Before We Rezone, Let’s Use Waterloo’s Brownfield Opportunity
I believe Waterloo needs to rethink how we use the land we already have.
We face a housing shortage, pressure for continued growth, and increasing demands on our infrastructure and water resources. At the same time, we have a significant inventory of properties within our existing urban boundaries that remain vacant or underused because of their industrial history.
According to Waterloo’s interactive brownfield map, a GIS-based mapping system, there are 256 brownfield locations identified in Waterloo. These include properties such as the former Marsland factory site, the former boiler factory site around Albert and Hazel, the property on Bridgeport near Weber, and many others.
These properties are not all the same. Some are privately owned by developers or entrepreneurs, while others are municipally or otherwise owned. Some may require extensive environmental remediation; others may require less.
Collectively, however, they represent an important opportunity for Waterloo.
We need to put these properties back into active use
Brownfield remediation can involve environmental investigation, removal of contaminated soil, treatment of contaminated soil or groundwater, safe containment, demolition of contaminated structures or engineered barriers to make a property suitable for its new use.
Yes, this can be expensive.
But I don’t believe we can simply accept a situation where hundreds of properties remain on a brownfield inventory indefinitely while Waterloo struggles to find appropriate places for housing, employment and community development.
Apparently, Waterloo already has a brownfield policy intended to encourage the remediation and redevelopment of these properties. If that policy has met with only limited success, perhaps it is time to take a fresh look at it.
A policy that isn’t producing the results we need should not simply be left in place because it exists. It should be reinvented.
I would like to see Waterloo examine what has worked, what has not worked and why. We should ask property owners and developers what prevents these sites from moving forward and then redesign the policy around practical solutions.
The goal should be to rejuvenate the potential and usefulness of Waterloo’s brownfield policy so that it actually works for the betterment of the city.
Creating incentives—and consequences
We need an incentive to move these properties from an inventory on a map into active use.
I would like to see Waterloo develop meaningful incentives for owners who are prepared to remediate and develop their properties. At the same time, we should examine whether a carefully designed taxation mechanism for long-term, inactive brownfield properties could encourage owners to either develop, remediate and sell, or otherwise move these properties toward productive use.
I am not suggesting that every brownfield owner should be penalized immediately. Some sites have genuine environmental, financial or regulatory challenges. But ownership should not mean that a property can remain indefinitely outside productive use while the community bears the consequences.
If a property has sat dormant for many years, we should at least ask whether our existing policies are unintentionally encouraging that inactivity.
The objective should be simple: make remediation and redevelopment more attractive than continued inactivity.
Not every property is appropriate for intensification
At the same time, I believe we need to be more thoughtful about rezoning.
The fact that a property is already developed does not automatically mean it is appropriate for a major increase in density.
I am particularly concerned when established residential neighbourhoods are targeted for significant intensification simply because a property is available—whether it is a residential site, a church property or another community institution.
Church properties deserve particular consideration. Many churches occupy substantial parcels of land and may eventually become available for redevelopment as congregations change. But that does not mean every church property should automatically be rezoned for the highest possible density.
We need to consider the surrounding neighbourhood, traffic, parking, schools, parks, infrastructure, water capacity, building scale and the character of the streets that will have to accommodate the change.
Available land is not necessarily appropriate land.
We need cooperation—not just expectations
Another part of this discussion, I believe, is often overlooked.
The Region and the provincial and federal governments continue to place enormous expectations on municipalities to produce more housing of every kind. Municipalities are also expected to address homelessness, affordability, infrastructure and the consequences of rapid growth.
But expectations alone do not build housing.
If senior governments want municipalities to deliver more housing and help address homelessness, they also need to provide meaningful financial and policy tools to accomplish those objectives.
I believe Waterloo needs to work with the Region, the Province and the federal government to develop a coordinated brownfield remediation and redevelopment program.
That could include environmental funding, low-cost financing, grants, tax incentives, infrastructure assistance, and other tools that recognize the extraordinary costs of returning contaminated properties to productive use.
Municipalities cannot reasonably be expected to solve problems that cross several levels of government while being given responsibility without the financial tools necessary to do the job.
This is what Smart Growth means to me
For me, Smart Growth is not simply putting more people into every available parcel of land.
It means putting the right development in the right places.
It means looking carefully at infrastructure and water capacity before approving major increases in density. It means respecting established neighbourhoods where appropriate while finding opportunities for new housing where development makes sense.
And it means asking a basic question before rezoning an established property:
Is this really the best place for this level of development, or are there better opportunities elsewhere in Waterloo?
With 256 brownfield locations identified on Waterloo’s interactive map, I believe we have an opportunity that deserves much greater attention.
Let’s clean up contaminated land. Let’s bring underused industrial properties back into productive use. Let’s create incentives for owners to sell or develop properties that have remained dormant. Let’s investigate whether taxation can encourage long-term inactive properties to move toward remediation and redevelopment.
And let’s reinvent Waterloo’s brownfield policy if the existing approach is not producing the results our city needs.
Most importantly, let’s bring the Region, Province and federal government to the table with the financial tools necessary to make it happen.
We can build more housing without treating every established neighbourhood property as a candidate for dramatic rezoning.
Growth should be sustainable, sensible and appropriate to its surroundings.
That is the kind of Smart Growth I believe Waterloo needs.
Marty Rempel
Ward Five
No comments:
Post a Comment