Deachman: City can’t ignore affordable housing in Lansdowne 2.0 deal

Article content

Beacon Hill-Cyrville Coun. Tim Tierney’s motion to return the third residential tower to the Lansdowne 2.0 redevelopment project at first seems a Hail Mary pass simply too late in the game to be taken seriously.

But Tierney’s motion may find some unlikely allies as the debate on the 2.0 plan picks up again this week. That’s because of an important element that the proposal, as it currently stands, almost totally ignores: affordable housing.

Article content

Article content

To be clear, the motion that Tierney first brought forward last week made no mention of affordability. It’s about housing, period, which Ottawa has identified as a desperate need, and which it wants to do through intensification, rather than by stretching its sewers and snowplows to lands infinity and beyond.

The 2.0 plan as it is written is woefully inadequate and an abrogation of the city’s own priorities on affordable housing. The plan identifies no such housing on site, and even proposes lowering the portion of the expected $39 million to be made from selling air- and subterranean rights — what a developer will pay to build on the property — that would be earmarked for the city’s Affordable Housing Reserve Fund, from 25 per cent (almost $10 million) to just 10 per cent ($3.9 million). The argument is that the city will get the money sooner and can use it more efficiently outside of Lansdowne and the difference — close to $6 million — would instead help pay for the development.

City staff had also recommended against a third tower, while indicating that the cost of building affordable housing at Lansdowne would be 20 per cent higher than at other sites in the city already under consideration.

Article content

So perhaps a third tower with affordable housing couldn’t even fly through due diligence and the financial waterfall without drowning. But that doesn’t alter the fact that agreeing to just 10 per cent of the money from air rights sales going to affordable housing is unconscionable.

Despite being in favour of more housing at Lansdowne, I’ve never particularly liked the idea of a third tower — at least not one so tall and so close to the Aberdeen Pavilion. I often walk by and through the site, looking up and trying to imagine where 40 storeys would end. But I’m more open to at least considering the idea, after hearing in recent weeks from some younger Ottawa residents who’ve indicated their disappointment over the reduction of housing at Lansdowne following the third tower’s demise.

I don’t know how many councillors would vote against the current Lansdowne 2.0 plan based solely on the absence of any real affordable housing component. Rideau-Rockcliffe’s Rawlson King told me on Monday that he would. The issue is so dear to King that he last week proposed not just reinstating the figure of 25 per cent of air rights sales going to affordable housing, which would be in line with the city’s own standing policies for developments, but upping it to 40 per cent, or a little more than $15 million.

Article content

Other councillors also brought forward motions with respect to affordable housing. Orléans South-Navan’s Catherine Kitts proposed that the 10 per cent of air rights revenue going to affordable housing be re-upped to 25 per cent, and one of Capital Ward Coun. Shawn Menard’s numerous motions was to include 10 per cent non-market affordable housing at Lansdowne.

Meanwhile, Kitchissippi’s Jeff Leiper and Somerset’s Ariel Troster said that they would at least consider the third tower if it is devoted to affordable housing.

It’s clear that Tierney’s 11th-hour motion has made enough noise that it will at least gum up the works a bit longer as councillors, in an effort to either reject or nail down a new partnership agreement between the city and the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, navigate this 40-acre minefield.

But we’re down to the short strokes now. A committee of the whole will begin to debate and vote on the motions. It’s been suggested that there may be some amendments to the motions already presented, as well as new ones. There will likely be some backscratching and horse-trading among councillors to curry favour for theirs. Will Tierney reword his motion to try to gain the support of those who might be soft on a third tower, but willing to at least discuss it if it results in deeply affordable housing? He might need to if he expects it to pass. Or is it just a wrench in the works?

Either way, it’s time for councillors to now work with one another to do what we elected them to: make some good decisions. It would be distressing if the city continues to ignore affordable housing simply to get a deal done.

Article content