Speaking Notes for Michael Evans from the
Public Hearing for Bylaw 17116
(check against delivery)
Page |1
Good morning. My name is Michael Evans. Many of you know me as an
independent strategy consultant to the City of Edmonton who has delivered public
engagement projects recognized as best practices across Canada. When the City
created its Public Engagement Office, I was among those invited to ensure its
healthy birth.
As a citizen, I ask you today to suspend consideration of all the amendments to
Bylaw 12800 regarding residential infill in mature neighbourhoods scheduled for
the next six to twelve months. These amendments have under darkness introduced
incremental changes that undermine the sustainability principles previously
endorsed by citizens and lead directly to the sense of betrayal identified by
Councilor Michael Walters when he said, and I quote, “[citizens] don’t trust the
city … We need to have better communication and better relationships.”
These infill amendments fragment your own strategic vision for community
sustainability. They unravel the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay and must be
suspended until its planned review is complete in the fall. That, or one of you
should introduce a Notice of Motion today to kill the Mature Neighbourhood
Overlay now rather than watch suffer the death of a thousand cuts.
Residential infill will be the most transformative policy direction adopted by any
City Council of the past 50 to 60 years. It was initially intended to:
 halt the closure of schools in mature neighbourhoods;
 reverse the hollowing out mature neighbourhoods;
 provide for affordable housing, especially for house-rich/cash-poor seniors; and
 reduce urban sprawl.
Page |2
Instead, it has devolved into ideology, in which the means and end are the same
thing. Criticism, unbelievably, has become criminal apostasy or worse.
But it is not possible in five minutes to tell you the concerns I have learned I share
with residents across Edmonton about a program that has been variously described
to me as “disjointed”; “detrimental”; doing “nothing to … put more family housing
in the inner city areas [or] to repopulate inner city schools”; “a circus”; and “out of
control.”
Many of the proposed infill amendments to current the Zoning Bylaw, including
Bylaw 17116, have merit; however, in aggregate, and as a “one-size-fits-all”
solution, they negate the very sustainability strategies they are supposed to achieve.
Instead, the infill agenda has caused:
 the flooding of older homes by newer infill;
 the replacement of single-family housing with much more expensive “luxury
duplexes” that will displace families, weaken school enrollment, and take
advantage of seniors who seek housing alternatives;
 the erosion of personal privacy with new infill looming over smaller houses;
 Transit-Oriented Development that eviscerates existing standards in mature
neighbourhoods;
 an assault on North America’s largest urban forest and the crucial connectivity
network between natural areas; and
 disregard for the unique socio-economic characteristics and demographics of
Edmonton’s mature neighbourhoods – in fact, for all its neighbourhoods –
mature, established and new.
Page |3
We object most to the notion that a “one-size” solution even works. And you
cannot dismiss our argument by saying that Glenora is not unique, or that our
opposition is nothing more than naïve NIMBYism. We all live in unique
neighbourhoods with unique characteristics and unique aspirations that deserve to
be respected. And so, I’m going to propose an alternative interpretation for
NIMBY when spoken by the City as an institution: “Now I Mean to Bully You.”
Administration notes that it spoke to a single neighbourhood, and that its overall
public engagement reached a little over 1,000 people – or less than one-and-onequarter thousandth of one percent of Edmontonians to obtain dubious support for
its present course. As a professional, I’d be embarrassed to put that before you.
The Administration provided more support – and demanded better results: a
response rate of 51 percent – when it asked my community whether it wanted new
streetlights. Councillor Walters spoke with more than 600 residents over two
months in his ward alone by himself.
Council has a three-year initiative to improve public engagement: where is the
evidence you mean it?
Your own Policy C513 for Public Involvement says:
“The City of Edmonton believes that a key element of representative democracy is
that people have a right to be involved in decisions that affect them.”
Well, here we are. I ask you, again, to refer all amendments to the current Zoning
Bylaw that affect mature neighbourhoods to Administration until it has performed
Page |4
a credible public engagement campaign and Council has reviewed the Mature
Neighbourhood Overlay.
We will be speaking out at every opportunity for the next year to help you to
restore a respectful approach to residential infill. As our mature neighbourhoods
transition into the 21st century, we hope to preserve what we should and adapt what
we must.
But if we must fight, we will.
Subject to your questions, those are my submissions.
Thank you.
Page |5