Scott Stinson: How one Toronto suburb became a case study in the challenges of building new housing

Article content

Any new units still had to meet all the existing building codes governing things like fire and safety and height and setbacks and so, the staffer said, “it is very difficult from a code-compliance perspective.”

Article content

No kidding.

Article content

A newly built home, right, beside an older in Markham. Photo by Peter J Thompson/National Post

Article content

At this point in the public meeting, two things were clear: this policy change sure wasn’t going to solve the housing crisis, not at a four-approvals-in-three-years pace. But also, it didn’t seem like the kind of thing that anyone should get too worked up about. Maybe there would be a few properties here and there where it might make sense to add those extra units, but it obviously wasn’t going to lead to the kind of densification that tends to get residents’ noses out of joint.

Article content

And then the public input began, and there were already noses out of joint. The complaints were like a greatest-hits collection of NIMBY standards. What about the impact on traffic and the degradation of services like water and sewage? What about neighbourhood character, and, of course, property values? Won’t anyone think of the parking?

Article content

One woman, with a flair for the dramatic, declared that while she was not against growth, “Markham is starting to look like a shantytown.”

Article content

Article content

It wasn’t just the residents being alarmist. One councillor fretted about the slippery slope of additional units. If they went from three to four, would they then go to five and then six? What about 10 units? “When are we going to stop?” she asked, plaintively. She worried about shady rooming houses, though staff explained that this proposal was not about that: These units would be separate residences, not unlicensed renters crammed into a house. She did not sound convinced.

Article content

When it was Mayor Frank Scarpitti’s turn to speak on the proposed change, he was skeptical, saying council would be inundated with complaints once these additional units started getting built. “We have enough issues with pool cabanas and gazebos,” Scarpitti said.

Article content

Watching the livestream, I’m pretty sure I had my head in my hands at this point. Had everyone forgotten the part where these kinds of units are actually quite difficult to get approved? Had the four approvals in three years crippled the city’s water supply or brought about traffic chaos?

Article content

Some speakers did support the proposal — they were young, naturally — and one fellow even had a nifty PowerPoint. But they didn’t speak with the passion, or the alarm, of the skeptics, who imagined a worst-case scenario of unfettered densification even though the actual proposal offered nothing of the sort.

Article content

Article content

Scarpitti then said that he wasn’t convinced that residents really knew about the proposed bylaw change, and he suggested a second meeting, in October, to increase public awareness. That idea had enough support, and the meeting was over.

Article content

The next month, it was more of the same. Some people noted that a few more secondary suites might allow seniors to stay in their homes without a steady income, or young professionals to live in the city without the burden of a huge mortgage. But others spoke of the proposed bylaw change in apocalyptic tones.

Article content

“I reject overpopulation,” one older resident declared. “I reject any further development.” (At least all his cards were on the table.)

Article content

Another said the city had already let things go too far: “The proportion of houses that are not maintained is quite disgusting,” he sniffed.

Article content

That public meeting finished, and the matter was scheduled for council approval — or rejection — at the end of that month.

Article content

Watching this play out, I was somewhat dumbfounded. There seemed to be little support for an idea that, while far from a panacea, might improve the city’s housing mix over time. This despite the fact that council had agreed to the four-unit concept when it accepted Ottawa’s $58.8 million.