The public hearing for a controversial affordable housing development in Akinsdale probably isn’t going as well as Habitat for Humanity Edmonton or Apollo Developments had hoped. The project had its share of supporters on Monday, however they were far outnumbered by an organized, well-spoken and occasionally irate group, largely from the Akinsdale neighbourhood. If history repeats itself and council rejects another development for 70 Arlington Dr., the project proponents will have time to evaluate what went wrong, a process that should involve a hard look in the mirror.
The backlash over 70 Arlington Dr. has been fierce, consistent and entirely predictable ever since plans to redevelop the vacant three-acre plot entered the public realm after Habitat and the Protestant school district, the landowner, announced the sale in the summer of 2008. It’s no surprise given the site history, where two previous projects — a seniors’ assisted living complex in 2005 and a bungalow-style duplex development in 2000 — were rejected amid strong opposition from the neighbours who had concerns about losing green space, incompatible densities, falling property values, traffic, noise and crime, among others.
The controversial history did not deter Habitat. In June 2008, Habitat Edmonton CEO Alfred Nikolai recognized previous difficulties, something he promised to avoid this time with co-operation. “We need to talk to people before we develop a proposal and get them to help develop it rather than say, ‘This is what we’re going to build,’” he said at the time. Reality, unfortunately, has not lived up to the original promise, and it could be the single families, young couples and working singles in need of housing who suffer.
Poor public consultation was perhaps the dominant, consistent message from the Akinsdale neighbourhood on Monday. Many felt the density proposed is simply too high, but felt left out of a process that did not include direct consultation with the neighbourhood. To be fair, Habitat did adhere to the city’s public consultation guidelines, which spell out everything from sending out notification letters to neighbours to advertising and holding open houses. Habitat did both, holding two open houses to collect public feedback well before the public hearing.
Holding an open house might follow the city’s rules, however it falls short of Nikolai’s initial pledge. At both sessions Habitat presented its plans and then sought public opinion. While that did lead to some changes, including cutting the number of units from the initial 63 and adding parking stalls, that falls short of expectations of meaningful co-operation. It’s possible Habitat did in fact talk to “people” before developing its proposal — there certainly are people at city hall, the Protestant school district and at Stantec — however, it appears neighbours were left off the list. The city’s planning department suggested holding a design charrette (though not an actual requirement) to broaden public involvement, an idea Habitat rejected.
Despite turning down a charrette Nikolai insists it’s not Habitat that is closed to co-operation. “We’re willing to listen, but I don’t think that the people that I heard from are willing to listen,” he told the Gazette after the public hearing. Given recent history, it’s very likely he is correct. The neighbours have rejected duplexes, seniors’ assisted living, and now low-income housing. It’s likely the only agreeable solution for the majority is more of the same — an underutilized patch of turf next to a park. A charrette might not have overcome NIMBY, but it would have been a show of good faith, fulfilled earlier pledges of improved consultation and left little room for arguments that the proposal has been foisted on residents.
If indeed the project is doomed, city council should not escape partial blame. It was council that got the ball rolling on a partnership with Habitat for Humanity, and council that suggested 70 Arlington Dr. as a potential building site. Either councillors were blind to history or they were too hands-off when it came time to ensuring its partner created the best possible project for the city and Akinsdale. Policies can be changed quite easily; reversing the tide of public opinion cannot. That’s a lesson for everyone to ponder when the public hearing resumes Tuesday.
