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.

​

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

For years, various politicians and other community members have floated the idea of amalgamating Waterloo with Kitchener, if not going even further and calling for all seven local municipalities to be merged into a single-tier Region of Waterloo. Waterloo voters made it clear in a 2010 on the question that they weren’t interested in pursuing amalgamation. It seems clear that amalgamation isn’t on the table at the moment, unless it is forced upon us by Queen’s Park.

But to be clear, Kitchener and Waterloo already co-operate on a lot of things that are the responsibility of the city, such as snow removal, fire fighting, and library service. What I hear time and time again at the door is that Waterloo voters don’t understand why bylaws are so different on opposite sides of the municipal boundary.

Waterloo and Kitchener have different rules for overnight parking, backyard fires and election signage, to cite just three examples.

Outside of the winter months (when overnight parking is banned), Kitchener residents don't need special permission to park on the street overnight. In Waterloo, people need to register for specific times or buy a permit and there are limits on how often they can do that.
 
Another issue that bothers a lot of Waterloo residents is the ban on back yard fires. Living close to the boundary (at the southern tip of Ward 5), I can smell smoke legal backyard fires in Kitchener from my home in Ward 5. I couldn't have one in my own backyard if I wanted to. While reasonable restrictions around safety and air quality make sense (and the Fire Service would absolutely need to weigh in on what those restrictions should be), a complete ban seems unnecessary.

It’s not that all of Waterloo’s rules are stricter than those of Kitchener. On the posting of election signs, for example, Waterloo is much more lenient than Kitchener. Like other Waterloo candidates, I was allowed to put up signs on August 21 (and could have put them up even earlier if I had wanted to). This was three weeks before Kitchener candidates were allowed to put up their signs.

There are advantages and disadvantages to early launches to sign campaigns, but I noticed an immediate increase in awareness of the fact that an election was happening once signs were up. What really doesn’t make sense is having different dates that signs are allowed in Kitchener and Waterloo.

I’m proposing that there be a committee created soon after the election consisting of Councillors and staff from both Waterloo and Kitchener to seek common ground on bylaws, including those listed above. To do that, I would need to get a motion passed by Waterloo City Council and to find a champion in Kitchener to move the same motion. I’m confident that this scenario is not only plausible but that it would have support from residents on both sides of the city boundary.

The result may be one city adopting the other's rules, both cities agreeing to new rules, or continued differences if that still makes sense (or if agreement can’t be reached on what rules to adopt).

Let's work together with our municipal neighbours to try to find agreement on a common set of rules that makes sense for both municipalities.

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​
 

Some citizens have raised questions about legal proceedings to which I was a party by virtue of my role as a Trustee with the Waterloo Region District School Board, and more specifically my former role as Chairperson of the Board. I am unable to answer many of those questions – not because I don’t want to, nor because I don’t have a good argument to make, but simply because I have a legal obligation to refrain from commenting on certain matters.

That said, there is some information that I can share that may help to dispel some of the false narratives that have been allowed to go unchallenged – both because of the restrictions on what I or the board could and can say and because of the numerous bad faith actors who have an interest in misleading the public.

First, let’s look at what Ontario’s Education Act says about the Duties of the Chairperson.

Duties of Board Chair

Additional duties of chair

218.4 In addition to any other duties under the Act, the chair of a board shall,

(a)  preside over meetings of the board;

(b)  conduct the meetings in accordance with the board’s procedures and practices for the conduct of board meetings;

(c)  establish agendas for board meetings, in consultation with the board’s director of education or the supervisory officer acting as the board’s director of education;

(d)  ensure that members of the board have the information needed for informed discussion of the agenda items;

(e)  act as spokesperson to the public on behalf of the board, unless otherwise determined by the board;

(f)  convey the decisions of the board to the board’s director of education or the supervisory officer acting as the board’s director of education;

(g)  provide leadership to the board in maintaining the board’s focus on the multi-year plan established under section 169.1;

(h)  provide leadership to the board in maintaining the board’s focus on the board’s mission and vision; and

(i)  assume such other responsibilities as may be specified by the board.  2009, c. 25, s. 25.

During the events in question, I was at all times acting in my role as Chair of the Board, either as the presiding officer (in accordance with the board’s policies and procedures) in making the decision or as the spokesperson to the public on behalf of the board in explaining the decision.
 

On the question of whether my actions as Chair were appropriate and justified, we should rely on the 2023 ruling of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court. In this ruling, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal after it was challenged by the Plaintiff, a three judge panel found that (emphasis added):
 

13.               It is not difficult to understand why the Chair considered it necessary and advisable to deliver this early warning to all persons in attendance at the meeting. It is the Chair’s responsibility to maintain decorum and order at meetings and to ensure that the available time is used effectively for the purposes at hand.
 

33.              In making its decision, it prioritized the maintenance of a safe and inclusive school environment for its community members and was in accordance with the requirements of reasonableness as set out in Vavilov.
 

34.              Accordingly, I consider the decision of the WRDSB to be reasonable and would not give effect to this ground of review.
 

The Court further found that:

39.              I consider that the process that was afforded to [the Plaintiff] was not unfair. She was given more than one opportunity to deliver her delegation on the topic approved in advance, but declined to do so even after she was reminded of its scope. I therefore would not give effect to this ground of review.

Finally, the Court ruled that:

44.              I see no basis established upon which any finding of a reasonable apprehension of bias, or any actual bias, on the part of the WRDSB could be justified.

​

It is important to note that this is the sole Court which was asked to rule on my actions as Chair at the meeting in question and the sole ruling on those actions. It found that the decision I made as Chair was “not difficult to understand”, “reasonable”, “not unfair”, and not tainted by bias. Further, in dismissing the request of the Plaintiff, the Court ordered that they pay costs to the WRDSB for its successful response to their legal action and their unsuccessful appeal of that decision.

There was a separate legal action initiated against the Board and myself, which was settled out of court. The terms of that settlement are confidential, but a settlement is not admission of liability on the part of the Board, nor by myself. I am pleased that the matter was ultimately resolved so that everyone could move on.
 

I understand that there are still those who will disagree with my actions, but I stand by them. I hope that the information that I’ve provided above will help to clarify that – according to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (and the Court of Appeal of Ontario) – those actions were understandable, appropriate, fair and unbiased. I regret that I cannot comment further.

​​