Response to City of Owen Sound’s decision to support the 712 apartment complex on the former RCA property:
City Planners and the Director fully supported this initiative in spite of the concerns outlined on September 12, 2022, and written letters, from the community, expressing concerns. After minimal discussion, the Council unanimously approved the application to move forward with Skyline’s development proposal.
Earlier in the meeting, several individuals passionately advocated on behalf of the homeless and people living in extreme poverty. One spokesperson questioned the city on the Skyline proposal and asked if that would help people suffering. Mayor Boddy went to great lengths explaining the difference between affordable/attainable housing and private development. He explained that private development doesn’t provide affordable housing, government (at different levels) does this. Interestingly, in the end, Council justified approving the Skyline proposal by stating there is obviously deep concern, in the community, about the lack of affordable housing and homelessness, thus they have an obligation to act. So, which is it? Is Skyline going to provide affordable housing? According to the Mayor, the answer is “no”. According to comments made by various Council members, the answer is “maybe”.
Surprisingly, there is a great deal of trust afforded to Skyline. For example, the Planning Report and Recommendation said that Grey County Housing wants to meet with Skyline to discuss the issue of affordable housing – no dates, no real commitment, no promises, no “nothing”. One Councillor said she hoped that the proposal would be modified to reduce the number of parking spaces and replace them with something more affordable, presumably. That request was not reflected in any motion or direction to staff.
In another example of surprising trust, after Councillor Tamming referenced the unsightly pictures (from current property owned by Skyline) that were part of the September 12 deputation. He asked what authority did City staff have to make sure the same thing didn’t happen with the new development by Skyline. Director Coulter immediately redirected the question to a Skyline Executive who was present. This person stated she had seen the pictures and was unhappy with that standard and they were working on improving it. She said they were committed to a higher standard for the new development. Excuse my cynicism, but a two-minute declaration by a multi-million dollar corporation is enough to satisfy staff and elected officials that it won’t happen again? (Literally, talk is cheap.)
Regarding the condition of the current properties owned by Skyline, the report read by Ms. Coulter, and authored by the City Planners, did not mention this concern. In earlier discussions, the planners insisted that the written concerns from the community plus the concerns outlined in the deputation, would be included in the report. The track record of Skyline, despite being one third of the deputation, was not mentioned in the report. If the issue had not been raised by Councillor Tamming it would not have been discussed. City staff chose to concentrate on traffic disruptions as one of the main concerns raised by the community. Councillor Dodd, at least acknowledged the three main concerns raised in the deputation and traffic wasn’t one of them.
The discussion regarding the priority of mixed housing, in city development, was addressed by the report and by Ms. Coulter. The issue of mixed housing is referenced all through the Provincial Policy Statement, The County’s Official Plan and the City’s Official Plan; everyone agrees on that point. The city staff interpret that directive to have a much broader meaning i.e. mixed housing is required within a larger context and is not required on individual lots. Therefore, because there are single dwelling homes within 750 metres and 1800 metres the requirement for mixed housing is met. Case closed. We intend to investigate this interpretation further. At the very least, it doesn’t reflect the “spirit” of the policy, even if it does reflect the “letter” of the policy, which we are not convinced is accurate. In any event, no mention was made to the large body of research that clearly indicates that large apartment complexes are an outdated idea and leads to social problems, as per lessons learned in Toronto's Regent Park, St. James Town and elsewhere.
One additional noteworthy discussion originated from Councillor Greig who tried to pass a motion that would waive the need for the city to conduct their own independent noise study. The concern is that future residents might be negatively impacted by the noise generated from nearby industrial operations. Although that motion was eventually withdrawn, it demonstrates how quickly Mr. Greig was ready to bypass “checks and balances” in order to get this deal done and avoid what he considered unnecessary precautions. In addition, he was eager to note that the city waived millions of dollars in regular fees in order to allow this private company to proceed.
Finally, we want to emphasize again, that we are not against development and we are not against affordable housing and certainly support the glaring need to help the homeless. We don’t believe the proposal by Skyline is in line with best practices for urban planning and it certainly doesn’t address the concerns for the poor and the homeless.
Donna and Murray Jansen
