Editor: In the recent commentary ‘Housing issue little changed’ (Dec. 29), you discussed the proposed development in the Peaks of Grassi, without specifically naming the development.
In the editorial it is implied that those not in favour of the development are opposed to PAH housing in their community, and you refer to these individuals as NIMBYs.
As an owner of a home in Peaks of Grassi, I take offence to this oversimplification of a complex situation. First, the original development proposal which had only three PAH units was turned down by council and rightfully so. The second proposal had the minimum number of PAH units (seven) that council thought was necessary to convince the public that this proposed development should be approved.
If council was really serious about the need for PAH housing in this community, then the development should have had a much greater proportion of PAH units, rather than a mere seven out of the total 42 units.
Second, another argument for the approval of this project was the inclusion of Marketable Affordable Housing (MAH). If one takes a drive through the Peaks of Grassi, it is very obvious that the majority of the housing in this community were originally MAH units.
Most are economically built units on very small lots. However, MAH homes do not stay MAH very long. In many cases it is not low income people who buy these homes and secondly the market soon drives the prices of these homes up substantially so they are no longer affordable by those with low incomes. Prices of homes in our community are a perfect example of the limitations of developing MAH homes.
During the proposal review and subsequently, those opposed to the project have been portrayed as being anti-PAH. The proposed development of approximately 42 housing units is going to have a major impact on our community. It will result in increased traffic flow and congestion in a community that only has one exit. It will exacerbate extremely limited parking availability.
The very narrow wildlife corridor between Lawrence Grassi Drive and Quarry Lake will become practically non-existent. If the major goal of town council and the developer was to increase the availability of PAH homes in Canmore, then a far greater proportion of the proposed units should have been PAH homes.
As a homeowner in Peaks of Grassi, I am opposed to the proposed development, not because I don’t want PAH homes in my back yard, but rather because I don’t think the small number of seven PAH units justifies the negative impact this development will have on the community.
I believe the proposed seven PAH units is being used as a tool to justify approval for the development, rather than any genuine concern for affordable housing.
I’m opposed to Peaks of Grassi proposed development, not PAH.
Don McKay,
Canmore
