Municipalities: Super Powers and Great Responsibilities

To make good use of their new super powers, cities and municipalities will need to exercise caution and communicate more effectively than ever. Here are three tips for them.

Municipal associations (UMQ, FQM) have long been asking the government to allow them to lift referendum approval for real estate projects, in order to avoid often costly procedures and the recurring rejection of projects. The government recently launched a « working group » on the issue. 

The housing crisis, the growing difficulty cities face in financing the upkeep of their existing infrastructure, the new government orientations on land use planning (OGAT), and the election of a new wave of officials leaning toward greater protection of natural environments have all contributed to the recent loosening of zoning rules in order to accelerate housing construction. 

These new measures, primarily the result of Bill 31, exceptionally allow certain cities to bypass the well-known referendum approval requirement under specific conditions. The adoption, in several cities, of interim control regulations is also leading elected officials to consider accelerating projects in areas not covered by these new « moratoriums. » 

Much like the new municipal taxation powers, these new « super powers » in urban planning are tools to be used with caution. Indeed, even though the referendum approval process included in the Act Respecting Land Use Planning and Development (LAU) is sometimes criticized by elected officials, it nonetheless remains an important safeguard against potentially ill-advised decisions by municipal councils eager to push through projects that have not passed the test of social acceptability. Much like the environmental assessment process, the LAU mechanisms help promote reasoned land use planning. 

Pitfalls to Consider

It is worth recalling that a project can currently only be rejected by residents through a referendum if it deviates from the standards set out in the urban plan. In other words, it is non-standard projects that may have to pass the referendum approval test, if opponents demand it (a process that is not so simple, incidentally). It is therefore not surprising that the Ordre des urbanistes du Quebec expressed « serious concerns » regarding Bill 31. The Ordre unsurprisingly favours, before resorting to cities’ super powers, an « update of urban plans and regulations in light of the imperative of urban densification and the housing crisis, rather than the use of exceptional authorization procedures. » In short, according to the Ordre, the best way to avoid referendum approval is to better plan for densification.

Another consideration for cities is the still very limited public buy-in to the densification goals of some elected officials. A recent Leger survey conducted on behalf of APCHQ shows that preferences regarding urban development do not clearly point toward densification of our cities. Of the roughly 58% of respondents who say they have a specific preference for one type of development or another, nearly half say they prefer expansion into undeveloped areas. Moreover, a full 34% prefer single-family housing projects. One cannot help but note that Francois Bonnardel was not entirely wrong when he described the push to densify our cities, championed by many, as a « trend« .  

Another factor for elected officials who aspire to bypass the usual urban planning process: the survey also tells us that consultation remains a core value for residents, with 82% considering that « citizen participation in public consultations is essential to the success of housing projects. »

So how do you navigate all of this?

Three Tips for Cities

1. Announce your intentions. As with any change, the first thing to do is to announce it transparently and explain the need clearly. As with any type of communication, it is always preferable to situate yourself within an existing « narrative »: a decision is always easier to understand when it can be explained as the outcome of a previously announced reflection or of concerns already raised. Such a posture will help avoid certain dissatisfactions regarding the rapid use of these powers. The more precise we are about our intentions and about the manner in which these powers are used, the better.
2. Demand openness from developers. Even though the trend in land use planning is leading cities to take a more active role in neighbourhood design, the super powers in urban planning make this collaboration even more necessary. It is also important that elected officials and administrative teams be able to guide developers so they avoid obvious pitfalls. Cities are the field experts; they know what could cause friction, and where. It is also important to allow the project to evolve, both on the city’s side and the developer’s.
3. Consult and discuss openly. Even though it allows a city to avoid a citizen referendum, Bill 31 still requires that a consultation be held on a project. Municipalities should not cut corners on consultation means. Above all, they must seek to share information with as many people as possible, through social media, by mail, through advertising in local media, etc. If citizen consultation is necessary, it is also important to emphasize the role of elected officials in the discussion. Elected officials play a fundamental role in the debate (a role that is too often obscured, or even forgotten, with the growing popularity of the concept of citizen participation; on this subject, see here). Elected officials are not merely conduits for popular will, but opinion leaders. They fundamentally help shape the debate.