The housing vision is bold, but the risk to taxpayers just isn’t worth it.
That’s the message Kingston City Council gave Limestone City Co-operative Housing (LCCH) over its ambitious proposal for a 248-unit, 14-storey high-rise that mixes attainable housing and a multi-level vertical garden at Division Street and Elliott Avenue.
The upstart housing co-op’s hopes were dashed when council voted 11-2 against the City providing a forgivable $2.29 million line of credit over three years to advance the planning and fundraising phases for the housing project.
The rejection vote followed a marathon debate at the Council meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 17, 2024.
“We do not risk or gamble taxpayer dollars like this. We just don’t do that. We don’t take big risks because it’s public money,” remarked Mayor Bryan Paterson, capping off a debate that saw several councillors voice their unease over the financial commitment being asked of the city.
Councillor Jeff McLaren, Board Chair of LCCH and staunch supporter of the attainable housing initiative, repeatedly tried to assure his colleagues that the financial ask was a “worst case” scenario and a safety net. He said the group’s ultimate aim is to secure its own funding through existing government housing and science grants and private donations to complete the studies and construct the building at an estimated cost of $115 million on the vacant City-owned property at 900 Division Street.
He admitted the stakes are high, but said a municipal commitment first would go a long way to securing extra loans and grants, especially given the nation’s housing crisis.
“This is a do-or-die moment for this co-op,” he noted at one point in the debate.
Coun. McLaren, who was peppered with questions from his colleagues about the building’s size, cost, competition for government loans, and safety of the all-wood frame building, said Council’s financial support was vital to complete the first steps to retain an architectural firm to complete the studies needed for zoning bylaw approvals, and to hire experts in seeking construction funding from governments and the private sector.
Staff put two options on the table for Council to consider — either put up the $2.29 million or not.
McLaren moved the first option to give the housing co-op badly-needed funding support.
The pressure on the veteran councillor became so focused that Mayor Paterson cautioned council not to make the debate personal.
Overall, many councillors applauded McLaren and his board for coming up with a housing vision touted as a first-of-its-kind in North America for its promise of tackling housing affordability, renewable energy, food insecurity, and climate change under one roof. But they also said it was too bold for their liking.
“I was excited by this initially. This design is so ambitious. It’s not what I thought it was going to be,” said Councillor Greg Ridge.
Councillor Jimmy Hassan said the proposal resembled a “fairy tale story,” but that he couldn’t support the project because the co-op has no equity and relied too much on the City to get it going.
Summing up the mood, Councillor Ryan Boehme asserted, “If this goes south we lose our investment and we get no affordable housing and we are still out the money.”
Concept drawings show a 14-storey ‘green’ building with sloped terraces, a three-storey vertical garden, and greenhouses that would provide enough leafy greens and other vegetables to feed the entire building and have ample left over for food banks. The housing co-op, by its very nature, would require sweat equity from its tenants. They would be required to tend to the garden as part of their condition of living there.
“Our project is second to none in innovation and audacity,” said McLaren.
But its boldness may have been its undoing. Many said they could’ve supported a lower-scale affordable housing project on the site, but said the LCCH’s ‘go big or go home’ proposal tried to do everything at once.
“Sometimes you shoot for the stars. And sometimes when you try to do too many things at once, you end up doing them all poorly,” said Boehme.
“I do not see this working and I am a dreamer,” added Councillor Gary Oosterhof.
Staff told Council that the City has sunk much larger sums of money into affordable housing construction in the past, but has never before provided such a large up-front loan guarantee for the early planning stages.
Another tipping point for councillors came when City finance officials said the $2.29 million line of credit would be drawn from the Working Fund Reserve, a rainy day fund the City usually relies on for unforeseen expenses, which currently stands at $9.8 million. The LCCH would get access to 20 or 25 per cent of that fund, which financial officials like to keep at around $10 million.
City Treasurer Desiree Kennedy also cautioned about depleting reserves at a time when Council may need that fund to help balance the 2025 budget.
Only Councillors McLaren and Lisa Osanic supported floating a public line of credit to the housing group.
“I always hate to see a dream die,” said Councillor Conny Glenn.
But it’s unclear if the defeat at Council spells the end of the project.
The second option, which Council later voted unanimously to adopt, is to decline the line of credit but continue to commit the City-owned property until February 2025, allowing LCCH more time to secure other sources of financing to advance the design and studies.
Staff are to report back to Council in February 2025 on the status of the project.