Parkvale, Waskasoo, Woodlea Forum

Question 1:

What is your vision for how our city should grow over the next 10–20 years, and how does that fit with the current Municipal Development Plan and other city policies? How would you balance growth with preserving the community’s character and heritage?
 
My answer:

y vision for how our city should grow over the next 10 to 20 years really comes down to planning smart. We need to make sure zoning, infrastructure, and services are clearly laid out ahead of time — not added in after development starts. Growth should be guided by a clear plan that identifies what’s needed, where the gaps are, and how everything fits together. That’s how we build efficiently and responsibly.

When the City owns land, it should be pre-zoned and ready for development before it’s offered up for sale. A good example is the Clearview A-1 area — that land should have been preplanned and made development-ready when the City first bought it. Public land should lead the way by showing how smart planning can look in practice. At the same time, the City should encourage and support private landowners to take a similar approach, so we all move forward in a coordinated way.

The Municipal Development Plan is meant to be our long-term guide, but it only works if it’s up to date. It should be reviewed and refreshed every ten years — or even completely rewritten if our needs or direction have changed. Growth decisions shouldn’t be based on outdated plans.

At the same time, we can’t lose sight of what gives Red Deer its character. Neighbourhoods like Parkvale, Waskasoo, and Woodlea are part of our heritage, and I’d like to see them officially recognized as Community Heritage Preservation Zones. That would help protect their density, architecture, and overall look and feel. If older buildings do have to come down, replacements should still match the charm and character of those areas.

I’d also like to see the Doors Open Heritage Program return — working with the Red Deer Cultural Heritage Society to celebrate and share our city’s history. It’s a great way to reconnect people with the places and stories that make Red Deer special. And as we plan new developments, we should be looking at what’s worked in other cities — adopting the best ideas while keeping our own identity and sense of place intact.
 
--------------------
Question 2:

“In your opinion, should densification and infill in existing neighbourhoods be a core City strategy in addressing housing affordability issues? Why or why not? What other strategies would you support?
 
My answer:

There’s a lot of confusion between “affordable housing” and “housing you can afford.” They sound similar, but they’re very different. Affordable housing is when your shelter costs are less than 30% of your household income, and both the federal and provincial governments are working to increase it through programs like Stronger Foundations and the Affordable Housing Partnership Program. Locally, organizations like Habitat Red Deer and Bridges Community Living help vulnerable people get into safe, stable homes.

Housing you can afford, on the other hand, is what most people think about when they’re looking at the market — the price range of homes in a community. But for people who truly need affordable housing, even a modest down payment can be out of reach. Right now, Red Deer doesn’t have enough of either type to meet the needs of residents. Programs like Habitat for Humanity help, but they rely on volunteers and donations. In 2024, for example, 847 people in Canada became Habitat homeowners — a meaningful number, but just a drop in the bucket compared to the demand here in Red Deer.

I do think densification and infill should be part of the City’s strategy, but it needs to be done thoughtfully. It should focus on areas where it makes sense — through the core, along Gaetz Avenue, downtown, and Lancaster. Laredo, for example, has already been planned smart, so it doesn’t need additional infill pressure. At the same time, we need to protect the character of neighbourhoods like Parkvale, Waskasoo, and Woodlea, while concentrating growth where infrastructure and services can handle it.

The recently approved backyard suite program is an interesting example of policy that was sold with a human story, but really reflects practical realities. It was promoted as a way to let families house aging parents while younger generations could stay in the main home. The truth is, many young adults simply can’t afford a house of their own, and the program also brings in additional residential tax revenue for the city. It’s not a silver bullet, but it’s a practical tool that acknowledges the realities of today’s housing market.

In short, infill and densification can help with affordability by increasing the supply of housing, but they’re only one part of the solution. Red Deer also needs more affordable housing options, creative local initiatives, and realistic planning that balances growth with protecting the character and heritage of our neighbourhoods.
 
