Keith Gerein: UCP intrusion on infill leaves Edmonton council with limited options to fight back

There are several layers of disappointment to Premier Danielle Smith’s abrupt destruction of Edmonton’s zoning bylaw, but one of the biggest has been the willingness of some local residents to cheer on the UCP’s evisceration of local democracy to get their way.

Principles aren’t really principles if we respect them only at times of convenience.

Part of me understands it, at least on this issue. We’re talking about people’s homes and communities, their sanctuary from the horrors of the world. It’s not surprising to see people react strongly to what they see as a threat.

That said, I do wish that folks would take a longer and farther look outside their front doors sometimes, because I truly believe that this decision will be a self-defeating one for the city, and ultimately contradictory to residents’ broader goals.

(A good start for people would be talk to some of their new neighbours who have benefitted from moving into new infill units, because the UCP government clearly hasn’t.)

Indeed, Edmontonians have said repeatedly that they want a more affordable city, some degree of tax relief, and fewer traffic headaches. They want safer and more vibrant communities, better restraint on sprawl, and more efficient services. They want the city to put a real emphasis on economic development. They want their votes to matter.

Higher density, which was planned as a key strategy for the city’s affordability, vibrancy and business climate, is now going to be more difficult to achieve.

Respect for civic democracy is in such a shambles that city hall is quickly becoming a theatre of the irrelevant, to the point that it would probably be just as effective (and cheaper) to hire actors to play city councillors to continue the illusion of local governance.

In all seriousness, what significant policies can the real council approve now without fear that the province is going to overturn them, or have residents go running to the premier every time the group does something they don’t like?

It raises the question of what the city can do to try to protect its turf from the schoolyard bully. The options basically run the gamut from toothless to dangerous to desperate, but some might be worth trying, if for no other reason but to send a message.

• Launch a legal fight: Some avenues may exist for the city to challenge the province’s moves in court, though it’s not clear what those grounds might be. Nor is the city willing to reveal its potential strategies at this point. Maybe it can even join with willing property owners on a submission. Either way, this option is likely to be costly and probably not successful. There is one legislative sledgehammer in Alberta, and it is wielded by Smith, who has shown little reluctance to swing it. Even if the city wins a ruling, the province can appeal, change the relevant legislation, use the notwithstanding clause, or punish Edmonton in other ways.

• Ask the province to negotiate: The UCP government clearly didn’t do much homework before making this move, so perhaps there is an opening for council to present evidence and get the province to budge, maybe by setting a six-unit maximum or backing off on some of the parking requirements.

• Demand rent control: Ward papastew Coun. Michael Janz has gone public with this idea, suggesting that if the province is willing to interfere in the housing market and risk affordability, they should compensate by allowing some degree of rent control. It’s an interesting take, but the chances of convincing Smith (or developers) are probably near zero.

• Allow more upzoning: The province has ordered the city to go back to its pre-2024 zoning bylaw, which allows fewer units for infill projects. But developers still have the power to apply for rezonings. Yes, it’s more costly and time consuming, since all such applications would have to go through a public hearing. But council could still approve eight-plex submissions that way, or give a green light to even more density along transit lines (hello, 12-storey towers for Crestwood and Glenora). And they could even offer tax incentives for those projects. Unless, of course, the UCP takes that power away, too.

• Raise taxes: The city was expecting a tax uplift from new home construction. With that uplift now in jeopardy, the group could raise taxes to compensate, and be very clear in its messaging that it is the province’s fault. But of course that probably punishes the pocketbooks of Edmontonians more than the UCP’s reputation.

• Further restrict suburban development: This idea is based on the notion that densification through infill allows for a more cost-efficient city, whereas further sprawl worsens the balance sheet. As such, if infill is going to be curtailed, mitigate the damage by restricting new subdivisions. The problem is that if both infill and new development are both restrained, then the city is probably not going to see much housing construction anywhere, except in surrounding municipalities.

• Conduct an advocacy campaign: Join with Calgary and other municipalities to promote the benefits of local autonomy and criticize the province’s interference. This is probably the safest choice, and could have benefits with clever messaging, but may only harden the UCP’s mindset.

• Openly campaign against the UCP in the next election: This has been viewed a big no-no for councils and mayors, with severe consequences for those who bet wrong. But this council may feel they have little left to lose. And hey, if the UCP isn’t going to respect democratic standards, why should they?

• Desperate measures: This category could include things like council threatening mass resignations, some sort of work-to-rule edict or even dissolving the city into Strathcona County. I obviously don’t see council going that far, but they could send a message by at least asking city administration to prepare a report asking what those options would look like. After all, if council isn’t going to be allowed to do big parts of its job, what’s the point of having the job?

• Shut up and take it: This may be turn out to be inevitable at the end of the day, though I think allowing this bullying to stand without a response is just inviting more of the same. This is an existential fight worth having.

Not sold on any of these ideas, Edmonton? Please let me know how you think the city should respond.

Bookmark our website and support our journalism: Don’t miss the news you need to know — add EdmontonJournal.com and EdmontonSun.com to your bookmarks and sign up for our newsletters here.

You can also support our journalism by becoming a digital subscriber. Subscribers gain unlimited access to The Edmonton Journal, Edmonton Sun, National Post and 13 other Canadian news sites. Support us by subscribing today: The Edmonton Journal | The Edmonton Sun.