Zoning changes and fine print

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 28/11/2023 (761 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as the saying goes.

The devil is in the details.

And the devil is eating the pudding of proof — no, wait, that one’s not actually a saying at all.

The point is, the first broad strokes of a plan rarely capture its real impact.

And when it comes to the Winnipeg city council vote to change zoning rules to access millions in federal funding, we’re still at the beginning.

The council voted to change the rules to streamline zoning for some forms of new housing, smoothing the way for everything from small apartment buildings near public transit to infill fourplexes in established neighbourhoods. The city made the move to help its application for $192 million in federal Housing Accelerator Fund money: in exchange for funding, the federal government wants proposed projects to move more quickly through the approval process.

The change has already been the subject of strident debate: on the one hand, the city’s existing zoning rules have been described as harming housing accessibility by limiting the ability of neighbourhoods to have a mix of uses, from fourplexes to other options that allow for lower-cost housing. On the other hand, there have been complaints that lifting zoning restrictions would damage both existing neighbourhoods’ character by overcrowding existing infrastructure — and potentially lowering the value of existing homes.

There will always be complaints and concerns, and they will always be vocal. Anyone who has ever handled letters to the editor knows that letters of complaint always outnumber letters of praise by at least 10 to one. It’s perhaps a truism to point out that people are more likely to react to things that they fear might harm their own interests, than they are to support things that are likely to help others.

But what’s important for both sides of the debate is to keep a careful eye on what happens next: how city council decides to frame specific rules around the lot sizes needed to build multi-unit buildings, and what sizes those multi-unit buildings will be.

Coun. Brian Mayes made a good point when he said, as it stands now, the overall vote lacks the finer points that detail clear standards. “I think there was an attempt made to address some of the concerns. It’s just not nearly specific enough, so I’ll be voting against that… All of (the details are) just coming later. Well, that’s total chaos,” said Mayes, who voted against the plan.

Mayor Scott Gillingham said further details on the proposed changes will come in the form of new bylaws in the spring of 2025 — at which time, council will have the opportunity to vote again on the more granular parts of the plan.

Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter

Paul Samyn | Editor's Note

Wednesdays

A weekly dispatch from the head of the Free Press newsroom.

Sign up for Paul Samyn | Editor's Note

Sign Up

I agree to the Terms and Conditions, Cookie and Privacy Policies, and CASL agreement.

By then, some opponents and supporters of the plan will have grown tired of making their case. The fine print rarely generates the same level of reaction that the first broad-strokes plan creates.

The simple fact is that large government plans rarely work out precisely the way their authors intend. The overall benefits rarely reach the expected and forecast level of success, while at the same time, the total disaster that opponents predict rarely occurs.

Some simple takeaways? Perhaps first and foremost, it’s unusual to see Winnipeg city council moving quickly on such a large decision: consider how many decades it’s taken to plan for a new Arlington Street Bridge, for example.

And second, if you either wildly support or roundly oppose the changes to the city’s zoning scheme, keep your eye on the ball and your attention on the fine print that’s yet to come.

The devil is always, always in the details.