity. With the potential for more than 65% of the lot to remain even after development, the Ward Councillor could propose reconfiguring it for better event use. And more roads could be closed around the event to provide additional space.
On top of these straw man arguments, there’s also a proposal being put forward to use other land in Stoney Creek, adjacent to public lands at the Dominic Agostino Riverdale Community Centre, to build affordable housing. It’s a good overall proposal, but it’s not City owned land. The land is owned by the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board. It will likely require the purchase of that land (in the millions), rezoning, and negotiating this all through the school board and the Province. It will not be quick, by any means, and does not meet the goals set out by Council - to build affordable housing on City owned lands quickly and cost effectively. In fact, this is not a new proposal but one that was explored before and deemed not to be feasible. While I have high hopes for the renewed interest, it’s a distraction from the issue at hand.
The City owns 5 and 13 Lake Avenue South, it’s already zoned residential, and we’re ready to move on it now. Besides, we are tackling an affordable housing crisis, not conducting a search for a single development site. We need to prioritize many projects over many years to begin to address the housing challenges facing our city.
None of these straw man arguments were addressed in any way in time for the Council meeting on February 28 (that decision was ultimately postponed due to the ongoing cybersecurity incident) and, to my knowledge, none of them have been proposed to Councillors behind the scenes in order to strike a compromise. I can’t explain why that’s the case, but it’s clear enough to me from my time on Council that if a compromise or collaborative approach was being sought, that work would have begun immediately following the motion to delay the decision on these two lots back on December 6, 2023.
I thought this Council was here to do things differently.
This is a citywide affordable housing plan during a citywide affordable housing crisis. We’re either in this together, to change outcomes for those who can’t afford to face this housing crisis alone, or we’re not.
We all have to do our part to address the crises in front of us. That’s why I remain hopeful that at least one of my colleagues will see the negative implications of saying no to supporting these projects, both now and into the future.
City Council Concludes its 2024 Budget Deliberations
On February 15, 2024, City Council approved a net tax increase of 5.8% after some detailed motions were brought forward by Council to reduce the draft budget amount from 7.9%. The budget is divided as indicated in the pie chart above (with each percentage point equating to approximately $12m) -
1.64% - $19.7m - increase related to the cost of City services
1.6% - $19.2m - increase for new investments in housing services
2.55% - $30.6m - increase to account for the impacts of new Provincial legislation that shifts infrastructure costs for new development from developers to City taxpayers
This City has also put out a more detailed chart that breaks down the costs by household for each of the City’s services, with police services still accounting for the largest portion of the pie (at 15% of the City’s overall budget).
The City relied heavily on its reserves to offset these costs. In total, the City has approximately $256.5m in uncommitted reserves. These are monies the City put aside, over the last couple of decades, to deal with emergencies and crises. In 2024, we will spent almost 60% of those uncommitted reserves, or $152.6m to offset our expenses. This is how we were able to get the budget down from it’s projected 14.2% to a draft starting position of 7.9%.
It’s not great that we’re having to draw down so much of our uncommitted reserves, but the City is facing unprecedented housing, homelessness, opioid, and climate crises. And, in my view, and as I’ve stated many times, taxes since amalgamation haven’t always kept up with inflation or the cost of City services. We’re paying to pick up the slack from previous Councils who were more focused on keeping taxes low than ensuring that we met our obligations to maintain infrastructure and plan for future growth.
As I said, in my last newsletter, I was able to contribute to the process of current and future reductions by putting forward a series of motions, along with some of my colleagues. I think this year’s process was good and moved us in the right direction toward much more accountable and transparent budgeting.
But, sadly, as many of you know, and despite my best efforts, the vast majority of those on the Hamilton Police Services Board and City Council were not willing to bring forward any additional reductions to the Board’s budget.
Board Member Anjali Menezes and I put forward a series of 4 detailed motions asking for approximately $5m in reductions to the $215m of total policing costs and were met with a Board who refused to look at a single cent in savings.
As the largest portion of the City’s budget, any savings in the Hamilton Police Services Board’s budget would have had a significant impact on the overall tax rate of 5.8%.
Despite the outcome, I’m grateful to fellow police board Member Anjali Menezes and the 5 Councillors who voted along with me at City Council - Craig Cassar, Tammy Hwang, Nrinder Nann, Alex Wilson, and Maureen Wilson.
It was clear, throughout this year’s budget deliberations, the vast majority of Hamiltonians want to see more transparency and accountability in the way we budget, across the board.
I’m committed to continuing to have the difficult, but necessary, conversations and collaborating with my colleagues to come up with solutions and put motions on the table that move us all forward. I proudly signed up to do this work and I’m eager to get started on the City’s 2025 budget process.
