Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Whitehorse Star

Councillor Betty Irwin and Councillor Samson Hartland

Cost of proposed infill lots: $230,000

A $230,000 undeveloped lot does not affordable housing make.

By Stephanie Waddell on March 20, 2018

A $230,000 undeveloped lot does not affordable housing make.

That was the issue that came up at Monday evening’s council meeting when members were presented with a bylaw that would enable the sale of four new infill lots after utilities are installed later this year.

The $230,000 price tag would be for each of the two properties (at 1.36 hectares and 1.38 hectares) zoned as Country Residential 1 on Fireweed Drive in the Mary Lake subdivision.

The other two lots that would be sold through the proposed lottery are zoned as Residential Single Detached at 663 and 718 square metres on Sandpiper Drive in Arkell. They would go for $127,300 and $137,900.

The price tags for each property are based on market value, Pat Ross, the city’s manager of lands and building services, told council.

The four properties are among those the city approved for infill development earlier this year.

Ross’ report to council highlighted city policies, noting: “Disposition of these residential lots supports council’s strategic priorities for ‘planning for growth’ and ‘affordable housing’.

“Not approving this bylaw will result in the residential development lots not being completed and the land being retained by the city.”

Both councillors Samson Hartland and Betty Irwin argued a $230,000 price tag on a lot is not an affordable option.

Hartland said he found the price “quite surprising and alarming.”

Irwin commented: “I cannot see that this qualifies in any way for affordable housing, so I am really, really surprised at that. Although I am delighted to see four lots come on the market. We need them, but the prices, I think, are outrageous.”

Others acknowledged the cost is not affordable, but pointed to the impact the new lots could have on the overall housing stock in the city.

As Coun. Roslyn Woodcock said, these particular properties were never meant for affordable housing.

Coun. Jocelyn Curteanu concurred, noting: “They were for giving people the opportunity to move up into, or I guess upgrade, their residence and then hopefully free up some affordable, more affordable housing, hopefully within town.

“That was my understanding, and that’s my understanding of how that fits into our strategic plan.”

Council also raised questions about a 1.78-ha parcel of city land next to the two lots in Mary Lake.

Members wondered why it or part of it wasn’t put up for sale, or the two lot boundaries expanded to include all or part of the remainder piece.

Ross said he would provide a more detailed answer to council members in the coming weeks.

He noted, however, the need for a buffer as well as geotechnical and terrain restraints that would limit development of that site.

As Coun. Rob Fendrick pointed out, expanding the two properties that could be up for sale would also mean an even higher price tag on those lots.

It’s anticipated the lottery for the four lots would be held in mid-August. That would happen provided the utility installations – power and telecommunications for all, along with water and sewer services in Arkell – are complete.

Next week, council will vote on whether to proceed with the bylaws to allow the sale, as well as a budget change to allow the utility installations.

The bylaw for budget change would also allow for utility installations on a 3.2-ha site on Talus Drive that was rezoned to allow for infill development.

The bylaw for the sale of that land has not come forward because work is still underway to look a geotechnical information at the site before any detailed lot development can be determined.

Also identified for utility installation in the budget amendment is 150 Keish St. downtown.

Development is expected on that site later this year. The city has committed to servicing the site by the time of development.

The budget amendment would set out $250,000 to be spent from the city’s land bank reserve.

“Proceeds from the sales of the subject lots will be used to recoup the costs associated with these capital works required and replenish the land bank reserve at the time of the sale completion,” Ross stated in his report to council on the budget change.

Comments (20)

Up 4 Down 1

CJ on Mar 26, 2018 at 10:54 am

@Alan Boomer -- I agree. This planning department is surely one of the least sensitive to the need to protect recreational areas and habitat in any "wilderness city". They seem to consider it only in the light of what they can get away with, citing statistics about the number of "protected" hectares as they routinely put forward proposals to rezone the greenbelt areas they also cited only a short time ago as evidence that they are protecting green space. The picture you painted of a few trees left in the middle is exactly where we're heading.

If anyone ever believed that infill in country residential was for "affordable housing" they haven't been following the tactics of the planners. How do you promote affordable housing in the country residential developments you've been dogmatically decrying for your whole career? Now it turns out that it was "trickle down economics" they were thinking of. The most offensive thing about our city planners to me is their transparent attempts to bamboozle people with planning babble.

