MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[puffnstuff]

A significant portion of federal housing funding earmarked for the City of Calgary has been put on pause, pending council’s upcoming discussion on citywide rezoning, Global News has learned.

In a memo to councillors and the mayor sent on Friday, obtained by Global News, city administration said the $129 million in Housing Accelerator Fund money designated for Calgary is “paused pending further clarity on the status of citywide rezoning.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/11542743/...zoning-status/

[Torture]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

A significant portion of federal housing funding earmarked for the City of Calgary has been put on pause, pending council’s upcoming discussion on citywide rezoning, Global News has learned.

In a memo to councillors and the mayor sent on Friday, obtained by Global News, city administration said the $129 million in Housing Accelerator Fund money designated for Calgary is “paused pending further clarity on the status of citywide rezoning.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/11542743/...zoning-status/

Woops!

[Looch City]

“I feel like I was lied to and misled,” said Ward 13 Coun. Dan McLean

Lol you ####ing donkey. Absolute dumbass. ####ing idiot. Stupid ####. Incompetent #######.

#### around, find out, hitting close to home now.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Torture

Woops!

Is City Council now going to pull a Danielle Smith and refuse free federal money too?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Is City Council now going to pull a Danielle Smith and refuse free federal money too?

It sounds like Farkas is asking the Feds to have the money tied to outcomes (houses built) instead of specific strategies (blanket rezoning) in order to keep the money moving.

[TorqueDog]

I mean, using outcome is a better way by which to measure success. We routinely get pissed off at things that set seemingly pointless guardrails that don't have a demonstrable or measurable impact to the goal they seek to accomplish.

With that said, I fully expect there to be a counter of "the reason we have more houses built is because of blanket zoning". I would be interested to see the correlation between houses built under the program and the timeline of the blanket rezoning taking effect, with it also taken into consideration that construction that started prior to the zoning coming into force doesn't count.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I mean, using outcome is a better way by which to measure success.

Maybe, but then you have to wait for the outcome, which is counter-intuitive if the outcome is what you want support in achieving. He's asking for money based on speculation... I wouldn't hand over $60,000,000.00-$70,000,000.00 based just off of Farkas saying that they'll get the outcome. NIMBY's piss me off so much and politicians who pander to them nearly as much.

They were told so many times that losing federal accelerator money was a potential consequence but so many of them just couldn't resist YOLO'ing it to get a few NIMBY votes. Bang up job people.

[TorqueDog]

I was one of the people who pointed that out from the start (#1, #2), and I still don't think the blanket re-zoning goes away to an extent that we lose the federal money. I think the City will clarify with CMHC what its obligations are to receive the funding and will find a way to satisfy it to the letter and not a degree more than that.

There are about 584,439 residential properties in Calgary and we're still owed $129.5m from the Housing Accelerator fund. It should be political suicide to give away $222 per home's worth of free federal cash over this. Hell, people get pissed off when their property taxes go up $50 a year.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

With that said, I fully expect there to be a counter of "the reason we have more houses built is because of blanket zoning". I would be interested to see the correlation between houses built under the program and the timeline of the blanket rezoning taking effect, with it also taken into consideration that construction that started prior to the zoning coming into force doesn't count.

It isn't really correlated because Calgary had already hit its housing targets by March this year. But rezoning itself was only one of seven initiatives (and now nine) that Calgary agreed upon to hit its targets back in October 2023 and the targets included housing built in new edge communities, there was no new housing number assigned specifically to rezoning.


Edit: In the agreement, the rezoning initiative was expected to incentivize 2500 new housing units.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by accord1999

It isn't really correlated because Calgary had already hit its housing targets by March this year. But rezoning itself was only one of seven initiatives (and now nine) that Calgary agreed upon to hit its targets back in October 2023 and the targets included housing built in new edge communities, there was no new housing number assigned specifically to rezoning.

Re-zoning supports more than just one of the initiatives (though they still require specific programs)

The approved initiatives are:

1. Accelerate Housing Delivery in the Downtown
   
2. Streamline Approvals to Increase Housing Supply
   
3. Promote Missing Middle Land Use Districts
   
4. Incentivize Legal Secondary Suites
   
5. Enable Housing Growth in Established Areas
   
6. Invest in Transit-Oriented Development
   
7. Build Inclusive and Equitable Affordable Housing Programs
8. Launch the Downtown Complete Community Housing Program – New
   
9. Support Backyard Suites and Accessory Dwelling Units - New

2 and 3 are explicitly tied to rezoning. 4, 5, 6, and 9 are intrinsically linked to rezoning and would be much more difficult under the old land-use bylaw, though you can certainly argue that we've completed them independent of rezoning.

