Why my background in affordable housing makes me a better College Ward Councillor

1. I know what the market can do for affordability, and what it can’t

The accepted definition of “affordable” housing, which comes from the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), is housing that costs no more than 30 per cent of a household’s gross income.

Needless to say, we won’t find many homes in College Ward at that price, and we won’t see developers buying expensive homes to make deeply affordable units.

But we need more homes overall, because housing scarcity is one of the biggest impacts on overall affordability. The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation estimates that City of Ottawa must double its housing starts to return to pre-COVID levels of affordability (Canada’s Housing Supply Shortages: Moving to a New Framework, 2025).

But it’s not just low-income households that are being priced out of the market. More and more Ottawa residents are struggling to afford the housing that’s being built in the private market, even at the least expensive end of the spectrum. Recent reports in the media suggest you need a household income of over $134,000 to buy an average home in Ottawa (Ottawa Real Estate: Income required to buy a home in Ottawa jumps $390). A triplex or townhome will yield more affordable market entry price points than a detached home on a lot. Residents who are earning well but still priced out of mature neighbourhoods need those options.

So why don’t we build homes for those people farther out on the edges of the city and leave existing neighbourhoods alone? Because overall affordability isn’t just the price of a home but keeping taxes in check. When you build farther away, those people live farther from services and employment. This puts additional financial pressure on the municipality to service those areas: fire, paramedic, water, sewer, roads, parks and recreation, not all of which is covered by development charges: maintenance and renewal are paid for by taxes. Everyone pays for sprawl. Intensification allows for more efficient public services and, in the long run, lower taxes for everyone.

At the same time as private market development will happen, the city needs to be laser-focused on non-market housing (public or not-for-profit housing) to support those who cannot enter the market. As it stands, too few deeply affordable homes are being built, meaning that people are unable to move into and out of social housing.

My background in affordable housing gives me a shorthand on these issues. I sit on the board of Build Ottawa, which has a renewed mandate to accelerate affordable housing through land sales. Under my tenure as City Councillor, the City voted to exercise its option to purchase the lands at 100 Constellation, which will be coming online in 2026. These lands offer a significant opportunity to build deeply affordable housing at scale right beside the Algonquin LRT station. I liaise regularly with the Member of Parliament for the area to learn more about federal lands being offered through Build Canada Homes. I am advocating for Nepean Housing to have access to city programs to support their future.

It would be foolish to imagine that affordable housing solutions will be offered by the private market alone. Municipal government has a responsibility to offer the resources we have, as well as the oversight residents deserve, as we build more housing. Which leads me to my second point:

2. I make sure we stay grounded in community priorities

My background in affordable housing gives me a healthy skepticism of market solutions to our housing crisis. And it helps me remember that we aren’t just talking about ‘housing starts’, or ‘units’, or ‘yield’. When we build housing, we are shaping communities. And we need those communities to remain liveable and enjoyable for everyone.

For example, the City’s recent Housing Innovation Task Force report listed 53 recommendations to spur housing development. One of them was offering a five-year suspension of Community Benefit Charges (CBCs). CBCs are currently in place to collect money for community investments ranging from sidewalks to park improvements to road safety investments, things that existing neighbourhoods deserve when welcoming more density and more people.

I didn’t want there to be even one day where we weren’t collecting some portion of this charge, because I wasn’t convinced (and remain unconvinced) that this expense will make-or-break developers’ balance sheets. I was especially unprepared to give developers a holiday in advance of data collection that will demonstrate the impact of the 53 recommendations.

I moved a motion to preserve a portion of the CBC and establish a sunset clause, as well as a motion to come back to Council with a line-by-line analysis of the impacts of each financial recommendation. I don’t want the City to give away its potential community revenues without ongoing proof that it will result in more needed housing or that the livability of our neighbourhoods won’t be compromised.

To be clear: this wasn’t a fight against housing: it was a fight for concurrent improvements in our neighbourhoods and to make sure that those improvements don’t fall on your tax bill.

3. I will continue to be a voice for infrastructure investments in older neighbourhoods

My background in affordable housing has taught me about value for money. The City is a non-profit corporation the same as any other, and it should be accountable for every dollar it chooses to spend. We have inherited a post-amalgamation mish-mash of infrastructure investments that are of various standards and ages. For example, the City of Nepean never built wading pools, but the City of Ottawa did.

Sixty years ago, the City of Nepean didn’t routinely invest in sidewalks or streetlights. Today, with more cars on the road, many neighbourhoods are not safe for pedestrians at the best of times, but particularly at night or in winter. These differences are felt across many older neighbourhoods that came together through amalgamation.

That’s why since I was elected, I have worked to bring together all Councillors who represent older neighbourhoods like ours to speak with one voice on the infrastructure deficits that we experience and to advocate for investment that can level the playing field as intensification occurs.

It doesn’t make sense to me to perpetuate different standards of road safety, walkability, recreational facilities, pavement age, and other aspects of a good quality of life in a city, particularly as our neighbourhoods grow and intensify. I’ve shown leadership with my Council colleagues to impress upon the City that mature outer urban neighbourhoods like ours have an identity and a community that requires infrastructure investment as part of the tradeoff for additional density.

For too long, College Ward has seen single-family homes being transformed into less-than-ideal apartments with absentee landlords taking advantage of the lack of available housing. I am fighting for appropriate garbage storage, harmonized parking, active transportation and transit service plan, fire safety and other standardized amenities for purpose-built rental housing that all residents can enjoy and count on.

Whether we like intensification or not, it’s going to happen. The Provincial Government is mandating it, and the Ontario Land Tribunal is defending it. The job of City Councillor is to advocate and vote with the interests of all residents in mind: residents who live in a particular neighbourhood today, the residents of those neighbourhoods tomorrow, longtime residents and newcomers, kids who can’t vote and their kids not yet born, those who own, and those who rent, and those who are struggling to do either. It’s not always easy to resolve the conflicts implicit in some of those interests, but I will always act in a way that I believe best balances those to build an Ottawa that serves everyone well in the years to come.