Who's who in the urban boundary debate? A look at the players involved in the Hamilton decision
The push to expand Hamilton’s urban boundary is, no surprise, being received differently by various groups
This article is part of a week-long CBC Hamilton series called, How should cities grow? Hamilton's boundary dilemma, examining urban sprawl and boundary expansion.
The City of Hamilton will once again debate on Tuesday whether to expand its urban boundary to allow for more subdivisions on the outskirts of town, or face off next year against the province, which is pushing municipalities to make plans to expand by July.
Thousands of residents have contacted council to oppose the move, while developers and their allies say there's simply not enough room within the existing urban boundary to accommodate the 110,300 more households expected in Hamilton by 2051.
It's an issue that's been the talk of the town since earlier this year when grassroots group Stop Sprawl HamOnt began passing out signs decrying the proposed expansion, which is supported by city planning staff.
But the issue of how much and how quickly our cities should encroach onto farmland is one that's been around for decades, says McMaster University political scientist Peter Graefe.
"Some of this was being debated at Queen's Park in the 1970s," he told CBC Hamilton. "When Stephen Lewis was leader of the official opposition [between 1975 and 1977], the NDP pushed hard on this issue."
He says that 20 years ago, Hamiltonians were debating whether to expand into areas such as Elfrida, which is where some of the newly-proposed expansion would also take place.
In the early 2000s, those conversations focused around the airport district; and more recently, there's been debate about just what should be part of the Greenbelt.
This time, the provincial government is requiring municipalities to expand to allow for construction on urban outskirts, saying it will enforce such a measure if municipalities don't do it themselves by July, 2022.
"All around the Golden Horseshoe, we've seen suburban development continuing," said Graefe. "There's this ongoing question about where does growth go and who gets to define the area where growth goes."
While Hamilton city council and the province will ultimately decide the outcome, here's a look at the various groups trying to have their say.
Developers
It's no surprise that housing developers, especially those with land on the city's edge, would like to see further growth. In September, a group of nine homebuilders based in Hamilton, Oakville and Burlington created its own campaign to counter the "extreme idea" that the urban boundary should not expand.
Billed as Hamilton Needs Housing, the coalition hired Toronto public relations firm Strategy Corp. to buy Facebook ads, send flyers to homes and build a petition website that says housing affordability will only get worse if these lands are not developed. The group's flyer says the 'no expansion' options would also mean 450 apartment buildings of 10 storeys or more will have to go within existing neighbourhoods to accommodate the growth projections.
"We encourage city council to adopt… a balanced approach supported by expert city planners that allows for new houses and townhouses," states the flyer.
Jeff Paikin, president of coalition member New Horizon Development Group, says he's surprised the city took a resident survey on this issue, considering, he says, citizens aren't exactly planning experts. (The results of the resident survey were overwhelmingly in favour of freezing the boundary, but many people also complained that they didn't receive the survey.) He also says many people who don't want expansion likely also don't want infill — building up within the city's current limits — in their neighbourhoods.
"Most of the people talking this way have one of those [Stop Sprawl] signs on their single-family home in a traditional residential neighbourhood," he said. "If I hear one more person in a single-family home saying [that new residents] should all live in an intensified condo, I think, 'You go first...'
"The market is always right."
'Stop Sprawl' campaigners
Stop Sprawl organizer Nancy Hurst has been at the forefront of the anti-expansion campaign, spending her free time canvassing residents and sharing information about the city's expansion plans.
"Now's the time to build within the existing city," states the group's website. "Investing within our current urban boundary preserves surrounding farmland, lowers greenhouse gas emissions, and ensures our tax dollars are used to maintain existing infrastructure. By building on under-utilized land within the city limits, we can create more affordable, walkable, bikeable and less car-dependent neighbourhoods."
Graefe says Environment Hamilton has also been at the fore of the movement to stop urban sprawl, and says both organizations have managed to coalesce a "weird coalition" of supporters on the issue, including environmentalists, downtown-dwellers, rural residents and suburban people who don't want more suburbs.
"The Stop Sprawl people are really centring food production [in their campaign]," he says. "This plays well on the political right as a way to support farmers."
City hall
While city planners have expressed support for urban boundary expansion, which they call the "ambitious density" option, council is somewhat divided on the issue.