What it Means to Manage Construction in the Core
A significant part of all major development plans in downtown Hamilton is the creation of something called a Construction Management Plan. Often approved months and even years in advance of construction, these plans determine what the impacts of development will be to sidewalks, roads, and other nearby infrastructure. As you can imagine, this has been a considerable point of contention for residents in Ward 2 as we bear most of the City’s ongoing development and construction impacts.
Historically, these plans are agreed to by both the developer and City staff, without input from members of City Council or the public. As more development comes to the core, that’s beginning to change, and I’ve asked to have a little more insight into the process and the ability to offer input and suggestions to improve outcomes.
My focus is on doing everything I can to make it safer for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users to get around in our neighbourhoods.
Recent developments, including those at James Street South and Jackson Street West (as pictured above); Hughson Street South and King Street East; Caroline Street South and King Street East; and Wilson Street and John Street North, have had serious impacts on pedestrians and cyclists.
This has often put pedestrians and cyclists in conflict with one another and with much more dangerous car and truck traffic.
I get it. Development must continue and, at its most basic, this is about making space for cranes, equipment, and trucks on site so that developers can build quickly. But the details matter. Closing a road may have traffic impacts, but it doesn’t usually directly impact the safety of motor vehicle users. That’s not the same for cyclists and pedestrians, who need access to this space as they navigate their way through the core.
For some context, in 2023, there were $615.9m worth of building permits approved in Ward 2 (24% of the citywide total). But Ward 2 has only around 5% of the City’s sidewalks (by length). That creates a lot of pressure, in a very small space, and every bit of protected pedestrian and cycling infrastructure plays a vital role in ensuring everyone can get around safely.
The bare minimum must include replacing sidewalks and bike lanes when they’re closed with temporary ones (unless it’s physically impossible to do so), covering temporary sidewalks to ensure pedestrians are protected, and considering long term changes to road design based on data collected during sidewalk and lane closures.
In the future, with the massive downtown development boom continuing, the City will have to better consider how pedestrians are able to get around in the core, perhaps even taking steps to negotiate with developers to use smaller cranes and other specialized equipment in tight downtown spaces.
More than this, we’ll need to carefully assess reopening closed lanes of traffic after development has been completed. Once we’ve made the decision to close a lane or a road, we must revisit that decision, more carefully, before opening it up again.
The general premise for that discussion - if it doesn’t significantly or adversely impact motor vehicle traffic to close down lanes for years at a time to develop a piece of land, why are we reopening them when development is done? One of the most publicly discussed examples of this was the decision to reopen the portion of Hughson Street South running through Gore Park after it had been closed for years.
It’s my intention to ask staff to review that decision once detailed plans for LRT construction have been confirmed as those plans will have an impact on everything we do on or adjacent to King Street in Ward 2.
Each road closure is an opportunity for us to examine how roads are used and where it makes sense to make pedestrian and cycling improvements both when development start and when it’s about to wrap up.
I’ll be bringing some of these discussions to the Council floor in the coming months and years and will keep everyone updated as things progress. In the meantime, if you’re interested in this topic, look out for changes to the City’s Construction Management Plans to come to Council in April of this year.
Upcoming Meetings and Events
This section itemizes important upcoming Committee and Council meetings in case you wish to delegate, watch a meeting live, or send in correspondence to the office of the City Clerk at clerk@hamilton.ca. They’re listed by Committee and date. City meetings are held in Council Chambers unless otherwise indicated. For other Committee and Council Agendas and Meeting Notices, please subscribe to “Council & Committee” updates directly through the City’s website.
This section also lists any important upcoming community and City events.
Renaming of St. Mark’s Church - Survey closes on Friday, March 1
Ward 2 Tenant Council - Sunday, March 3 - Virtual - 1:00pm
Shirley Valentine - Tuesday, March 5 - Theatre Aquarius - 7:30pm
This is the Community Night, pricing is “pay what you can”
Traditional Ecological Knowledge Summit - Wednesday, March 6 - Six Nations of the Grand River - 8:30am
Great Big Crunch - Thursday, March 7 - HWDSB elementary schools across Hamilton - 10:00am
YWCA Women of Distinction Awards - Thursday, March 7 - Hamilton Convention Centre - 6:00pm
Coffee Outside - Thursday, March 8 - Fort Elgin - 7:00am
Spring Tide Bulb Show - March 8-17 - Gage Park Greenhouse - 9:00am to 5:00pm
March Break - March 11-15
Ward 2 Heritage Council - Wednesday, March 13 - City Hall - 6:30pm
Ward 2 Town Hall - Housing and Development - Tuesday, March 26 - 6:30pm
City Council - Wednesday, March 27 - 9:30am
This will be a significant meeting as it is the only Council meeting currently scheduled for March
Hamilton Police Services Board - Thursday, March 28 - 1:00pm