Paving Paradise for a Parking Lot?
It’s hard to imagine an issue coming to Council that better reflects Joni Mitchell’s hit, “Big Yellow Taxi”. While Joni famously croons, “Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. They paved paradise, put up a parking lot.”, some in our community are hoping these prophetic words will not reflect their reality. You see, a local business is hoping to expand and is requesting that Kitchener Council allows it to demolish existing housing, for more parking no less. Let’s dig into this a bit more.
The Henry Walser Funeral Home (at 507 Frederick), which opened in 2001, is looking to install a crematorium on-site and to expand its parking lot. The proposed parking lot would be built where three homes currently exist (40, 44, and 48 Becker St). These are home to nine households who are paying rents that are considered affordable in today’s market.
The staff report for this proposal states, “The expansion proposal would require the demolition of existing residential building(s) to accommodate the required off-street parking. Planning staff understand that some of these units are currently occupied by renters.” So, this essentially means that Council is being asked to turn housing into a parking lot. This, even after Council declared a climate emergency in 2019. In response to that declaration passing, Councillor Ioannidis said, “Council’s unanimous approval of the motion sends a strong message that we must continue to diligently consider the environmental repercussions of our every decision.” Here’s hoping Council takes that to heart when reviewing this development application.
The staff report for this proposal mentions the Growth Plan which states that municipalities should, “Provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate the needs of all household sizes and incomes.” Becker Street is offering some of that much-needed diversity of housing, especially at the more affordable end of the spectrum.
On the city’s website, it states that “Demolition control must be carried out carefully to make sure there are no residential units lost within Kitchener.” Further, “Policy 3.A.15 requires area municipalities to develop official plan policies to regulate the demolition of existing residential rental units; any replacement units will include the same or higher number of units of comparable bedroom mix and affordability.” Given this proposal is to replace these homes with a parking lot, it seems to me this proposal goes against the city’s intentions with this policy.
I also have some concerns around the process of potentially evicting these residents. The WR Record mentions that one couple received an eviction notice stating that Walser (the applicant) has “obtained the necessary building permits or other authorization to convert, demolish or repair the rental unit,” while the city said he has not. In fact, City staff say Walser has not received demolition permits for the homes, and the zoning bylaw and the planning amendments he needs for the expansion still need council approval. Walser’s response was that he “accidentally checked the wrong box on the eviction form and should have checked that he intended to get the required permits.” While I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, that response seems rather unlikely to me. However, if that is indeed what happened, when dealing with evicting people from their homes, you must take it seriously enough to fill out the forms correctly.
The Walser Funeral Home expansion was discussed at Kitchener Council’s Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee on January 9th, 2023, where twelve delegations spoke in opposition to the proposal (several folks also provided written submissions to Council). Delegations included Cameron Walker, one of the Becker St residents, who noted that if they were even able to secure equivalent housing, it would likely cost 2 or 3 times what they are currently paying.
It was discouraging to hear that in comparison to a comment that Mr. Walser made in response to Council asking if he would consider relocating his business. Walser said that it simply wouldn’t be feasible or affordable to do that. And, while I suspect that he may be right, his application for demolishing these homes puts nine households in the very same position where it doesn’t feel feasible or affordable to move elsewhere.
Another delegation at that meeting, Jake Martin White, reminded council that the request for demolishing these homes is for parking. “Forcing people out of their homes and losing housing, for (parking) a few peak times throughout the year, is not a responsible way to move forward.” I agree.
In response to questions from the Committee about parking needs, the applicant noted Henry Walser Funeral Home “currently has concerns with parking during peak service times, and the proposed parking plan aims to optimize parking circulation, achieve the minimum parking requirements and meet the zoning regulations.”
Council requested more information related to on-site minimum parking rates, potential building redesign, removal of Becker Street from the proposed rezoning, and to explore options regarding parking on Becker Street. Any decision on this issue was referred to the January 30th Council meeting. However, since then, it has been announced that a motion of deferral is now scheduled for the January 30th meeting, to move it to the February 27th Council meeting. I suspect Council will approve that motion of deferral and this will be back for a decision of Council in February, so stay tuned. Until then, I will leave the last word with Meg, one of the residents of the homes threatened to be demolished.
“I have an eight-year-old, and this is the only place he’s ever known and he’s lived. I know my neighbours. I’ve built community here.”
There are 666+ surface parking spaces within a 5 minute (400m) walk of the Walser funeral home. We don’t need more surface parking. We need housing. Plus, I’d estimate the tax revenue from the 9 residential units is more valuable than a parking lot despite the same services being provided for the land. Just means all other city residents have to subsidize this parking lot!
This shouldn't even have been proposed. Walser needs to get their priorities right. Housing, especially lower rent housing, is far more important than more parking. And as it's already existing, it would be a huge unnecessary environmental cost and waste to demolish functioning housing to construct a new parking lot.