Editor: Re: Fee free project
I am dismayed that council has decided, in such a cavalier fashion, that at least some of the costs ($12,000 worth, for now) of building for-profit housing are being downloaded to the Canmore taxpayer. There was nothing I read that suggests that the developer intends to operate this project on a break-even basis or at a loss. We are subsidizing his profits.
It’s a specious argument to suggest the Town really isn’t out of pocket – these fees help pay the salaries of staff and help to support the annual allocation to CCHC to develop perpetually affordable housing in the Town. It is real money.
There is nothing I can see in the staff report or in council’s decision that suggests that this is not a blank cheque as long as the requisite application forms are submitted to the planning department. There was no discussion about an eventual agreement with the Town (specific terms to be determined) that would cover what happens if the developer gets all his approvals – for free – but doesn’t proceed with the project. There was no discussion about how to ensure rental rates are affordable and what would happen if they weren’t. There was no discussion about how long the units would have to remain in a rental pool to justify the loss in revenue and staff time for this project before the project gets condominiumized and the units are sold. There was no discussion of an agreement that would deal with the sale of the completed building to a party that has no interest in affordable housing.
There is currently no policy that could be applied equitably to all developers to provide incentives to build affordable housing and the creation of such a policy is nowhere on the horizon, even though the need for one has been part of the Town’s draft plans for many years. Forget piecemeal planning; now we have piecemeal financing of private development: the Lego land of picking the taxpayers’ pockets bit by bit by bit.
I have no objection to housing on this site – affordable or otherwise. However, Canmore taxpayers are contributing directly to the profits of this owner and I surely hope council will come to grips with that issue before the next request comes forward, probably by the same developer, for further incentives perhaps in the nature of off-site levies or taxes.
Yes, we need affordable housing, both rental and owned, but we also need a framework that is clear and transparent and equitable to all for providing it. This isn’t a matter of getting out of the development industry’s way; it’s a matter of putting the pork in a barrel and giving it away.
Susan Kay Barry,
Canmore
