Zoning Bylaw Review Part 4: The Big Picture – Shelters

As the City moves toward adopting a new Zoning By-law in early 2026, alongside two ongoing secondary plans in College Ward for 2026-27, and several infill and larger developments always ongoing, I often hear from residents with concerns about density, parks, parking, school capacity, shadows, transportation, property standards, and property values. Many residents also share they are excited by the new opportunities and growth these changes could bring. 

Given how much has changed in recent years, I wanted to take a moment to walk through the evolving planning landscape — both locally and provincially — and explain how these changes shape development in Ottawa. 

At a recent community event, it was suggested that my background in affordable housing presented a “conflict of interest” with my role as your City Councillor. Since a conflict of interest is defined by the Municipal Act as a financial interest in a particular matter – that is, that I will personally benefit from decision-making on housing issues – this doesn’t quite add up.

I think the suggestion was that as someone who cares about the skyrocketing number of people who are forced to choose between housing costs and savings, or food, or other financial priorities, I’m compromised in my ability to advocate for current residents. I can only respond that I think people who need affordable housing are personal support workers, hairstylists, students, seniors and others who live in our communities today. I think it’s our kids and our grandparents.

I don’t agree that representing their interests, as well as the interests of those fortunate enough to be doing better, is in any way a conflict of interest. It’s hard, but that’s the job.

As disappointed as I was in the comment, it gives me an opportunity to reflect on my background and the values I bring to my work as your Councillor. I ran openly on my background in affordable housing as an asset to the role, and I think it might be useful to share how I believe my background makes me – and will continue to help me – be a better City Councillor.

City councillors this week debated a plan to give developers a break from having to pay for community improvements alongside the housing they build.

I introduced motions for a more measured approach: one that better shares the costs of keeping up with intensification between developers and taxpayers; and to hold a carefully planned review of whether giving a break to developers actually meets our housing goals, and to make sure the impacts are fair across the city.

I am pleased to say that my colleagues unanimously supported my approach.

No doubt about it: new homebuilding in the city has slowed. Ottawa developers argue that by giving them a pass on the 4 per cent of land value they put towards local community projects, we will see more shovels in the ground faster.

That might be true, or it might not. But we need to consider the implications of foregone benefits charges and what will happen if those aren’t forthcoming. I’d argue that giving developers a break from investing in community benefits will impact some communities more than others.

In neighbourhoods like College Ward, there are a lot of modest homes built in the 1960s on large, well-treed lots. The streets are wide without sidewalks or streetlighting. Density – the number of homes per hectare – is low.

These are homes that were built for young, growing families who have largely now grown up and left, with streets designed from another time. As empty-nesters move on, their neighbourhoods are in transition. Our older suburbs inside the Greenbelt are prime for development and new residents expect modern infrastructure and services.

I like to call our neighbourhood and the ones like it – inside the Greenbelt but not downtown – the “Delta” communities because they are going to see the most change in the coming years. Although communities across the city will change, wards like College, and parts of Gloucester, Riverside, Nepean, and others, will change the most dramatically. In time, albeit over several decades, these neighbourhoods will look very different from how they were planned. It is an anxious time for many families in established communities.

We need infill, and these neighbourhoods can handle the increased density. But more people create more pressure on community services and spaces. We need to build new recreation facilities and upgrade the ones we have. We need pedestrian crosswalks, sidewalks, and street lighting to make our roads safer for the influx of kids. Newer suburban neighbourhoods have been built with a higher standard, while the pipes and other infrastructure in downtown are so old, the city has no choice but to replace them and upgrade the roads and sidewalks at the same time.

Neighbourhoods like City View and Lynwood, for example, have no sidewalks, no streetlights, are designed with wide roads for fast speeds, and have few parks or no parks! But when we welcome such a dramatic change in our neighbourhoods, from 4 storeys to 32 storeys, would you not agree that services must improve to match the new population?

The question before us this week was: who should pay to ensure services keep up with growth in established neighbourhoods? Should it be the residents of new homes to whom developers pass municipal charges? Or should it be you and me, the existing taxpayers?

We need more housing, but we also need to balance the increased density with quality of life for both the existing residents and the incoming ones. Benefits charges are a fair and reasonable approach to doing that. Providing developers with a holiday will put the burden on everyone’s tax bill.

There isn’t enough analysis of the recommendation being put to Council to convince me and others that axing benefits charges will actually result in more homes being built. Or how much the average taxpayer will need to pay to upgrade the needed facilities in those existing neighbourhoods. My concern is that by stripping developers of the obligation to invest in community improvements, we pit the Official Plan’s vision of the ‘most livable midsized city in North America’ against the Task Force’s vision of making ‘Ottawa the most housing-friendly city in Canada’. We need both.

See the CBC article