I voted against this action. My voting record over the past 15 years makes clear that I’m not opposed to new development. In fact, I’m convinced that residential growth is vital to the city’s long-term health. The economic impacts of growth are significant for residents and business owners alike. Without growth, the city will eventually be forced to either appreciably increase the cost of living and doing business, reduce the level of services it provides, or both.

That said, my opinion about the proposed project hasn’t changed since I voted against advancing it last year. I think the first part of the city’s plan to acquire the subject properties and pursue a mixed-use redevelopment is well-grounded. However, I’m still not convinced the second part of the plan is right. To resolve that uncertainty, I’d prefer to take a defined period of time to thoroughly envision and evaluate alternative mixed-use concepts, such as lower densities, different tenure types (owner-occupied vs renter-occupied), affordability mixes, and western-facing facade treatments. At the same time, this would allow us to observe the appearance and impacts of the redevelopment on the former Nite N’Gale site and use those findings to inform planning for the subject site.

I’ve listened carefully to arguments opposed to this approach and acknowledge the associated risks, including a potentially lower return on the city’s investment, a longer time to reach breakeven, or market conditions softening and attracting fewer high-quality developers. While I recognize those risks, I think the combination of the already-advanced redevelopment on the former Nite N’Gale site and the proposed project—both (relatively) high-density, located in close proximity on a north-south arterial road, and with overlapping construction timelines—carries comparable risk. I’m still not ready to place that bet—at least until I’m confident we’ve taken a hard look at alternative concepts and considered the findings from the redevelopment on the former Nite N’Gale site.