Graefe lists councillors Maureen Wilson, John-Paul Danko, and Brad Clark as those who have shown particular concern about urban boundary expansion, either on the basis of environmental impacts or the long-term costs of servicing an ever-growing area. Councillor Nrinder Nann has also spoken publicly about her support to freeze the boundary, saying last month: "It is past time for municipalities to draw a hard line and stop the use of public funds to subsidize the development industry."
Graefe cited a recent City of Ottawa report showing the costs of servicing sprawl far outweigh the money it brings in, but says other local councillors seem eager to discount that type of evidence.
"It's the power of the status quo or continuing to do what you've always done and getting reassuring messages from the economic development department that this is fine," he said. "A bunch of councillors ultimately support continued growth because that's what they've seen through their political careers," he added, citing long-term council members Lloyd Ferguson, Tom Jackson and Maria Pearson as supporting expansion.
Graefe says research has shown municipal councillors throughout Ontario get "the vast majority of" their campaign donations from developers or people in their families.
"Hamilton is no different," he said. "Having scanned through the [campaign donations] lists myself, I think you could find examples of children and spouses of developers making large donations to candidates."
Local architect Bill Curran says there are also numerous city planning regulations that make it difficult to create infill housing.
"Places like Ancaster and Dundas need a solid plan that embraces intensification," Curran, principal of Thier Curran Architects, told CBC Hamilton in an email. "Townhouses, apartments, co-living, secondary dwellings like granny flats all need to be part of the equation to avoid greenfield development, and antiquated 'tools' like Ancaster's blanket three-storey height fixation need to go.
"It would be smart if residents drove their own community plan, but sadly more often see NIMBYism [Not In My Back Yard] prevail. Even in my own North End neighbourhood the same faces oppose every single intensification application, which is nuts, and an abuse of process."
The Ontario government
In September, council received a letter from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing that said freezing the boundary may not conform with province of Ontario requirements, and would "produce a shortfall of approximately 59,300 ground-related units" to accommodate market demand.
"Ministry staff also wish to acknowledge the strong growth management principles that underpin the City's Ambitious Density scenario," states the letter, which had some councillors complaining about meddling from the province.
"The Ambitious Density scenario appears to balance market-demand for different housing types while also implementing an intensification target [60 per cent] and a designated greenfield area density target [77 residents and jobs combined per hectare] which exceed" provincial targets, it said.
NDP MPP Sandy Shaw, who represents Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas, told CBC Hamilton in July that the July 2022 target should allow enough time for a change of policy if a new government is chosen at the next provincial election, expected in June.
"We're losing 175 acres of farmland a day and it never comes back," said Shaw, at a city hall demonstration. She said her party has asked the provincial auditor general to evaluate the growth calculations the province is using to justify the expansion.
It's alarming that in 2021... we would perpetuate what is being called ground-oriented housing.- JAY PITTER, urban planning expert
Jay Pitter, a Toronto-based placemaker, urban planning lecturer and planner-in-residence at the University of Waterloo, believes the province's use of terms such as "ground-related units" is "coded language for resisting urban intensification, which has numerous environmental and social equity implications."
Pitter says it's clear that zoning that supports intensification "is desperately needed to address the housing crisis," while urban sprawl contributes to social inequities and reduces social cohesion.
"Urban design is not neutral," she told CBC Hamilton. "It either perpetuates or mitigates injustices.
"It's alarming that in 2021, when we are amid a national housing crisis impacting every single city in North America, and we're also amid a climate crisis, [that] we would perpetuate what is being called ground-oriented housing," she said.
A "ground-oriented" housing approach perpetuates "single-family homes, which would then trigger further car-centric infrastructure and sprawl," she says, and "is an incredibly unethical proposition and one that entirely ignores the moment where we are talking about issues such as environmental racism, Indigenous reconciliation, and respecting living beings other than humans."
When asked if the province was advocating solely for "ground-oriented" housing and whether infill could allow for the housing needed in Hamilton, a spokesperson from the ministry of municipal affairs and housing said: "Based on the City of Hamilton's Land Needs Assessment, Hamilton needs approximately 60,000 new single-family homes... The existing urban area does not have enough available land to build these new homes.
"Infill development, while a useful complementary tool, is alone insufficient to build the types of homes that current and future residents want because it is costly, time-consuming, and uncoordinated by relying on residents converting their existing properties."
This series, How should cities grow? Hamilton's boundary dilemma, runs Nov. 5-13.
