A good column sparks vigorous conversation, and if there’s one thing that last week’s Market Squared did, it’s that.
I can’t say I agreed with all of you, but my main assumption writing it was that there’s a serious discussion that needs to be had about how we house people in Guelph.
Having said that, I would like to follow up on some of the threads you laid down on social media and in the comments section about last week’s piece.
First of all, to all you who said that developers are greedy, I agree. I’m not sure why it should be surprising or revelatory that people in business to make money want to make as much of it as they can. We’re a greedy people by nature, and that can be used for good or ill.
More than that, greed, in part, is one of the things that led to our housing crisis in the first place, whether that’s market speculation, investing in houses like junk bonds, or selling too many people the dream that home ownership is only defined as a single detached, two-storey home with three or four bedrooms and a large yard.
Make no mistake, a private developer is not building anything unless it’s going to make them a profit, but why is that a bad thing? For many housing advocates, including the one from Waterloo Region, Yes in My Backyard, who I recently talked to on my podcast, whether it’s for-profit, non-profit, or government-funded housing, we need it. We need it badly.
In lieu of any kind of social housing, which is still years away from coming to fruition, there are things that can be done for people who can afford a home, but are having trouble finding something that (a) suits there needs, and (b) is within their price range, and it comes to down to a basic point that’s worth repeating.
Guelph has a severe lack of primary units, and an abnormally low vacancy rate. Scarcity increases demand, demand increases prices, and if we’re to accept developers are greedy, then why do we expect them to slash prices for a valuable and rare commodity when demand is so high?
I hate to put something as important as housing in such gross economic terms, but the economy is what’s driving this, and what’s that expression? You’ve got to play to win!
Looking at some of the other points mentioned, I saw one comment suggest that Guelph should be looking at low-to-midrise buildings only, and just build the city outward another five kilometres. Unfortunately, the same rules that say we have to grow are the same rules that say we have to grow within our current borders.
Also, there were some ruffled feathers about my flagrant use of the word ‘NIMBY’. No one likes to think they’re NIMBY, which is why every council delegation that stands against a proposal starts off with the phrase “I’m not against development,” but when every neighbourhood in town tells developers you can’t build here, then the practical reality is that you can’t build anywhere.
As Ned Stark once observed, “Nothing that someone says before the word ‘but’ really counts.” Then again, they chopped off his head so what the heck did he know?
Something I keep coming back to, aside from the halcyon day of Game of Thrones, is the “Guelph Factor.” Like Smaug, the dragon from The Hobbit, the “Guelph Factor” sat atop a big pile of gold and devoured any man that came into its cave and tried to claim it.
Originally, the “Guelph Factor” specifically referenced the activism around the development of big box stores, which in the Amazon Age is about concerning as the comeback of the 8-track tape. Still, when people in Guelph felt that politics was standing in the way of progress, they removed the politicians.
Of course, the pro-development city council that was ushered into office in 2003 was quickly ushered out again in 2006, but wild mood swings of the electorate do nothing to build good long-term policy. Council shouldn’t govern based on the concerns of their electoral fortunes, but its probably in the minds of many that being seen as too pro-development will have a political cost.
However, there’s still an equal or greater cost of inaction.
As evidenced by the provincial government’s original version of Bill 68, there are people in Ontario willing to pave over not just paradise, but all the laws and policies that limit how much paradise we’re allowed to pave over. The inability for communities to compromise on growth will result in growth being imposed on the them, and there will be nothing compromised about it.
Last week’s column was a call to reconcile our fear of change with our need to embrace it. Let the conversation continue, be open minded, and most of all, realize that your vision of Guelph is not the only vision.