----------------

Question 3:

If the City continues to pursue residential densification, what is your position on the potential impact, both positive and negative, of densification on existing neighbourhoods and their residents?
 
My answer:

If the City continues with residential densification, I think it has to be done thoughtfully. Growth can be a good thing, but we also need to protect the character and quality of life in our existing neighbourhoods. In heritage areas, older buildings that are no longer safe or livable should be replaced with new homes that match the same architectural style. Modern materials and green tech, like solar panels, can be used, but they should be discreet — tucked away on the roof so the house still looks historically appropriate from the street. That way, we’re raising the bar on design while keeping neighbourhoods looking cohesive.
I also believe development should be sensible and planned in advance. Empty parcels and districts should be ready to go with clear plans for infrastructure, services, and overall community design. Densification shouldn’t happen in a piecemeal way that disrupts neighbours or strains city resources.

We need policies to keep neighbourhoods safe and well-maintained. Residential investment properties that sit empty for six months or more, as well as underused apartment buildings, should be taxed higher. Short-term rental properties should require a business license, so owners are responsible and safety standards are enforced. If owners don’t want to pay those higher taxes, the market needs to reflect reality — rental costs should come down to attract tenants. The truth is, vacancy rates are likely higher than the reported 1.6%, but rental companies aren’t required to honestly report vacancies, which can let numbers be manipulated and keep rents artificially high.

Done right, densification can bring positives like better use of land, more housing options, and extra tax revenue for the city. But it has to be managed carefully — respecting neighbourhood character, encouraging high-quality construction, and keeping our communities safe, livable, and reasonably affordable for people who actually want to live there.
 
---------------

Question 4:

At times, City Council is asked to decide on development issues that impact neighbourhoods, such as revising bylaws, rezoning land, or providing City Administration with clear directions. These decisions impact numerous stakeholders including local community members, city-wide residents, developers, and Administration itself. As a member of Council, how would you weigh the needs of competing stakeholders?
 
My answer:

As a member of Council, my priority is to serve the people — not developers or special interest groups who have the resources to shout the loudest. Residents’ voices should carry more weight, because it’s the community that lives with the decisions we make. That’s why I believe in an open, transparent process for all development decisions. For example, notification for proposed developments should be increased from 100 metres to 300 metres, so more neighbours are aware and can provide input — especially for projects like Clearview North that can change the feel of a neighbourhood and affect infrastructure, traffic, noise, and safety.

At the same time, growth must happen. Development can’t be stopped, because responsible, smart growth is necessary to lower taxes and maintain services. But it should be planned well and built strong, with as many parties as possible satisfied with the path forward. This is where preplanning public lands and private parcels makes a huge difference. When you buy a house with a vacant lot across the street, you should know that someday there might be a high-rise apartment building or a shopping center planned for that space. Knowledge now prepares you for the future. A home is an investment in your future and your children’s, and you don’t want to be 30 years down the road and suddenly be told there’s a 10-storey tower going up in your backyard.

Transparency and communication are key. When I answer questions on Facebook, I make sure the responses are also posted on my website so everyone can see them. If we can use drones to show residents a bridge reconstruction, why not use the same technology for new developments? Residents should be able to see the full picture from perspectives they wouldn’t otherwise have access to, without needing expensive tools or special connections.

Balancing competing interests means giving residents a strong voice, ensuring developers follow sensible plans, and making Council decisions guided by fairness, transparency, and the long-term well-being of the community. Growth and development are inevitable, but when done thoughtfully, they strengthen the city while respecting those who live here.
 
---------------------
 
Question 5

Many Red Deerians feel that the City’s process for making development decisions is increasingly top-down and the public is being sidelined in decisions over land use. How do you think Council can rebuild trust in the development process?
 
My answer:

The City Council can rebuild trust by actually listening to residents and showing that their input matters. Right now, it often feels like decisions are made behind closed doors, and people only hear about them after the fact. Communication needs to be two-way—not just the City telling residents what’s happening, but genuinely including their feedback in the process.

