Recently, Guelph City Council addressed whether housing should be built in parkland: specifically Hugh Guthrie or Sleeman Park. This would be housing that was available at 10% below market value – rented for over $2000 per month or more, or, offered at 10% for sale below market value.

For reasons I state below, I urged Council to reject the staff report that suggested this. The vote failed 7-6. This was however a victory as Council in general saw the wisdom of NOT building housing on parkland and deferred consideration of offering City lands including parkland for 6 months or more.

There are many issues at play that are controversial and make this suggestion unpalatable. My perspective on the wrong-headedness of this proposal appears below.

Parks are neither the problem nor the solution. I will not support the motion to receive this report or support the Mayor’s motions to open up parklands to development.

It is a dangerous precedent that potentially could lead to all green spaces being open for development. This would be a complete reversal in principles for a city that prides itself on its environmental initiatives. I categorically reject the notion that parks – or areas of parks with programmed activities – are somehow sacrosanct and those with limited or no “scheduled” programs can be up for grabs.

It is a False Dichotomy to suggest that turning parkland into 10% reduced cost owner occupied or reduced rent can solve our problems.

Currently, some estimates suggest a need for 5 – 7000 homes immediately. Construction economics will not see those built anytime soon. The law of supply and demand confirms a serious imbalance that inflates housing costs.

Guelph has just under 4000 units approved for building but not under construction.

A staff document reveals we do not need to have a fire sale on our green space:

Guelph maintains enough land supply to meet the minimum requirement of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). Currently, there is a short-term housing supply of 6.4 years on lands that are zoned, or within draft approved or registered plans of subdivision. When considering lands that are designated and available for residential development, Guelph’s total housing supply is able to accommodate a total of 17.9 years of residential growth to 2051, meeting the minimum requirement of 15 years of housing supply. The Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan area, settled and approved in early 2024, will further contribute to the City’s future housing supply…

Parks are for all people – seniors, children, mothers with infants – people not seeking programmed activities. They are especially meaningful for those who can’t afford recreation elsewhere.

The premise that parkland must be programmed is insulting to creativity and imagination.

When I was a child, my parents could not afford programming and most of my neighbouring families could not either, by definition we were poor. We amused ourselves- tag, pick up ball, endless football and soccer championships among kids unable to take vacations,  afford programmed minor sports, summer camps, or cottages. Mom’s kicked us outside to play in the park. It is absurd to elevate programming above casual park visits. I don’t want to have to schedule a time to sit under a tree to protect a park from development.

Kids who live in poverty or whose parents just get by with the assistance of food banks and breakfast programs are among us in growing numbers. We don’t fight poverty, alienation, and urban decay by taking away parks. Instead, we seek real solutions – new coop and social housing programs – more parkland dedication – and the development of those properties staff mentioned in the May 31 report.

Without parks what happens to Guelph’s tree canopy promise? Do we plant trees on top of high-rises? Do we say our goal was merely aspirational?

Finally, I cannot support either the report or the mayor’s upcoming motions because of the principle of strong mayor edict. This is not the council’s report – we did not ask for a report on selling off parkland. The recommendation in this report is for the mayor to decide. Council knows the answer: builders must build on lands already approved for development.

To accept that Guthrie Park is open for development puts every park in the city on the block. In Exhibition Park there is surely an acre or two. Riverside and Royal City parks are similar. But especially Bullfrog Park, Mico Valeriote Park, Drew Park Goldie Mill, and Herb Markel Park – small parcels addressing a need are vulnerable. That’s not acceptable to me.

We need green spaces for recreation and housing solutions that do not compromise our parks, green spaces, and principles.

I’m in favour of infill, I’m in favour of inclusive zoning: three plexes, four plexes 3 and 4 bedroom units for large families. BUT, We don’t solve a housing crisis by pitting parks against poverty.