Minister of Housing and Infrastructure Gregor Robertson, centre, speaks while flanked by Secretary of State for Sport Adam van Koeverden, left, and Canada Soccer President Peter Augruso during a news conference in Vancouver on Friday.ETHAN CAIRNS/The Canadian Press
The federal government doesn’t have a lot of ways to influence the type of private-sector housing that gets built. Zoning, permits and municipal regulations are not its jurisdiction. So Ottawa figured out that cold, hard cash could convince city politicians to allow more construction.
More than 200 cities signed deals promising to change their policies in return for millions of dollars from the Housing Accelerator Fund. Crucially, the money was to flow over four years, so backsliding could be penalized. Unfortunately, the federal government is being too reluctant to hold feet to the fire.
This happened in Toronto, after the city reneged last year on one of its key commitments. Instead of allowing six-unit buildings everywhere council kept them illegal in most of the city. Earlier this year the federal government responded by cutting $10-million in funds, barely 2 per cent of Toronto’s allotment.
Glut of new build homes starts to unhinge the Alberta market
That was a missed opportunity to make the point that a deal is a deal. Because without meaningful penalties, there’s no pressure on cities to stick to their commitments. It is unsurprising that Calgary then followed the path Toronto set.
And when Calgary challenged the federal government’s nerve, Ottawa caved again.
In that city, council committed in its housing agreement to change zoning to allow for small multiple-unit buildings in areas reserved for single-family homes. It did so in 2024.
However, the move remained controversial and Jeromy Farkas won the mayoralty last year with a pledge to revoke the change. Early in April, in spite of city staff in Calgary warning that federal money was at risk, council re-imposed the stricter zoning rules. Ottawa was entirely within its rights to lay down the law.
Instead, the federal government chose to change the rules mid-game. Calgary got this year’s tranche of funding and, in order to get the next, the city will have to meet a new and watered down commitment to allow more density.
Editorial: The cost of Toronto’s free riders
In a letter to Mayor Farkas dated 21-April, federal Minister of Housing and Infrastructure Gregor Robertson said that further funding was contingent on council adopting zoning rules allowing “a minimum of four units to be built on a lot for a significant majority of lots across the city.”
What is “a significant majority?” The letter does not specify. And any percentage smaller than 100 is less than what Calgary had previously committed to do.
After the federal government released the new and easier commitment, Mr. Farkas said that the city could achieve a majority of lots zoned for four-plexes by adding them on the outskirts as Calgary expands.
In other words, it could do this while leaving older neighbourhoods untouched. Unlike the original agreement, existing home-owners won’t have to be part of the solution as demand is pushed elsewhere.
Defenders of Calgary’s once-again restrictive zoning can point to the fact that the city is beating its own targets for the number of new homes. That’s a commendable achievement. But it doesn’t eliminate the need for structural change in where different types of housing can be built.
Decades of post-war zoning practice separated single family homes from apartments. Zoning the majority of the city exclusively for single family homes left only two obvious ways to add housing: Towers and sprawl.
That’s where the Housing Accelerator Fund was groundbreaking. In its agreements with cities, Ottawa insisted on looser zoning rules to allow buildings with multiple units – typically four or six, depending on the city – on properties in traditional residential neighbourhoods.
Such rezoning is a way to add housing while taking advantage of existing infrastructure, but not changing unduly the appearance of an area. It also opens the door to revitalizing older house neighbourhoods, in cities such as Vancouver and Toronto, experiencing long-term population decline.
The zoning changes were not always popular but mayors could point to money their cities were getting as a way to sell the change to upset residents. Still, the change was a bridge too far for some municipal leaders. Windsor refused to rezone and so did Oakville, to the west of Toronto. Both were denied funds as a result.
But it turns out they should have simply pretended to play along. Because the way Mr. Robertson folded on Calgary suggests Ottawa isn’t really serious about rezoning.