Missing Middle Rears Its Head
Less than two months after coming into force a proposed six-plex brings the housing initiative to light again
It took two months since coming into force for the Missing Middle Housing Initiative (MMHI) to paint on the public radar again. And the issue causing so much fuss has almost nothing to do with the ambitious housing plan at all, it’s all about parking spaces.
The file concerns a six-unit home being proposed in a Vic West neighbourhood on Belton Avenue by developer Julien West of Urban Thrive. The company says that the two and three-bedroom units are designed for middle-class families.
There’s only one problem: it has no parking. The developers claim this opens up the back for a small communal lawn and stresses that the location was chosen specifically for its proximity to automotive-alternate transportation options, like cycling and transit. And it was because of this fact that the proposal was initially rejected by city staff and a recommendation was passed to council not to accept the development as it stood.
During a hearing on May 11th, council voted 6-3 to rezone the property and allow the project to go forward as is.
When the debate around the MMHI proposal was unfolding (shortly after this council was elected) we were assured of a lot of suspicions that arose among those who were paying attention. There was a feeling that developers and politicians were all too quick to change their arguments about the MMHI depending on the audience they were speaking to. For some it was purely about affordability, for others it was about ridding ourselves of the climate harming single-family dwellings, while others heard it was about transportation and increasing density in the face of growth (recall the “this is not an affordability plan” chants that passed around social media at the time).
But we were told all of these suspicions were unfounded and that we had nothing to worry about. It was a target to build a certain type of housing that would be under 10% of total approvals and fully in line with the existing OCP, which had been approved by council and had broad support among the public. We were told it was not about changing the face and character of the city but merely removing the red tape and streamlining the process for eager developers who were just waiting in the wings to swoop in and build to our needs across the city.
We are just getting this newsletter off of the ground and need as much support as we can get. Please consider subscribing to the newsletter to show your support and get weekly updates sent every Friday morning directly to your email inbox.
If you are already a subscriber, please consider sharing this publication with a relative or friend you think might be interested (and thank you!). Twitter and Facebook are always great venues to share our newsletters and add your own comment and perspective.
But we are seeing more and more that these concerns were well-founded. The May 11th hearing was a prime example. And we can hear it from the councillors themselves.
Councillor Jeremy Caradonna explained that the “baseline” for housing has changed telling fellow councillors on the record that “[t]he era of single-family-home zoning has come to an end, and it came to an end on March 12, which is when the bylaws for missing middle went live. The new baseline is six units on what was formerly known as a single-family lot.”
Which is an interesting comment to make about an official policy of the city that states clearly on their own website that the MMHI “does not remove single family homes or duplex zoning - it adds more diverse housing options in Victoria to help make our city a more livable place for families and seniors” [emphasis added].
Councillor Dave Thompson added his perspective on the issue of parking spaces saying, “[t]imes are changing. Communities are built differently. Our job here is not to look back 40 years or even 20 years or even 10 years and say, I wish we could recreate the Victoria of the past.”
Which is quite the bloated rhetoric considering the people living in the neighbourhood who did show up to oppose the project focused on the existing character of the street (a dead-end road) and the lack of parking spaces which would impact the community. This hardly sounds like wanting to look back 20 or 40 years ago. It sounds like simply having an interest in the largest investment most of these people will ever own in their lives— their homes and local communities. And there should be nothing wrong with that. Certainly nothing that warrants such bombastic and divisive language from our elected officials.
The MMHI has a very specific purpose and intent. And, as I mentioned, while some of us were always suspicious of that purpose and intent, the way it has been enacted legally is clear and obvious. It is about taking the decision-making out of the hands of council and delegating it to city staff. And it is about increasing density in line with the existing OCP so that we have more housing stock and options. And there is nothing wrong with this on the face— as I’ve said time and time again during the MMHI debate. Where the issue comes is in the removal of the rights of citizens to speak out (including overzealous rhetorical responses to concerns in an effort to shut them down) and the true intention of the dominate political establishment— the Zeitgeist— of this current council.
Because here are the facts of this particular case. Staff did review the proposal and made a recommendation that was in line with all of the standing directions and law existing around the zoning and planning of our city.
That was why the plan was not recommended to move forward, because it lacked the parking spaces that are still required in city by-laws and planning documents. The MMHI did not change this because the MMHI was not about parking spaces, it was about density and access to different types of housing as well as creating more housing throughout the city.
Rather than take the advice of staff council actively intervened. And they intervened on the grounds that the parking proposal was part of their own overall plans for the city and furthermore attempted to tie it all to the MMHI.
This is what Councillor Caradonna was doing when he said the era of the single-family home was over and he picked the coming into force date of the MMHI. But that is not what the MMHI is about or designed to achieve.
It sounds like simply having an interest in the largest investment most of these people will ever own in their lives— their homes and local communities. And there should be nothing wrong with that. Certainly nothing that warrants such bombastic and divisive language from our elected officials.
In fact, this whole process was supposed to be brought to an end with the MMHI. There really isn’t a point in delegating decision-making to staff if city council is going to overturn the recommendation. Especially when that original recommendation is based in the already existing plans and by-laws.
And here’s the rub (and where I will end this editorial on the issue). We as citizens as a whole are entitled to proper city planning that involves a process mandated in provincial legislation. Decisions around zoning that impact how our communities develop, grow, and change are not made on a case-by-case basis driven on the whim of a particular council majority existing at any given time. They are meant to be long-term and forward looking so that there is predictability built into the system for stakeholders and (more importantly, I would argue) so that the slow process of democracy can unfold alongside these decisions so plans are made with the broadest consultation and support from the public.
Fundamentally, this council demonstrated that they are willing to chuck all of the sound planning out of the window by generating a “crisis” over any issue they see fit as a means of achieving what is their own vision for the city. In this particular case it is about the climate crisis and car usage. Their vision might be a vision that has majority support, and it might be the vision that is best for our city but its not the vision that is on the books, it is not the vision approved through the formal mechanisms of our local government system.
And that is a problem, no matter how noble the cause.