As for city council -- Rosemary Woodcock's contempt for residents speaking up about rezoning should not be forgotten, either, in the next election.

Up 2 Down 5

Sillig on Mar 25, 2018 at 7:39 pm

Boomer....the land is close to town and thats why...all the areas developed along the highways will be infilled and they will hardly resemble crowded.
It is nimbyism

Up 6 Down 1

ProScience Greenie on Mar 24, 2018 at 2:47 pm

Tons of open land available in CoW's huge city limits. There's a big demand for more country residential so build a few more 2-10 acre lot size Mary Lake subdivisions. That's what a real 'wilderness city' would do if they actually listened to the people rather than only the real estate and developer types.

Up 5 Down 2

Alan Boomer on Mar 23, 2018 at 6:35 pm

Not sure that people understand that these lots are very desirable and people will pay a lot of money for them.

NIMBYISM is not an appropriate way of expressing the concerns that Mary Lake residents have. They are not opposed to new RR subdivisions they just do not to lose what they have. There are many trails and areas that wildlife use around the lake and between the lake and homes and they want to keep the pressure off these special areas. If you lived there I bet you would feel the same.

The road by the lake and other areas is becoming heavily used by atvs and trucks and its a dramatic change from just a few years ago. Why put more lots in there and more toys and noise and disruption and take away the greenbelt? Makes no sense at all!

Why allow the city to continually let development and uncontrolled recreational vehicle use eat away at what you have? An analogy may be to have a quiet park near your home in a large city and have the city come in and pave over areas year after year for a parking lot until only a few trees remain in the middle.

This is no exaggeration people, it's the way special areas become unspecial, its they way wildlife continually lose their habitat and places they move through.

Council has tough decisions to make but it seems they make poor ones too often. When the mayor said NIMBYISM is alive and well in Whitehorse he lost a lot of votes in the next election.

Up 4 Down 2

Flip? on Mar 23, 2018 at 3:18 pm

Why would Council sell a public asset at anything less than full market value? So the lucky buyer can flip it on at the higher price?

Prices are high because the NIMBYs, enviros and bureaucrats have shut off the supply. I live in the neighbourhood and I really don't understand why folks cannot share it with a few more people.

Up 3 Down 1

Jayne W on Mar 23, 2018 at 3:07 pm

@marharg, you have great points. BUT myself personally would rather see a longer term plan of housing...do you realize how much this is going to cost for 4 lots at the moment. And if that long term means tucking a few lots here and there in every neighbourhood Urban or CR, so be it but have more....keep prices competitive. This was to help drive housing prices down..... I see my CR place slowly double in its value. This is not and never will be a solution for housing it is a costly band aid.

Up 2 Down 2

Maharg Sillig on Mar 23, 2018 at 2:14 pm

Jayne W....regardless of the cost, which is at best ridiculous, there was and is certainly a need for these lots and there should be more created.

Therefore Nimbyism will live on in it's truest form...unfortunately.

Those who look to profit so greatly in the name of 'the market today' will hopefully find their form of karma down the road.

Up 2 Down 4

Jayne W on Mar 23, 2018 at 9:27 am

There were many people opposed to this when this whole mess started. We were called NIMBYS, selfish, rich, spoiled etc. NOW....everyone comes out of the woodwork to complain. All the points being made we made before. Remember the Council Votes on this, Dan Boyd, Samson and Betty voted AGAINT the ML lot coming into play they get it. My hope is that they vote the same way again and maybe Jocelyn can think long and hard about this incentive and vote against it and it is a non discussion, till the lots are needed. Or maybe wait till they are finished all the projects not finished in the 2017 fiscal period and see how over/under budget things look and then move forward.

Up 6 Down 1

Reality check on Mar 23, 2018 at 6:24 am

Fact 1: It's not about affordable housing! Not even about a shortage of building lots (there are tons in Whistle Bend)!

Fact 2: The city is spending way beyond their budget, so that is a convenient way to get more money.

Fact 3: Public hearings, consultations, town hall meetings are just fake, they do what they want anyway.

Fact 4: Sooner or later the same will happen up there like in Vancouver - people moving away because of the housing market. Renting or owning won't be affordable anymore for the average "John Doe"...

