After decades of economic stagnation, it is not surprising that Mayor Watson and Councillor Fleury expressed excitement during their public announcement of the Montreal Road Community Improvement Plan (CIP). There is a staff report going to Ottawa’s Finance and Economic Development Committee on May 7 (and then to City Council) recommending approval of the Montreal Road CIP. Very briefly, CIPs allow municipalities to provide financial incentives, usually in the form of property tax grants, to encourage private sector investment in the (re)development of properties leading to the revitalization of designated areas. According to the City staff report, Montreal Road exhibits all the conditions of economic stress that are considered when designating CIP areas. The report states that the “lack of development and perceived deterioration along the Montreal Road corridor has resulted in reduced property values and low commercial and residential rents.”

The Montreal Road CIP is one part of a multi-faceted revitalization program under the umbrella that the City branded as Vision Vanier which also includes a $27 million worth of infrastructure upgrades for sanitary and storm sewers replacement, street redesign including bike lanes, sidewalk improvements, streetscaping and other physical assets. The 8 km. corridor along Montreal Road designated under the CIP actually extends beyond the community of Vanier. The designated area stretches from North River Road (Rideau River) to the Aviation Parkway.

The Vision Vanier platform was created to provide a “coordinated communications and engagement approach to city projects, businesses, community associations and other key stakeholders” in order to “support the life and work of artists…, revitalize the heritage, cultural and creative sector and create a more vibrant, prosperous and desirable business community.” Although somewhat muddled, the Montreal Road CIP’s objective is “to encourage and co-operate with the private sector in a long-term program supporting revitalization to ensure a favourable climate for commercial activity and to stimulate property development within its boundaries to the economic potential that their location, accessibility, natural amenities, and community infrastructure would allow”.

There is also an important and relevant strategic principle contained in the City’s Official Plan related to the theme of Building Liveable Communities which states that the Plan “proposes to create more liveable communities by focusing more on community design and by engaging in collaborative community building, particularly in and around the Mixed-Use Centres and Mainstreets that have a great potential for growth”. This principle recognizes that the revitalization of neighbourhoods and commercial areas requires the coordinated efforts between city government, the local community and private sector interests.

Yet despite the priority placed on community collaboration found in Vision Vanier and the Building Liveable Communities principle, the consultation undertaken by City staff in preparing the Montreal Road CIP involved only a sample of property owners selected by City staff. Even then the consultation focused on the potential impacts that the proposed financial incentives may have on future investment decisions on the part of part of property owners. Admittingly, City staff do indicate in the report that a CIP information table / board was set up during one public meeting dealing with the infrastructure investment program – a weak attempt at community engagement on such a critical part of Main Street revitalization.

City staff do not offer any reason in the report as to why only property owners were consulted. The report does state that it was the Quartier Vanier BIA approached the City to consider the creation of a CIP. Since members of the BIA are comprised of property owners (as opposed to store merchants, businesses and institutions who rent commercial space), perhaps City staff felt they only needed to consult with the property owners. Or perhaps it was because the financing incentives are directly tied to the property assessment values and therefore were considered to only fall within the domain of property owners.

The failure to consult with the broader community represents a major shortfall of the CIP especially when it comes to revitalizing Vanier’s (and before that, Eastview’s) historical commercial downtown or Traditional Main Street. Revitalizing main streets and building liveable communities requires participation of all stakeholders not just the private interests of selected property owners. Engaging people that live, work, shop and play is critical in creating the kinds of communities that reflect their identity, needs and aspirations or what planners like to call placemaking. To Jane Jacobs, planning starts with asking the community what they want, what they care about and what’s important to them. Jane Jacob’s insights are missing from the CIP.

There is also nothing in the Provincial legislation or CIP guidelines that places limits on public consultation. According to the Province’s CIP handbook, for example, building community support through stakeholder (ratepayers, community and business groups, municipal staff, political representatives, business representatives, financial institutions etc.) input and feedback is an important starting basis for the development of a community improvement plan. The requirements to be followed by a municipality in developing a CIP are set in the Planning Act (Section 28). This includes public consultation requirements, including making information available to the public in accordance with the Act. The City is the approval authority for CIPs, and, therefore, it is up to the City to be satisfied or not that the appropriate procedures and public consultation requirements were followed. It seems then that limiting consultation to selected property owners or to an information board at an infrastructure meeting was all that was needed by the City to prepare the CIP.

