There is good news and bad news. The good news is that the housing proposal has been sent back to city planning for a review, centering around safety issues, mainly with traffic and parking. The bad news is the huge wave of negative resistance and misinformation held by the fanatical, anti-NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard), even by some city councillors. 

Comments by the petition organiser:

Ottawa needs more housing. Everyone gets that. 

When the Kennedy Lane project was announced, the neighbourhood anticipated a positive, 2-way dialogue that would help produce a welcome addition to complement our community, as it has done for many others, for years. Over time, it became obvious that this would not be forthcoming. Concerns and suggestions fell on deaf ears. This gave rise to a petition, which now has over 870 signatures. We all sought to have housing that would be safe, functional and conform to the standards applied to preceding housing additions. At no time, has anyone even suggested banning the project outright. 

Upon closer examination, it became clear that the project has an ill-conceived and incomplete plan. For example, it has no risk management plan, which is an essential part of any project. The most glaring omission was the lack of any traffic or parking plan. 

An 81-unit housing project with only 61 parking spaces is a problem. Using the latest statistics from National Resources Canada, Ontario has an average of 1.45 light vehicles per household (slightly below the national average of 1.47 light vehicles per household). This would mean a requirement to accommodate about 120 or more vehicles. This is just a fact of life. Given the sunsetting of fossil fuel burning vehicles, electric charging stations will also become a necessity. In the urban core, residents have the benefit of decent public transit, proximity to stores and various consumer establishments. That does not apply equally to residents of suburbia. This area has unreliable public transit, which is geared towards commuting and not intra community travel. The nearest complete grocery store is 2.1 km away. A premium, specialty grocery store is only slightly closer. This all means private vehicles are a necessity, regardless of income level. 

The story here is community safety. It is not about delayed housing or missing parking spaces. Instead of being part of a solution, it is disappointing that some councillors (and even the Media) have weaponised the rabid, anti NIMBY sentiment to the point of shameless name calling. The problem has been exasperated by the advent of Ontario Bill 109. While the bill proclaims to streamline the approval process, it also relaxes the need for vital safeguards. Given the location between a seniors home and a children’s playground, that is dangerous. We hope that local government and the developers will come together with the community, to makes the changes needed for housing, of which we can all be proud.