While the funding is based on a set timeline, I think it's reasonable to question whether the intention is for the initiatives to wind down as the HAF does, or if they are to be built upon for subsequent federal funding programs (ie. HAF v2.0)? We may be correct to the letter of the current agreements, but we could expect a much more rigid process next time if we are seen to be merely checking boxes instead of making sustainable reforms. (which isn't to say that it doesn't make sense for some of these initiatives like 1,4, or 8 to be time limited)

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I mean, using outcome is a better way by which to measure success. We routinely get pissed off at things that set seemingly pointless guardrails that don't have a demonstrable or measurable impact to the goal they seek to accomplish.

Is the goal to simply build more housing --> affordability, or is it to make living more affordable overall with more sustainably designed cities?

What's more affordable:

A. $650k SFH in Seton requiring 2 cars (each using a full tank of gas each week)
B. $700k rowhouse in Killarney that facilitates a 1 car household

No value judgments either way, people can live where/how they can to live, but there's more to affordability than the cost of your mortgage/lease. And we know Option B is better from a city services/budget standpoint.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

While the funding is based on a set timeline, I think it's reasonable to question whether the intention is for the initiatives to wind down as the HAF does, or if they are to be built upon for subsequent federal funding programs (ie. HAF v2.0)? We may be correct to the letter of the current agreements, but we could expect a much more rigid process next time if we are seen to be merely checking boxes instead of making sustainable reforms. (which isn't to say that it doesn't make sense for some of these initiatives like 1,4, or 8 to be time limited)

There's a bit more information in the agreements that they signed. I think it does suggest that a lot of the initiatives are limited, either by the funding so the program ends (or at pauses) once they used the money to reach its targeted number of new housing, or area limited like upgrades to Marda Loop or the TOD at LRT stations.

While future funding may require permanent policy changes, I think the current agreement (even if CMHC given a lot of discretion in the contractual terms) has been met by Calgary meeting its new housing targets. At worst the penalty shouldn't be more than 2500/42267 of the funding because of the loss of 2500 units from repealing rezoning.




https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/w...march-2025.pdf

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by accord1999

There's a bit more information in the agreements that they signed. I think it does suggest that a lot of the initiatives are limited, either by the funding so the program ends (or at pauses) once they used the money to reach its targeted number of new housing, or area limited like upgrades to Marda Loop or the TOD at LRT stations.

While future funding may require permanent policy changes, I think the current agreement (even if CMHC given a lot of discretion in the contractual terms) has been met by Calgary meeting its new housing targets. At worst the penalty shouldn't be more than 2500/42267 of the funding because of the loss of 2500 units from repealing rezoning.




https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/w...march-2025.pdf

Thanks for the source text, you're always awesome on that.

I'd agree that we've satisfied most of the targets, but the agreement grants quite a bit of discretion to CMHC instead of explicitly tying specific amounts to specific outcomes. Presumably this is to give CMHC leeway to support good faith efforts that fall shy of certain targets, but it's also reasonable for that sword to be double edged.

If this were to be legally contested there would be a lot of supporting documentation that we can't see that would help drill down the nature of agreement for each initiative, but I suspect that would not go well for us. I doubt it would suggest the initiatives need to continue forever, but I think it would be pretty clear that it's not about hitting the target number and immediately winding down the program, either.

4. Conditions to HAF Funding
4.1 Subject to the satisfaction of the following conditions by the Recipient, which conditions apply to each advance, CMHC agrees to advance HAF funding to the Recipient in the amount and pursuant to the advance schedule set out in Schedule B ("HAF Funding"):
（ i The Recipient is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement;
(ii) The Recipient has delivered all reporting required up to the date of the advance and CMHC, acting
reasonably, is satisfied therewith;
(li) CMHC, acting reasonably, is satisfied with the Recipient's progress on the implementation and achievement of the Commitments; and
(iv) As a condition of the fourth advance only, the Recipient has achieved the Housing Supply Growth Target and the Additional Targets.

4.2 The Recipient acknowledges that payment of an advance by CMHC is not a determination by CMHC that the Recipient has complied with the foregoing conditions of funding for that advance. CMHC may reduce or withhold future advances where it is determined that the Recipient was not in compliance with the conditions of funding at the time of an advance.

We're probably going to fall shy of the affordable unit target. So they can justifiably quash the 4th advance. Are we sure we're hitting every single other target, too? Because if we want to argue that meeting the target for #2 satisfies it completely we better be sure we've hit every other number, too.