Op-ed: Community associations concerned about transparency from council on housing decision-making

– SURVEY

– DIVISIVE DISREGARD FOR PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES

ENGAGEMENT PLAN

After clearly and repeatedly telling City Council that the public engagement regarding the HAF funding will be “robust” and that Administration will “develop and undertake a thorough consultation plan to guide the implementation and adoption of 4 units as-of-right,” Administration appears to be following the same ineffective practices followed for Phase One of the Bylaw Review (Quotes taken from Feb10, 2025 Council Agenda Packet. See below.) That consultation process was minimal, reached only 0.25% of the population (300 people), and led to bylaw changes that are now coming back to Council to amend in the face of contention and a public body unaware of how the City has changed the rules and regulations surrounding neighbourhood overlays and backyard suites.

The HAF2 Open Houses are only 2 weeks away and are not being advertised effectively. The changes proposed for our city will have significant permanent impacts and MUST be explained to as many citizens as possible. We recommend notices delivered to every dwelling, a strong social media campaign with links to information, and signs placed on main thoroughfares across the city. The meetings will also limit the number of people who can attend by both being held at 5:00pm on Tuesday and Thursday of the same week. Perhaps another Open House could be added in the weeks following on Monday or Wednesday from 7:00 -9:00pm.

We recommend that these Open Houses be used for information sharing and gathering with another Open House in the late summer or early fall summarizing the public engagement results and explaining how these results impacted (or did not impact) the recommendations Administration is bringing forward to Council regarding the HAF2 grant.

SURVEY

The online survey needs context and accuracy. First, the information regarding fourplexes needs to be more direct, which can be done while still using simple and clear language. For example, why not use a slightly modified version of what was already prepared and presented to Council in the February 10, 2025, HAF2 Grant update (Attached below), such as:

A requirement of the HAF2 grant is that Red Deer must allow four housing units on all residential lots in low-density neighbourhoods. This includes Residential Low-Density R-L, Residential Narrow Lot R-N, and Residential Duplex R-D. This means that every one of these residential lots must allow for up to 4 dwelling units if a development application is submitted. This could include a house with multiple suites (backyard or house suites), a duplex with each unit having a suite, a triplex with one unit having a suite, or a fourplex. Because these developments must be allowed, neighbours would no longer be consulted or have the right to appeal.

To allow four units on these lots, the City will also have to change other regulations such as reducing or eliminating off-street parking requirements, increasing the allowed heights of buildings, reducing the distance between buildings, reducing the minimum size of front and rear yards, and reducing neighbours’ rights to amenities such as sun access and privacy in all neighbourhoods.

While each lot would have the ability to be developed with four units, it does not mean that every site will be. Supply, demand, landowner desire, and economic feasibility will be factors in future developments. City Administration estimates 67 units will be created over three years.

There should also be a direct question regarding four units as a right. For example:

In your opinion, should four units be allowed as a right on every low-density residential lot in Red Deer?

Yes
No
Comments:

Additionally, one of the main questions we have heard is “what is the money actually going to be used for?” Survey participants should also be made aware that the money is expected to create 352 additional units (including apartments, suites, and homes) in addition to the 825 units that will occur naturally over three years. This number is important because it allows people to decide whether the benefit of the grant outweighs all or some of the changes it will bring to Red Deer’s communities and streets.

The community engagement and the HAF2 survey must also include a summary of all the promises made to Ottawa in the HAF2 proposal since, as stated in the September 3, 2024, Council Agenda, “Council would be required to implement” all of them.

While Administration has yet to release the grant proposal to the public, the September 3, 2024, Agenda Packet indicates that these other initiatives include:

– Allow up to eight units on large and corner lots after community consultation.

– Allow more than 4 or 8 units, further increasing building heights, and further reducing or eliminating parking on almost all residential lots within 800m of a high-frequency transit route.

– Pre-approve the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Design Catalog designs for yard suite, duplex, fourplex, and sixplex developments. Pre-approval means that these designs are approved without community consultation or regard for a lot’s unique qualities.

– Sell or lease underutilized City-owned land and/or buildings for medium and highdensity housing

– Incentivize medium and high-density construction by waiving fees and supplying developers with grants and loans

– Reducing developers’ risk and wait times by prioritizing medium and high-density development applications, digitizing the development process, increasing the authority of City staff to make development decisions, and by making medium and high density infills permitted which means eliminating community consultation, regard for a lot’s unique qualities, and neighbour’s right to appeal.

– Update the Community Housing and Homelessness Integrated Plan and incentivize the building of supportive housing with grants and loans

To be comprehensive, the above information should include a definition of what the City considers a “large lot” and a link to a map of high-frequency transit routes preferably marked with the 800m limit on either side. These areas are being considered for further densification measures and residents should know exactly what is being agreed to and how it will impact their communities.

Not outlining ALL the potential implications of accepting the HAF2 grant misleads survey participants by what the City calls “gentle density” in three of the survey questions. As the survey reads, “gentle density” means “slow and small” change limited to up to four units on “most lots,” which is a far cry from what is being considered.

We recommend a survey question that asks participants to rate their approval of each of these initiatives on a scale from 1 to 5, strongly approve to strongly disapprove.

In general, as with the Backyard Suites Survey, the HAF2 survey questions will not gather the information needed to gauge the public’s desire for the specific HAF2 initiatives including four plexes. Even the title of the link on Engage Red Deer, “Growing Red Deer, Together,” is vague and appears more promotional than a sincere effort to gather public opinion.

DIVISIVE DISREGARD FOR PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES

Finally, our communities are more than dismayed and justifiably angered by the first substantive and last survey questions:

“Do you believe your neighbours should have a say in how you develop your property?” and “Do you believe you should have a say in how your neighbours develop their property?”

First, these questions are extremely divisive, pitting neighbour against neighbour.

Second, the questions imply that a free-for-all regarding property Uses and Regulations is tolerated, perhaps even supported, by The City.

Third, the inclusion of these questions is counter to and negates ALL of the time, effort, and money the City has spent on encouraging a sense of community, shared sense of place, and communal quality of life.

Most important is the fact that these questions have come from the City department that is supposed to be experts at community consultation and facilitating change in ways that are nonconfrontational. It is also the department in charge of creating the zoning bylaws, which we consider a shared contract over how our lots, communities, and municipality will be developed for the good of ALL neighbours. That this department included these divisive questions that flout the reasons for having zoning bylaws and regulations in the first place demonstrates a shocking disregard for that department’s most basic responsibilities.

If the City Administration’s intent has been to inform and engage Red Deerians over the course of the Zoning Bylaw Review Project, they have failed spectacularly, and the risks are higher now that the HAF2 conditions raise the stakes very significantly for citizens and neighbourhoods. If, on the other hand, the City’s intent is to ensure that it can keep the HAF2 grant and drive deregulated, intensified development regardless of the wishes of citizens, then that is just unacceptable. Councillors and City Administration are public servants, and the current work on potential rezoning must serve the public.

For us, the situation has created a crisis of trust, and we look to both Council and Administration to address this crisis by re-thinking the way forward.

Sincerely, Len Carlson, President, Parkvale Community Association

Brenda Garrett, President, Waskasoo Community Association

Peter Slade, Chair, Woodlea Community Association

—

EDITOR’S NOTE: The views expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of rdnewsNOW or Pattison Media. Column suggestions and letters to the editor can be sent to news@rdnewsNOW.com.

by Woodlea, Parkvale, Waskasoo community associations

Op-ed: Community associations concerned about transparency from council on housing decision-making

What's Trending