Suggestion: Change the "brand" from "The Wilderness City" to "The Greedy Government City"!

Up 3 Down 0

Fulov Eit on Mar 22, 2018 at 9:26 pm

Now how exactly is it that these lots magically became unaffordable in a land the size of Germany with about .03% of its population ? Back 50 years ago they were plenty affordable and there was space enough for any self-seeking person to carve themselves a plot and build themselves a better life. The government and its short-sighted development policies have created this quagmire and through greed, hubris and out-right arrogance, they enforce it. It is a travesty of honour to the memory of the true pioneers that they would promote the Yukon as a "northern" "wilderness" location when there's clearly no wilderness left to be had.

Up 5 Down 2

My Opinion on Mar 22, 2018 at 8:59 pm

@Sillig..... Not true. It was affordable. I paid 9000 for my lot. Its these clowns that make it unaffordable.

Up 6 Down 0

Groucho d'North on Mar 22, 2018 at 7:08 pm

Does anybody have the courage to share an itemised list of costs that make up a total of $230,000? I'm betting some pencils could be sharpened if we but knew how we are getting hosed...and by who.

Up 3 Down 0

Kraka on Mar 22, 2018 at 1:42 pm

What I find totally wacky is the fact that a CR lot will be 239 grand this does not include a well, sewer or power thus no services. So to build a 2000 foot modest home at 250 per sq foot will run a poor sucker in the neighbourhood of 800-900 grand and then the kicker is the property tax is double what is is in the city with paved streets, all the services and buried electrical. So those who choose to live in this area need to be well aware.

Up 4 Down 1

Sillig on Mar 21, 2018 at 5:06 pm

MO....They purposefully assess properties lower than what would reflect reality (there is no formula).
So folks who live in these areas will see a correction in the future....but remember country residential is not supposed to be affordable....right?

Up 8 Down 1

My Opinion on Mar 21, 2018 at 4:17 pm

This is a disgrace. I just looked at my current property assessment and my Mary Lake lot, (larger then these) is assessed at 100,900 and that includes the value of my water and sewer. Read what you want into that????

Up 7 Down 1

Alan Boomer on Mar 21, 2018 at 4:15 pm

Wake up people.

We do not have many good people on city council.

They do not get paid much and do not compare to the quality of the people who were there years ago. In previous years they really cared and they made Whitehorse a much better place to live than it is today.

Up 4 Down 0

YKCommonSense on Mar 21, 2018 at 11:31 am

It's time to admit that we have a mayor and council that are limiting land supply, and artificially increasing the cost of housing in Whitehorse. Yukoner's should be angry as hell, and should not put up with this. Shame on Pat Ross and the City for thinking this is okay. This greed is stealing from future generations.

Up 11 Down 0

Thomas Brewer on Mar 20, 2018 at 5:06 pm

Wake up people, country residential never was, nor never will be, affordable housing.

Up 9 Down 3

Jayne W on Mar 20, 2018 at 3:27 pm

On the Administrative Report for Bylaw 2018-16 it states.....(you can find this online)
Disposition of these residential lots supports Council's Strategic Priorities for "Planning for Growth" and "Affordable Housing". So what they are saying since the Mary Lake lots are not affordable housing.....they are the planning for growth.....WOW two lots are really going to help the housing shortage. Council and Administration throughout this whole infill process said the incentive would help bring the cost of housing down, fill a need for housing these four lots are doing nothing to help. I would almost be embarrassed as a Manager telling Council after all this we have 4 lots right now, because they did not listen to the residents of Whitehorse Cooper that they are now going to be doing more costly studies to get the same result. All I see is the taxes going up in Mary Lake in a few years, none of the goals were accomplished in this incentive.

Up 4 Down 0

Josey Wales on Mar 20, 2018 at 3:12 pm

Wow...1/4 million for a chunk of dirt, and couple hundred thousand more to get a building up, 10k in permit fees....yes I live in Banff now...but resembles East Vancouver downtown.
What will it take folks before we get active on accountability with our overlords and the volume of inept managers.
Running this town like this a hundred years back, would have resulted in a shortage of hemp rope in the hardware store....period.
What a absolutely shameful lot.
Star...should I even bother anymore?

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.