We’ve seen that listening can work. Changes to backyard suite bylaws and the decision to block four-plexes were wins for public input. But it also raises the question—would those decisions have happened if it wasn’t an election year? For trust to be real and lasting, residents need to see that their voices matter all the time, not just when votes are on the line.

The type of development should guide how much public input is sought. A single new house might not need a meeting, but a whole housing development, a highrise, or a big project like a bridge should have multiple public meetings at times people can actually attend, like Saturday afternoons. An informative town hall should happen as soon as a project is proposed, so residents can ask questions and provide input early. Residents should be kept updated at every stage and continue to provide input through all necessary public hearings and meetings, with their feedback genuinely reflected in the plans.

Major developments should also have a clear, easy-to-find page on the City’s website—even if it’s a private developer. Access to information needs to stay consistent; for example, in 2024, information on the CPR bridge kept moving around, with links breaking or changing, which made it hard to track and eroded trust. During an election year, the City should remain unbiased. If information is on the website, simply providing a link is enough. There’s no need to post detailed summaries on social media that show bias toward incumbent candidates who voted in favor of a project. Residents who want the information will click the link and read it themselves.

At the end of the day, trust is earned and maintained through transparency and real communication—with residents, not just at them. When the process is open, responsive, and organized, residents will feel that their voices actually matter.
 
---------------------------
 
Question 6:

Blanket zoning the city to allow up to four units on every residential lot is a requirement for the City to receive a $12 million federal HAF2 grant. In July, City Council voted to reject this blanket zoning change based on an overwhelming response from the public, but they also decided to advocate with CMHC for the removal of this condition so that the City can receive the $12 million and carry out the remaining HAF2 initiatives. If CMHC refuses to waive the four units-as-of-right condition, what would your position in Council be going forward? And what are your thoughts on the remaining HAF2 initiatives, including reducing or eliminating off-street parking requirements and making up to 8-units per lot a discretionary use within 800m of Gaetz Avenue?
 
My answer:

Honestly, when it comes to the HAF2 grant, we need to be realistic. Either we meet the grant requirements, or we don’t—there’s no point in bending our plans or trying to convince the feds to change theirs. The federal government hands out billions in grants every year. If we, and other communities, choose to reject one, they’ll simply offer another later. Chasing every grant has already done nothing but erode trust in the municipality, showing that Council sometimes only listens in election years and highlighting gaps in our communication process.

We’ve already seen the difference: a privately held public meeting costing under $1,000 actually listened to residents, whereas a city meeting often felt like people were being talked down to, told the plan was final, and not allowed to give real input. This HAF2 grant feels like nothing more than a federal bribe to impose ideas that aren’t going to meaningfully solve affordable housing. Only 13% of the builds would even be considered “affordable,” leaving condos priced at $300,000 or more—and that doesn’t help everyday Red Deerians.

The 800-metre provision for up to 8 units per lot, which affects the Gaetz corridor, is also not compatible with how Red Deer develops and must not interfere with our historical districts. And let’s be honest—$12 million won’t come close to covering the real costs of water, sewer, traffic, and other infrastructure demands. Off-street parking will be impossible in many areas, which means people will just park on the street. That doesn’t work in winter, and Albertans aren’t about to give up their vehicles just because the federal government says we should.

Residential developments are starting to exclude single-family homes—not because people don’t want them, but because they can’t afford them. Supply drives demand—if you build single-family homes, people will buy them, just like SUVs took over once they were marketed and built.

So my position going forward is simple: stop wasting money trying to bend our plans or convince the feds to change theirs. Decline this grant, like other communities have done, and stop the mentality of constantly changing our plan for every outside funding program. And let’s finally update our Development Plan—it’s already been 12 years since the last one, and it really should be refreshed every 10 years.