Hey there, time traveller!

This article was published 29/11/2016 (1394 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Opinion

Welcome to the gerbil wheel of municipal government.

At a Nov. 8 meeting of the city centre community committee, councillors considered a development application for a 12-unit, four-storey condominium project to be built at the corner of McMillan Avenue and Harrow Street.

In this instance, however, the project was proposed in Crescentwood. Coun. John Orlikow, who lives near the proposed development, said it was too big for the area. The community committee rejected the project, despite developers having obtained approval in principle from the city planning department, which deemed the scope and design of the project to be consistent with Winnipeg’s broader development goals and policies.

For those of you who follow land-use issues, this is a familiar narrative: city staff study development proposals and vet them according to existing policies; staff make a report to council recommending approval of the project; councillors at community committees reject that recommendation and the project based more on the emotional effect of the proposal and less on policy.

This is the epitome of gerbil-wheel government: an endless cycle of planning, policy formation, deliberation and decision-making that leaves the jurisdiction in question exactly where it started, with nothing accomplished.

It should be noted the committee is hardly the last stage of deliberation for this project. It must also go to the standing committee and then to council. There will be opportunities to revisit the Crescentwood proposal and make a decision that is in keeping with broader policy goals. The big question remaining is why do we have to go through the farce of watching politicians operate in direct conflict with city policy and get to trump the process?

Coun. Janice Lukes, recently freed from her obligations as a member of the powerful executive policy committee, was quite outspoken about the decision to reject the Crescentwood condo project, arguing the city needs a comprehensive policy governing the parameters for multi-family infill housing development. Lukes said no such policy exists, and she will introduce a motion at the next council meeting to kick-start a process to forge one.

"The whole process is way too parochial right now," Lukes said. "We need better guidelines approved by council so that we can make consistent decisions on multi-family infill developments."

The inconsistency of the decision on the Crescentwood proposal is pretty obvious for anyone who lives near there or travels through the area. Modern multi-family condominiums have become quite fashionable in west Osborne Village and the pocket south of Wellington Crescent and north of Corydon Avenue. In its proposed location, the Crescentwood development would mark a change for the area. But it is not a change for the worse.

The city’s chief planner, Braden Smith, agrees with Lukes. The city does have many documents and policies governing development and land use, including Our Winnipeg and Complete Communities and some of the secondary plans that look at neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood development issues. These documents describe, among other things, the need to promote increased density in older residential neighbourhoods and add mixed-use development to make these neighbourhoods more self-sufficient.

However, Smith agreed that Winnipeg does not have a comprehensive policy describing the specifics of what the planning department refers to as "context sensitive" infill development.

"We do not currently have a city-wide infill strategy that we can employ on a consistent basis," Smith said.

"Developing something like that would be a very good first step in solving some of these problems."

In the absence of a city-wide strategy, the size and design of infill projects is still very much left up to the vagaries of the political decision-makers, many of whom are left to the mercy of aggrieved taxpayers who do not see the virtue of increased residential density or mixed-use development.

Rather than using community committee as an opportunity to inform and perhaps even persuade some of the naysayers, it seems so often councillors use these forums to pander to "squeaky wheel" constituents.

Although the rejection of one condo project may seem like a small event, it is really connected to much larger issues of governance and policy at city hall. Councillors operate at close quarters with their constituents, much closer than any politician at the federal or provincial level. As a result, councillors are often left exposed when a broader city policy runs directly into conflict with local sentiment.

Not all councillors wilt under the pressure and scrutiny of a community committee. But enough do to justify a change in the way the city handles land-use conflicts.

Leadership is certainly part of the equation. Members of the EPC — and ironically, Orlikow is one of those powerful, inner-circle councillors — must remain firm in assessing development applications against policy only. They must lead by example when confronted with opposition to projects that are very much consistent with those policies.

And a policy revamp is also part of the equation. Lukes’ motion to create a city-wide infill policy is an excellent start and something that all of council should get behind.

Ultimately, all councillors must realize one of the best defences in any skirmish is a clear and consistent policy.

It provides comfort to elected officials, particularly those who may forget in the heat of the moment that they are not making decisions for the few but for the many.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca