As you might expect, as a longtime affordable housing advocate, I have a lot of thoughts about the redevelopment of 250 Lincoln Road. I’m more than happy to share them. Those who see this development as a defining election issue have a right to know where candidates stand and why.
I’ll summarize my views in ten bullet points and then elaborate on each of them below so that those who want more information can read my full statement (but those who are happy with a brief synopsis don’t have to read all 2000+ words to find out where I am at on the issue).
Summary
1. As soon as the congregation decided to cease operating a church on the site and sell the property, it was all but inevitable that the land would be redeveloped for housing.
2. Had the land been sold to a private developer, the City of Waterloo and neighbourhood residents would have had little control over what was built there.
3. I accept at face value the many assurances that have been offered that no one in the neighbourhood is opposed to affordable housing on the site; that people expressing concerns are simply worried about the scale and design of the development.
4. Redeveloping this former church property as affordable housing is the best possible outcome and can be a real benefit to the neighbourhood if done correctly.
5. Identifying and working with a non-profit developer offers the best opportunity to achieve affordable housing goals while respecting the existing character of the neighbourhood.
6. I am the candidate who is best qualified to ensure that that this development is done right.
7. I agree with those who say that a six-story building on the site is an inappropriate use for the site.
8. In my opinion, it is very unlikely that any non-profit developer will come to the city with a proposal to build a six-story building on this site.
9. Any candidate who says that they will stop this property from being developed as housing is making a promise that they cannot keep.
10. There is no evidence that property values are negatively impacted by the proximity of non-profit or affordable housing.
Lengthy elaboration
This is a complex issue that can’t be properly addressed through sound bites. What I’ve written below is long, but I hope those who take the time to read it will consider it to have been worth their while.
1. As soon as the congregation decided to cease operating a church on the site and sell the property, it was all but inevitable that the land would be redeveloped for housing.
Church congregations sometimes decline in number and often lack volunteers willing or able to take on key leadership or operational roles. When that happens, the remaining members of the congregation have decisions to make about their future and the property that they own. In the case of St. Columba, the remaining members of the church decided to wind down their congregation and sell their land.
The zoning for housing already existed and Lincoln Heights is a desirable established neighbourhood in which to build, so housing was almost guaranteed to be next use. The congregation specifically wanted the land to be used for affordable housing, because that social purpose was in keeping with their faith. My understanding is that they chose the city’s offer over a competing bid from a private developer for that specific reason.
The property was purchased with money set aside by the city for affordable housing or granted to them by the Federal Government on the condition that the property be used for affordable housing. If it is used for anything else, that money would need to be reimbursed.
2. Had the land been sold to a private developer, the City of Waterloo and neighbourhood residents would have had little control over what was built there.
The reality of municipal planning in the 2020s is that developers who don’t get what they want (or get it as quickly as they want) can appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal or seek a Minister’s Zoning Order to achieve their development goals, regardless of what the city or residents may want. The current provincial government has used MZOs seventeen times more often than in the previous two decades and it has used them in ways that were never anticipated.
In this environment, private developers no longer have any incentive to work with municipal planners or neighbouring property owners. The kind of public information session that was held at Lincoln Heights on June 18 would not have happened if the city wasn’t the landowner. For this reason, the city would also have no ability to impose affordability requirements as a condition of approval. The Ontario Land Tribunal or the Minister can also ignore concerns about water supply, while the city has committed to proceed with the development only if there is adequate water to service it.
3. I accept at face value the many assurances that have been offered that no one in the neighbourhood is opposed to affordable housing on the site; that people expressing concerns are simply worried about the scale and design of the development.
Too often, debates about housing devolve into name calling. I’m not interested in labeling anyone who has raised concerns about the development. As indicated, I’m assured that those objections are not about the housing being built to be affordable, and I will believe that unless someone gives me reason to believe otherwise. I am happy to listen to anyone and to work with the neighbourhood on the scale and design of the housing to be built at 250 Lincoln Road.
4. Redeveloping this former church property as affordable housing can be a real benefit to the neighbourhood if done correctly.
To be clear, the city doesn’t necessarily lack housing, but it does lack sufficient affordable housing. This proposed development is one of the ways that the city is attempting to address that shortage. Having adequate affordable housing (whether affordable rental or affordable home ownership) is essential not only to repairing the social fabric but also to ensuring the vitality of our economy. People won’t move to our city or stay here if they can’t afford a place to live. And people who grew up in Lincoln Heights won’t be able to stay in their neighbourhood if they can’t afford housing.
5. Identifying and working with a non-profit developer offers the best opportunity to achieve affordable housing goals while respecting the existing character of the neighbourhood.
I’ve had the privilege of managing affordable housing communities throughout Kitchener-Waterloo (specifically Bread and Roses Co-operative Homes in Kitchener, Beechwood Co-operative Homes and Beaver Creek Housing Co-operative, both in Waterloo). All of them faced some neighbourhood opposition when being developed (in the 1980s and 1990s), but all of them are a vital part of their neighbourhoods today (Bread and Roses, for example, has won multiple awards for heritage preservation, community involvement, and for its gardens – which are maintained by volunteers). Some of the best people I know grew up in affordable housing or lived there as adults.
6. I am the candidate who is best qualified to ensure that that this development is done right.
As noted, I have over three decades of experience in the community housing movement, including managing highly successful non-profit housing co-operatives. I now work as the Ontario Program Manager for a national non-governmental organization created to strengthen the community housing movement.
I know a lot about designing, maintaining and operating buildings and I know how to ensure that a new development remains affordable in the long term. While these are operational matters are not the direct responsibility of City Council, I think it would be advantageous to have at least one member of Council who understands the affordable housing file if the city is going to be involved in that file (here and elsewhere throughout the city).
7. I agree with those who say that a six-story building on the site is an inappropriate use for the site.
My experience in housing management has included managing a six-story building, so I know what the footprint of a six-story building looks like and I know the economics of running one. I’ve also managed townhouse and stacked townhouse housing communities, with both two and three levels. In my opinion, stacked townhouses would be the best fit for 250 Lincoln. Most people I’ve talked to in the neighbourhood have said that they are comfortable with that kind of housing in the neighbourhood.
8. In my opinion, it is very unlikely that any non-profit developer will come to the city with a proposal to build a six-story building on this site.
A six-story building would require an elevator, one of the most expensive pieces of building infrastructure to install and maintain. A building taller than six stories would require two elevators. Non-profit providers are not in business to make money, but they can’t keep operating if they lose money. I highly doubt that any non-profit developer will submit a bid that requires installation of one or more elevators.
If elected to serve as Ward 5 Councillor, I would be looking to support proposals from non-profit providers with no more than three stories (note that four stories are already allowed under current zoning).
9. Any candidate who says that they will stop this property from being developed as housing is making a promise that they cannot keep.
It's important to note that the next Councillor for Ward 5 will one of eight votes at Council, meaning that whoever is elected in Ward 5 will not have a veto or any greater say in the decision than their colleagues. The new Councillor will have a specific responsibility for listening to Ward 5 residents but, whatever position they land on personally, they will need to persuade a majority of their colleagues to vote the same way in order to carry the motion.
Even if they vote no and manage to win over a majority of fellow Councillors to defeat the proposal, the non-profit organization could use the same mechanisms available to other developers (as described above) to go over the heads of City Council. It is far better to have a Councillor who can negotiate in good faith with a non-profit proponent to come up with a housing solution that works for everyone (both the people who will live there and the people who already live in the neighbourhood), than one who pretends they can stop it.
10. There is no evidence that property values are negatively impacted by the proximity of non-profit or affordable housing.
Since my wife and I bought our current family home in 2013, it has more than tripled in value, even after recent price corrections. That doesn’t make us financial geniuses; it just means we were lucky to be able to buy when we did. Not everyone is that lucky, which is why we support helping those who can’t afford housing in the current market. If 250 Lincoln was on my block, I would absolutely support it being redeveloped as affordable housing.
Property values are affected by a number of factors – such as interest rates, labour shortages, global pandemics, the questionable trade policies of American Presidents, and immigration policy – none of which can be controlled by your municipal government and none of which have anything to do with how close the property is to affordable housing.
The affordable housing that already exists in Waterloo is attractive, well-maintained and well run, as is the affordable housing being developed in the city presently. Take Beechwood Co-op as an example. The co-op was built in 1995, at the same time as the surrounding neighbourhood of single-family homes. A house across the street from it sold for $1.4 million in 2025.
Repeated studies by groups as diverse as the Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis, the Canadian Real Estate Association, and the Wellesley Institute have concluded that fears about lost property values in neighbourhoods with non-profit or affordable housing are not born out by data over time. I have seen no studies that demonstrate the opposite.