Lorne Gunter: 'Chaos' a stretch: Numbers don't support Andrew Knack's response to province

Since the province stepped in on Thursday to force the city to undo its controversial infill policy, Edmonton Mayor Andrew Knack has claimed several times that stopping the construction of monstrous infills in the middle of residential blocks would “create chaos” and destroy housing affordability in the city.

There are plenty of reasons for city politicians to object to the provincial government meddling in municipal affairs.

Calgary Mayor Jeromy Farkas, for instance, has been stronger in his reaction than Knack. And the province imposed far fewer rule changes on Calgary because a new council elected a year ago had already turned back most of the objectionable rules on its own.

Still, Farkas strongly criticized the Alberta government’s intervention, labelling last week’s action regarding infill as “political overreach” and “an illegal intrusion into local democracy.”

Farkas, who is far further to the right than Knack (although it would be hard to be more leftist than Knack) said Friday that, “Just because the premier agrees with how I voted yesterday, does not mean that she gets to decide how I vote tomorrow.”

In Edmonton, Ward tastawiyiniwak Coun. Karen Principe, who has been one of the few reliable votes on council against jam-packed infill, expressed her disappointment with the province stepping into city space and said “I don’t think anyone wins” in disputes like this.

Even if the province is 100 per cent right and Edmonton city council is 100 per cent wrong (as is the case on infill), I still have qualms about the province overruling the bylaws or regulations on a duly elected local council.

(Keep in mind that municipal governments are entirely creations of provincial law. If the province wants to dissolve every council in Alberta and govern towns and cities from under the dome, it could.)

However, if there are good reasons to object to the province sticking its nose in city business, Knacks claims of “chaos” and unaffordability aren’t among them.

For instance, among Canada’s 10 largest cities, Edmonton has the eighth-lowest average housing prices.

Vancouver remains the highest-priced market with an average housing price of $1.2 million. The average price in Toronto has slipped every year in the last three, but remains at nearly $1 million ($995,000). Victoria comes in at about $945,000. Ottawa’s average is $649,000. Calgary is fifth at $638,000. Halifax and Montreal are next at $578,000 and $537,000, respectively.

Then comes Edmonton ($475,000). Only Saskatoon ($433,000) and Winnipeg ($424,500) are cheaper.

Knack has also insisted that infill is necessary because new subdivision don’t pay for themselves. Residents in existing neighbourhood subsidize the infrastructure for new developments through their taxes.

But as the Building Industry and Land Development (BILD) association has established, new subdivision more than pay for themselves. They add almost immediately to the city’s tax base.

For instance, together developers pumped $3.2 billion into land development, sewer and other infrastructure, parks and other amenities just in the two communities of Heritage Valley and Windermere. Now, the residents contribute more than $300 million in property taxes annually. More than enough to pay for civic services and expenses.

But the clincher for me are the numbers from StatsCan showing that since the city’s infill bylaw came into effect in January of 2024, rents in Edmonton have gone up, not down.

In the past nearly three years, rents have risen from about $1,350 to just under $1,700. The increase is about 22 per cent. So just exactly how is infill (which is mostly rentals) making housing more affordable?

The average monthly rent in Edmonton is now higher than the average mortgage payment for a median condo.

You would think councillors would know those numbers before complaining that the province was stopping their efforts to jam ever more, oversized infill rentals into the middle of existing neighbourhoods, ruining the character and livability those neighbourhoods.