Gary Friend likely hasn’t heard about Plan It Calgary. Nor has the new national president of the Canadian Home Builders Association likely heard of Calgary’s Go Plan, or Centre City, or the other schemes coming out of city council aimed at setting the city’s growth — and deciding who will pay for it.

But at a recent conference, the Surrey, B.C. builder talked about his frustration with various levels of government using the housing industry as a cash cow to foot the bill for various schemes.

“We also know that in each case, it’s the new home buyer who will (ultimately) pay the bill — and in each case, the expectation is that rising real estate values will magically pay for increasing government-imposed costs and regulations,” he said.

In these days of deepening recession, it’s an assumption that no longer works.

The municipal Plan It proposal is provoking much debate in Calgary’s housing industry, with some calling it an example of “social engineering” that doesn’t reflect market realities.

It would not only promote things like public transportation over the construction of major new roads, it would boost density in existing communities rather than in the suburbs — with multi-family housing more concentrated around transportation hubs, such as C-Train stations.

Want a backyard? Chances are that might not be possible. And, hey, what kid wouldn’t want to be raised in a highrise condo, and get bused to a suburban school because the inner-city schools have been shut down?

City officials have decided, though, that this is the way of the future for Calgarians.

They really don’t want to see single-family housing development pushing the city boundaries outward. Yet, if this is the case, explain to me why they need a 50-year supply of land they’ve acquired through rural annexation, if not for growth?

Just one other thing — the mindset behind Plan It must be a bit calendar-challenged to claim Calgary only has three months of winter.

The last time I checked, November to April is a bit more than three months. But back to Gary Friend. In his inaugural address at a recent conference in Quebec City, he spoke about governments’ ideas that developers and builders should be made to pay for urban growth.
Governments easily fall into the trap that real estate will provide them with an endless source of revenue. Well, guess what? We’re in a recession here.

Fine, so Plan It was first dreamed up about three years ago. Did it not dawn on city hall to postpone the announcement made last week? Developers are not developing land this year. Builders are not building singledetached homes at the pace of past years.

As for multi-family homebuilders, including those involved in TOD (Transit Oriented Development), they are just trying to finish off what has been started and not even think about anything new.

Speaking as though he had a copy of Plan It at the podium with him, Friend touched on three examples of government bleeding industry to satisfy its need for control:

A “steadily-growing municipal reliance” on development charges.

Regulation and costs imposed on new development to “underwrite so-called affordable housing” initiatives.

A wide range of ad hoc “green building requirements” for new development.

“Such flawed approaches are based on slogans rather than on transparent, evidencebased decision-making,” said Friend. “When we hear that new growth must pay for itself, we know there is no consideration of the links between a growing community, the prosperity of its residents, and the capacity to pay for public services in a rational and equitable manner.”

Surveys have found that government-imposed charges, fees, levies and taxes on new development can add as much as 20 per cent onto the purchase price of a home.

With Diane Finley, federal minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing, listening just feet from him, Friend said that when industry is told to deliver more sustainable developments, its players know they are being asked to do something that has no “clear meaning” or cost analysis.

Sorry, people, but the cash cow has been milked almost dry by the downturn in the economy and the hesitancy by consumers to pay for a new home, regardless of the type or location. Things need to change, said Friend, adding the current economic crisis presents an opportunity to make those changes.


“It’s time to stop transferring government costs into the mortgages of new home buyers. It’s time for governments to stop using new development as a sort of ATM machine, and it’s time to develop other approaches to financing government and public policy objectives.”