- 6 mins
This blog post is adapted from the YouTube video The Problem with Public Hearings
Watch here
If you'd like to support the Affordable Housing Initiative in Bowness, please visit this page to leave your comments.
Public hearings need to change. In fact, some jurisdictions in British Columbia, have already removed public hearings for certain housing developments. The intention behind public hearings is to be “public”—accessible and convenient for people to attend. But in reality, they often fail to serve those who would benefit most from the developments being discussed.
Time Scarcity
Consider the single mother who might gain the most from affordable housing. She’s likely juggling two or three jobs or stuck at home with childcare responsibilities. Or think about the elderly grandmother whose family could finally afford stable housing. She might face mobility challenges or other barriers preventing her from attending in person.
Virtual public hearings can address some accessibility issues, but they don’t solve the core problem of time scarcity. Vulnerable individuals often prioritize survival—finding enough food for their family, paying bills, or ensuring their kids have something to eat at school. Even the most passionate advocates among them can’t compete with the time and resources available to well-off residents who attend every town hall and public hearing to voice their opposition.
As highlighted in the video, public hearings are not representative of the broader public. Time constraints are just one issue. Language barriers further exclude many participants, particularly newcomers still learning English. For these individuals, the concept of public hearings may be entirely unfamiliar.
Additionally, the people who would benefit from a proposed housing project may not even live in the immediate area yet. They could be in another neighborhood or even outside of Canada, planning to move here to start a new life. These voices are absent from the conversation, leaving public hearings disproportionately influenced by those who are already well-established and opposed to change.
Waste of Money and Time
Now, let’s say you dismiss these barriers, blaming individuals for their circumstances or inability to participate. Even from a purely economic perspective, the current system is inefficient.
Delays caused by prolonged debates and opposition drive up costs for developers and organizations like Trellis. Land holding costs, interest payments, and other financial burdens add up quickly. In some cases, these delays can cost upwards of a million dollars—money that could have gone toward poverty reduction or other community benefits.
Democratic processes are essential, but they should also be efficient and logical. Public hearings, as they currently exist, fall short of serving the public good.
Study in BC
Projects like these have faced similar hurdles in Surrey, BC. One proposal was initially rejected, only to be approved later after being reintroduced. During that delay, approximately $1.1 million was spent just waiting for the public hearing date. To put that into perspective, $1.1 million could have prevented 700-900 evictions and kept over a hundred families from homelessness.
The land designated for Trellis’ affordable housing project is already reserved for social housing—it’s an inevitable development. Yet, every delay wastes money and prolongs the suffering of those who desperately need stable housing. Inflation further compounds the issue, driving up construction costs the longer we wait. If we want to save money and help vulnerable populations, we need to act now and execute these projects efficiently.
This isn’t to say that public hearings should be eliminated altogether. As the video pointed out, they serve a vital role when the people directly impacted are vulnerable populations. For example, if residents come out in large numbers to oppose gentrification or the demolition of affordable housing, public hearings ensure their voices are heard and the system works as intended.
Public Hearings Are Not Binding
The most significant flaw of public hearings is that their outcomes are entirely at the discretion of the city council. There is no formal vote or democratic process to determine the result. Even if we rally hundreds of clients to support a housing project, the council could still reject it based on the objections of a handful of local residents. Conversely, a project could be approved despite widespread opposition if a single advocate delivers a compelling argument that sways the council.
What’s the Solution?
One potential solution is to move public hearings to the earlier stages of development. This would give developers more time to incorporate community feedback into their plans. This approach also makes sense when a project appears to disregard the needs or concerns of the neighborhood. However, the proposed housing project in Bowness has been carefully and thoughtfully designed to address community concerns:
- Enhanced Green Space: Additional funding is allocated to improve the greenspace, compensating for the small playground currently on the site.
- Shadow Study Completed: A detailed shadow study ensures minimal sunlight obstruction for neighboring units. Any interference is limited to around 2 p.m. during the equinox and is minimal.
- Parking Considerations: Parking has been accounted for, with the understanding that the demographic benefiting from this project is unlikely to own many vehicles due to financial constraints.
- Neighborhood Integration: The building’s exterior is designed to blend seamlessly with the surrounding neighborhood, creating a clean, welcoming, and friendly aesthetic.
Affordable Housing Benefits
Contrary to common misconceptions, introducing affordable housing can actually reduce crime and even increase property values. Stability provided by housing helps families avoid desperate measures like petty theft or sex work, which can lead to dangerous situations such as trafficking. Many of these families already live in the area—often in cars or couch-surfing with friends—situations that are far less safe and contribute to instability in the community.
Debunking Myths About Increased Traffic
The concern about increased traffic is a myth. As noted, low-income residents are less likely to own vehicles and are more reliant on public transportation. If demand for public transit grows, it could lead to improved services that benefit the entire community, ultimately reducing overall car traffic.
Class War
The struggle for affordable housing is not new. It’s a deeply political issue that often boils down to a class war. While some concerns may seem genuine, they are frequently smokescreens for classist—or even racist—attitudes.
Take the opposition's slogans, such as “Children need parks” or “Support the green space.” These phrases are often coded language. The opposition is well aware of the project’s plans to invest in upgraded playgrounds and greenspaces. They’ve likely read the proposal. Moreover, the current land is far from an ideal park—it’s an empty lot, devoid of vegetation, shade, or greenery, and occasionally littered with discarded needles.
These objections focus on surface-level concerns, aiming to evoke an emotional response. Of course, no one is against parks or greenspaces, but these arguments are a disguise for deeper fears—like resistance to change or the arrival of lower-income families. The facts are readily available, and most concerns have been addressed.
While some opposition may stem from a lack of education, these movements are often highly organized, influential, and informed. They represent a powerful force of NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard), and combating this requires strategic, widespread, and sustained support.
If you'd like to support the Affordable Housing Initiative in Bowness, please visit this page to leave your comments.
