HEATED HOUSING DEBATE
Infill issues, lot-splitting remain divisive issues for residents
The responses were swift and caustic when Ward 5 Coun. Michael Oshry floated the idea that property owners signing restrictive covenants to prevent their lots from being split should be taxed more.
“Shame on council for thinking to punish these awesome people for wanting to preserve their heritage,” wrote an online commenter after Oshry raised the issue earlier this year in a discussion about infill and higher density.
“How soon can we get rid of these bullies?” asked one letter-writer.
“The only legal alternative for appeal is placing a restricted covenant on one’s property,” wrote another.
Oshry may not be running for re-election Oct. 16, but his formal inquiry into if and how the city can create a separate residential tax classification on lots that restrict subdivision could linger long into the future.
(The answer is that there is nothing stopping the city from having different tax rates for residential lots that choose restrictive covenants.)
It also means whoever is voted in as the ward’s new councillor will have to consider whether they support any recommendations stemming from Oshry’s official query. A report is due back to the new council in the fall.
Six of the nine candidates running for Ward 5 councillor who spoke with the Journal said they did not support a tiered property tax scheme and many questioned the success of the residential infill policy in the city as a whole. They suggested a careful audit of the policy was desperately needed to regain public confidence.
“The reason why restrictive covenants are being filed is because residents feel like there is no other recourse for their displeasure with the infill developments going in their neighbourhood,” candidate Sarah Hamilton said.
“There is no appeal process. When it comes down to legal options, then your policy has failed.” Dawn Newton agrees.
“It’s unfortunate that some homeowners are so frustrated with the current infill policy that they’ve felt the need to take legal action to restrict increased density and redevelopment of their lands,” Newton said.
A common complaint James Prentice has heard on the campaign trail has revolved around the fact that “two-and-a-half-storey container homes are being built next to 1950s’ bungalows.”
“There needs to be an emphasis on a streetscape character analysis where the homeowner or the builder would have to demonstrate that the proposed changes are consistent with the dominant pattern of homes in the neighbourhood,” he said.
Private property owners wanting to keep their lots as is should not be penalized and those who want to increase their return on investment on their property if they do lot-splitting should have their rights protected, Miranda Jimmy said.
Jimmy said replacing one home with two or three infill homes in mature neighbourhoods was not going to get the city to its density goals.
“In reality, (lot-splitting) is not helping with our densification,” Jimmy said.
“The focus should be on transitoriented development. We have the route chosen for the Valley Line LRT (so) let’s do ... zoning two blocks in on either side of that route and make it easier for infill developers to come in without having to deal with rezoning.”
Phil Asher and Nafisa Bowen both agreed the city should take a neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood approach.
“It’s absolutely asinine that the city would even think of punishing somebody because they are against infill housing,” Asher said.
Bowen said: “Creating a restrictive covenant is expensive, takes an immense amount of resources to do and the reason why communities are doing this is a last resort. I’d rather see the city create opportunities for them to have their concerns heard and perhaps build an appeal process.”
At an all-candidates forum Thursday night, candidates David Xiao, Brian Kendrick and Svetlana Pavlenko all aired their concerns about infill.
Tegan Martin-Drysdale, vicepresident of the Infill Development in Edmonton Association, an advocacy group representing industry, said most communities are not against development, but are against bad development and a few extreme examples of bad infill housing is clouding the debate.
“There’s a lot more good infill happening than bad infill, but it’s the bad examples that get all the attention,” Martin-Drysdale said.
“When you have good infill, it goes into the community almost unnoticed to people overall.
“When it’s an eyesore or a problem, then it is like a black dot on a white sheet. It just stands out and you can’t ignore it.”
Another of the big issues plaguing the debate could be the generic use of the term “infill” in the development discussion, Ashley Salvadore, a recent graduate from Dalhousie University’s College of Sustainability, said.
Salvadore, who this year launched a new advocacy group, YEGarage Suites, said there were multiple examples of styles of infill; however, most people equate infill to large, skinny homes only.
“There are diverse types of homes that are a better fit for certain neighbourhoods,” she said.