St. Albert Still Struggles With Habitat for Humanity Development
In theory, the creation of affordable options for low income families seems like a straightforward worthwhile endeavour, but in reality, the issue can be very complicated and met with less than ideal enthusiasm from some area residents. The city of St Albert currently appears to be a good example of the disconnect between good intentions and the reality of orchestrating a project like this.
Since March 2010, this low-income housing project has been in the focus of attention from residents around a three acre piece of land in St Albert that is currently owned by one of the local school boards. To successfully build the multi-unit project, the city council needed to approve the project and change the zoning for the property before the developer could buy the property and start building.
Unfortunately for proponents of the development, the project has been fraught with trouble almost since its inception. One of the main complaints has been that the development is too dense; the initial size of the development was 58 units on the three acre plot with 15 units reserved for families who qualified for Habitat for Humanity homes. The city has shrunk the project more than once during the negotiations for the project but has recently increased the number of units back up to 30 to ensure that the project was viable.
Other complaints about the development ranged from vague concerns about "problems" for current residents based on the socio-economic status of the residents who would live in the units to dangerous levels of traffic close to the neighbouring school. In fact, the concern about building housing for low-income families was such an issue for a couple residing in St Albert that they penned a letter to the St. Albert Gazette about their concerns for the city. The letter absurdly asserts that 58 units of low-income housing brought into a city of over 60,000 would cause higher taxes, "drugs in elementary schools" or "gang fights at the high schools", and would necessitate "police presence at family outings".
However, there are many benefits that this project can bring to the city of St Albert that many of the other residents there can already agree on. While the income level of St Albert is higher than many other surrounding places, there are still people who work in the city employed in service jobs who require affordable housing. Also, there is the need for the city to build denser housing options to reduce sprawl and contribute to more diverse housing options. The proposed development is also expected to bring more children into the school district to support local schools. A higher density of housing would bring more taxes in to the area as well. Even the project detractors agree that the development is a good idea, just not in their area.
There are many residents on both sides of the issue over the Habitat for Humanity development. But while both sides do have some valid arguments, it would behoove residents to debate the issues with facts, not emotion or prejudices. Unfortunately, there has been so much compromising done by city council that it remains to be seen if the project will still be viable.
Since March 2010, this low-income housing project has been in the focus of attention from residents around a three acre piece of land in St Albert that is currently owned by one of the local school boards. To successfully build the multi-unit project, the city council needed to approve the project and change the zoning for the property before the developer could buy the property and start building.
Unfortunately for proponents of the development, the project has been fraught with trouble almost since its inception. One of the main complaints has been that the development is too dense; the initial size of the development was 58 units on the three acre plot with 15 units reserved for families who qualified for Habitat for Humanity homes. The city has shrunk the project more than once during the negotiations for the project but has recently increased the number of units back up to 30 to ensure that the project was viable.
Other complaints about the development ranged from vague concerns about "problems" for current residents based on the socio-economic status of the residents who would live in the units to dangerous levels of traffic close to the neighbouring school. In fact, the concern about building housing for low-income families was such an issue for a couple residing in St Albert that they penned a letter to the St. Albert Gazette about their concerns for the city. The letter absurdly asserts that 58 units of low-income housing brought into a city of over 60,000 would cause higher taxes, "drugs in elementary schools" or "gang fights at the high schools", and would necessitate "police presence at family outings".
However, there are many benefits that this project can bring to the city of St Albert that many of the other residents there can already agree on. While the income level of St Albert is higher than many other surrounding places, there are still people who work in the city employed in service jobs who require affordable housing. Also, there is the need for the city to build denser housing options to reduce sprawl and contribute to more diverse housing options. The proposed development is also expected to bring more children into the school district to support local schools. A higher density of housing would bring more taxes in to the area as well. Even the project detractors agree that the development is a good idea, just not in their area.
There are many residents on both sides of the issue over the Habitat for Humanity development. But while both sides do have some valid arguments, it would behoove residents to debate the issues with facts, not emotion or prejudices. Unfortunately, there has been so much compromising done by city council that it remains to be seen if the project will still be viable.