Your City Leadership Doesn’t Listen To You: Benn



Planning, consultations, open, transparent and accountable. Are these concepts or just words?

In Ottawa, they are just words. Words that elected officials mouth. Words that elected officials make up their own meanings for.


Earlier this week, the city issued a press release advising one and all that, on the very next day, they would hold a public meeting at which they would present their position on high-rises. The public’s input would be accepted at this meeting. City council would then receive the report on May 23. With only two business days between the public meeting and the presentation to city council, on the surface it would appear that staff will have to work hard to build in the comments and feedback from the public.

As it turns out, it won’t take much work at all. My personal experience with these public meetings has been one of frustration with the entire process. Planning staff populate a number of tripod stands with hard copies of their presentation, repeat the talking points (script) that they helped create, stand by patiently while the member of the public makes comments, but do not have a pad of paper handy to write down the comments. The public are encouraged to write their comments down on a piece of paper (supplied by staff). At that point, the box on the checklist that asks if a public consultation took place is checked. Was the consultation effective? No. Was it efficient? Not possible, as in order for something to be efficient, it must first be effective. That is axiomatic.

This is from the administration where the current mayor actually commissioned a staff member to prepare a report on consultations. Either we didn’t get our money’s worth on the consultant’s report, or the report was shelved, unread. So, as it relates to the past and current process of consulting, how is the city doing on open, transparent and accountable? Fail, fail, and fail. At least they are consistent.

Back to planning, specifically as it pertains to high rises. This city faces a number of dilemmas. As the population of the city grows, the new residents need housing. Economists will tell you that for every 10,000 new arrivals, 3,000 new homes must be built. The city administration has stated that we need greater intensification, as the city cannot afford to continue to extend the infrastructure to outer perimeter.

I understand their concerns and agree with the need to constrain the horizontal growth of the city. Very simply put, if we cannot grow out, we must grow up. Intensification is necessary. At issue is the where, how and when, all of which takes us back to consultation.

The placement of a high-rise has a direct impact on the residents of a neighbourhood. It can affect the sunlight they get, the privacy they enjoy in their yards, the traffic volumes on their streets, the water pressure, the storm sewers. The list is almost limitless. The consequence of these changes to the neighbourhood impact the value of their homes. All of this adds to the passion that the residents of a neighbourhood feel (an emotion) when a high-rise is proposed nearby.

What is the reaction from the planning department to these very real concerns felt by the residents? Lectures on how we, as a society, need to change how we live. Lectures on how they, as individuals, have set up their lifestyles to a more minimalist norm, and how we need to imitate them, irrespective of our actual needs. Am I exaggerating? No.

I have seen the bemused looks on the faces of the residents of Centrepointe, as they listened to the unyielding instructions from staff on how we need to change our current lifestyles to accommodate their vision of what Ottawa needs to look like at some time in the future. I have seen the frustration on the faces of the residents as they pointed out that one size does not fit all. That the lifestyle of those who choose to live in a high-rise is different than the lifestyle of those who choose to live in a town home or a single-family dwelling. I have watched as staff refuse to listen when someone asks whether the underlying assumptions are valid, or points out that assuming away reality is not a valid approach to solving a problem.

All of which is to say that, as the current premier said a couple of elections ago, we need to have an adult conversation. A conversation that is respectful, open and transparent. A conversation that has the potential to change the zealot-like positions being presented by planning staff to city council. I suspect that many of the residents of Ottawa are ready to have an adult conversation on the topic of intensification. At issue is whether our municipal employees and elected officials are prepared to participate? Are they even capable of holding an adult conversation?

Ron Benn, a finance executive, has been a member of the Centrepointe Community Association executive for the better part of three decades.


• To comment on this post, use the reply box at the bottom of this page.

• Start your own debate or comment on another pressing issue, by going to The Bulldog Forum.

• To Get More Than 30 Great Features On The Bulldog From Lifestyle To Technology And Much More, Go To The Full Bulldog Index. Click Here.



• Return to The Bulldog (Ottawa), The Bulldog ForumBulldog Canadian or Bulldog Politics.



8 thoughts on “Your City Leadership Doesn’t Listen To You: Benn

  1. The opinion, the lifestyle, the choices? Plebs don’t have a right to have any of those things.
    So it is written (predetermined) – so shall it be done.

  2. Ron:
    What we need is a well thought-out solution, something we don’t see often enough in his city.
    When I first moved to Ottawa I hopped on the transit buses to go from place-to-place. One day I was headed westward, along Baseline Road if memory serves. I remember thinking “Gee, Ottawa’s a really small city”. Then suddenly I was back into residential areas, malls, car dealerships, etc. I mentioned this to someone who told me I’d driven past the Experimental Farm. I thought cynically to myself if the city sold off this land to developers we’d probably be able to pay the national debt. I now present selling off a portion of the “farm” as a serious solution to the high-rise issue.
    Hell, people are selling off farmland to expand the city southward. Why not do so where he infrastructure already exists?

  3. Ken. You are more knowledgeable than me in these areas. Does solving problems sit anywhere in the top 10?

  4. Ron, the sudden haste with those Guidelines for High-Rises might have something to do with the slew of appeals of the 2013 official plan amendments that deal with that topic. Earlier this month, all the hearings for the various appeals were scheduled but that set was not among them — ongoing discussions towards a settlement, I hear.

    Normally, if a settlement involves a major change in policy, the proposed terms go through the usual approval process (Committee, Council). What has just blown through is not yet the settlement but could be an important part of it, so there is no excuse for not subjecting this to public review.

  5. I’ve now checked the draft extract of the Minutes of Planning Committee on May 8, when this report was on the agenda. Confirming what I suspected in my previous comment, both BOMA and GOHBA said how happy they were with these Guidelines and that this bodes well for the resolution of their appeals.

    So see? The big boys have it all figured out and let you and I not worry our little heads one bit.

    1. EajD:

      Do in other words, the developers were well-informed about the guidelines and the public was told 27 hours prior to a so-called public meeting that this would be discussed.

      Builders quietly sent it through committee.

      Do you think the builders and planning are tight? Maybe so.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *