From Jeff's website
https://kitchissippiward.ca/2026/03/24/clv-looking-for-benefits-relief/
CLV looking for benefits relief
March 24, 2026
As many residents will have noted, the request by CLV for additional height at their Gladstone/Loretta development has been bouncing around committee and Council for several weeks. As I noted in a previous newsletter, this is in large part due to assertions by the developer that they should get a break on their community benefits. Yesterday, the City
released a report for consideration recommending that of the roughly $7.8 million in benefits to which they had agreed, $2.3 million be removed (in today’s dollars).
The community benefits regime in Ontario has shifted significantly since I and the City first negotiated CLV’s package. The Province has implemented a significant pullback in community benefits compared to the old section 37 regime, and the City further reduced benefits owed last summer in an effort to spur housing starts. If brought forward today, there would be far fewer benefits owed – the developer has asserted those would be less than $1 million and I believe they’re right.
When CLV’s development was approved, the most important commitment was to a comprehensive package of benefits for the artists who faced displacement, worth around $3.5 million in today’s dollars.
Further, they committed to the construction of a multi-use pathway along the east side of the site and public easements for the privately-owned public space. And, we were to receive a contribution of $1 million toward the construction of a pedestrian bridge across the O-Train line at roughly Laurel as contemplated by the area’s design plan. We were also to receive $1 million toward the fund that I established to collect money for affordable housing in the ward from benefits money. It is these latter two commitments for which CLV has asked for relief.
I’m loath to accept eliminating either from the package. The Laurel street connection will be particularly useful for the many residents who will live in Gladstone Village to get to, for example, Devonshire school. Without those funds in the bank, I’m honestly not sure that it will ever get built. The Transportation Master Plan identifies it only for a feasibility study – there’s no guarantee of funding in future. Cash in the bank will be important leverage to keep momentum on that.
The ward affordable housing fund has been a success. It has been a key channel into which I’ve prioritized benefits money, and that has allowed CCOC to expand its Forward Avenue development, the Ottawa Community Land Trust to acquire its first building and, recently, to get an affordable housing project underway in the stub of Bullman.
CLV has not sought to eliminate the artist benefits (those would be preserved no matter how this vote goes) despite those being far greater than what would be owed under the new benefits regime. However, they’ve argued the $2 million for the bridge and affordable housing is the make-or-break to move ahead with the project.
To be clear, I support this project. At Corso Italia station, this is a prime location for the kind of development we want and need. We know that market conditions are tough to get any large project underway, and I share with I think all of Council a desire to see this one move ahead. I’m very cognizant that the developer will spend significant money to renew and preserve
Last summer, we overhauled our community benefits regime to drastically reduce those in locations like this. In the course of debate, though, I worked with other councillors to maintain at least some benefits rather than eliminate those completely as proposed.
City staff appear to share the view that if we relieve CLV of these two obligations, that has to be in service of getting housing built. They’ve proposed a one-year deadline to pull a building permit or the obligations will be re-imposed.
Despite the use-it-or-lose-it provision, however, I’m leaning against voting for the removal of those benefits. There is the principle of the thing. CLV made a commitment. Residents already mistrust at a high level that development is going to occur with necessary investments in the public interest.
I’m interested in hearing your views. The Planning and Housing Committee will vote on this on April 1. On the one hand, there is the risk that maintaining these obligations on the developer will delay or even stop a development that many of us would like to see move ahead. Council has made a new commitment to removing barriers to the construction of much-needed housing. On the other hand, solely serving market forces is no way to sustainably develop a city and residents expect that commitments made by developers will be delivered.
obj.ca