Mixed Up Priorities

The CIP also targets three types of uses as priorities for future (re)development: (1) affordable housing; (2) cultural activities and artists, and; (3) social enterprises (nonprofit organizations, charities and any business where “profits” are reinvested in the work serving a social or public need). The CIP contains a “supplementary benefit” if development projects include any of the three uses by providing a larger annual grant equal to 100% of the municipal tax increment compared to 75% for other eligible uses. The question then arises as to who decided that these three uses would be priority revitalization targets given that there was no consultation with the community? It doesn’t seem likely that the property owners would have come up with these targeted priorities or that they were based on the responses City staff received from an information table at an infrastructure meeting..

The staff report does try to present a rationale for selecting the three priority uses. The report claims that the designated area, especially west of St. Laurent, has become a “hub for artists, artistic and cultural organizations, social enterprises, not-for-profits and entrepreneurs” and the areas is now “one of the most distinct and dynamic communities in Ottawa and creating opportunities for future growth”. The CIP then builds on the “existing strengths and diversity in this unique area”. Even the affordable housing component is seen in the report as supporting this hub by providing affordable accommodation for local artists.

The above rationale is contradicted within the same staff report. In developing a case for designating Montreal Road as a CIP, the report states that the “lack of development and perceived deterioration along Montreal Road corridor has resulted in reduced property values and low commercial and residential rents… the overall affordability of space in the area has attracted many artists, artistic and cultural enterprises, social enterprises, not-for-profits and entrepreneurs.” How, then, can economic uses or activities that are a product of continued commercial stagnation and deterioration then morph into opportunities for future growth, property investment and revitalization? Indeed, encouraging more growth in nonprofit / social enterprises and institutional uses may work against supporting a vibrant Main Street by taking away limited street level commercial space for what the planners call active uses in the report. Examples of active uses include shops, retail establishments, restaurants, art and craft studios, arts workshops, personal service establishments, performance space etc., all street level activities that would be in line with achieving a vibrant, pedestrian friendly Main Street environment.

The City can upgrade sewers and water pipes, built new sidewalks and bicycle lanes, add flowers and benches, and develop innovative design guidelines but there also has to be a reason for people to walk along Montreal Road for shopping, entertainment and work, as well as leisure and socializing in a safe and welcoming environment. Vanier’s Main Street also needs a vibrant and exciting mix of commercial, cultural, institutional and business activities. According to Jane Jacobs, for a street to thrive, there must be a mix of uses of offices, residences, shops and public parks so that the neighbourhood is active throughout the day and night. This ongoing activity creates safer streets, offers opportunities to take hold and provides residents with necessary services. Artists and cultural activities are important contributors to a thriving, vibrant Main Street but only if they are also part of a larger, balanced and dynamic mix of uses.

I still need to throw in here that locating a 350-bed emergency shelter in the middle of Vanier’s historical Main Street represents a serious obstacle to community revitalization in Vanier irrespective of the financial incentives offered in the CIP.

A Footnote

There is one last point that has more to do with approving applications that meet all the requirements of the CIP than with the issues I presented above. The CIP states that City staff will review applications to ensure that eligible projects do not represent “organic growth” but rather are occurring because of financial incentives. The CIP does not state how the “but for” evaluation will be determined other than that projects would be “reviewed in detail, based on best knowledge of current trends and history to ensure that an incentive is required to stimulate development”.

What the above means is that applicants must provide “a rationale clearly demonstrating that the project would not otherwise proceed in the absence of the incentive.” This requirement presents an unintended dilemma. As argued in the staff report, Montreal Road has become an attractive location for artists, cultural and social enterprises, and non-profit organizations because of the available affordable rents – in other words, there already exists an established trend associated with a growing social/cultural hub which has emerged without the financial incentives offered in the CIP. It then becomes a challenge for future planned projects involving similar uses to show that they are not just part of the “organic growth” and therefore eligible to obtain the financial incentives.