BetterInfill
Hello BetterInfillers—
A 72-page report buried deep in an online library reveals city hall knew there was widespread public concern about the new zoning bylaw months before council passed it. The problem for city councillors: they may have never seen it.
The great strength of BetterInfill is the huge number of talented and committed people it has brought together. It was one of these people who tipped us off about the report.
Here is the story…
“Buried Report Raises Disturbing Questions”
Timely release of 2023 report might have changed fate of zoning bylaw.
The very people the city had engaged, gave the city failing grades for engagement.
A report buried deep in a City of Edmonton online “document library” raises disturbing questions. The report, dated May 2023, is titled Sentiment Analysis Report: Zoning Bylaw Renewal Initiative Engagement, Phase 3. Its purpose was to “identify how Edmontonians felt about the changes proposed through the draft Zoning Bylaw.” In 20 of 32 themes analyzed, those feelings were negative. It appears the report was not presented to council meetings and hearings on the zoning bylaw.
An independent community researcher recently identified the 72-page report through a freedom of information request to city hall. It had been quietly posted to a city website with such low profile that its existence was unknown even to people who follow city hall closely. If it had been released when it was first prepared, the fate of Edmonton’s zoning bylaw might have been very different.
In the Sentiment Analysis Report, city staff examined 32 themes that emerged from public engagement for the final phase of the zoning bylaw. Listed in the table of contents by alphabetic order, the themes range from “Accessibility” to “Vehicle Access and Parking.” The report provided a brief discussion and summary of public comments on each theme, complete with a bar of green, yellow, and red showing the percentage of comments that show positive, neutral, or negative sentiments. The report said this “provides a snapshot of how people feel about each theme.”
For example, here is the bar on the theme of Accessibility, showing substantially more negative public sentiment than positive about the zoning bylaw’s inadequacy in addressing wheelchair access, barrier-free design, and usability:
Public sentiment was more negative than positive for 20 of the 32 themes, a clear majority.
Public engagement rated decidedly negative. The most important theme is “Public Engagement” because it cuts to the legitimacy of the entire zoning bylaw exercise. As the bar below shows, negative sentiments about engagement outnumber positive sentiments by a wide margin. “The majority of comments,” said the report, “noted concerns or dissatisfaction with the engagement to date.”
This negative rating was remarkable because it came from people who were deliberately engaged by the city, including various developer and real estate groups; MacEwan University; the public school board; and the federation of community leagues. The very people the city had engaged, gave the city failing grades for engagement.
At least those people knew about the zoning bylaw; most Edmontonians did not. The same month the public engagement for the sentiment analysis was done, May 2023, nationally recognized pollster Pollara found that 62% of Edmontonians had never heard of the zoning bylaw and only three percent knew any details. (See link at end of this article.)
Long before the zoning bylaw was presented to council, city administration described it as part of the largest overhaul of land use in Edmonton in sixty years, intended to fundamentally change the nature of the city. Change on this scale requires genuine public support. The zoning bylaw has never received genuine public support because it never had genuine public engagement.
Comprehension. Reinforcing the poor grades for public engagement are the even worse sentiments about “Comprehension.” The report defines comprehension as “…the clarity and ease of interpreting the proposed Zoning Bylaw regulations,” including word choice, definitions, and intent. Fewer than one quarter of sentiments were positive and almost 60% were negative.
Given the relatively high expertise of many of the people engaged, it’s deeply concerning the zoning bylaw caused such confusion. For ordinary citizens trying to understand the impact of the bylaw on their homes and neighbourhoods, the bylaw would be largely incomprehensible.
Did councillors ever see the report? The Sentiment Analysis Report means Edmonton city councillors voted for the zoning bylaw when the city’s own report showed widespread negative public sentiment. Only councillors Karen Principe and Jennifer Rice voted against the bylaw.
The question is, did councillors ever see the report? It wasn’t listed among reports presented by administration to council’s urban planning committee when it debated the bylaw in June 2023. Neither was it listed among reports presented to council at the final public hearing in October 2023.
According to the city’s document library, the report was posted online sometime in October 2023. It’s not clear whether it was posted before, during, or after the public hearings held that month on the bylaw. In any case, its existence remained virtually unknown to the public.
The questions get troubling. Why wasn’t the Sentiment Analysis Report included in the material presented to urban planning committee, council, and the public? Was it selectively circulated to some people and held back from others? Were some senior city staff so committed to the zoning bylaw they refused to share the report, knowing the public concerns it could raise? Were any city policies concerning public release of information violated, or was this simply a slip in the wheels of city bureaucracy?
What this means. The many Edmontonians who raised concerns at hearings were dismissed by city council and administration. Unfortunately for them, and for Edmonton, one of the most important bylaws in a lifetime was passed under a veil of misinformation and concealment.
City hall had a choice: it could have presented the Sentiment Analysis Report Phase 3 to council and the public, admitted there were too many concerns, and gone back to the public to rework the bylaw. That was the responsible option. Instead, the decision was made to manipulate the process, which fed public cynicism, mistrust, and anger, tarnishing both the bylaw and the municipal government in general. The challenge for the next council will be to rebuild trust through open and honest public engagement.
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
More detail and background:
The most commented themes. The themes in the Sentiment Report Phase 3 receiving the most positive comments, which may reflect the heavy weighting of the infill industry in the engagement process, were these:
•Landscaping (122 comments): Positives exceed negatives by 21.2%.
•Building Design (110 comments): Positives exceed negatives by 4.3%.
•Setbacks (89 comments): Positives exceed negatives by 21.7%.
•Building Height and Scale (72 comments): Positives exceed negatives by 2.1%.
The themes receiving the most negative comments were these:
•Public Engagement (118 comments): Negatives exceed positives by 19%.
•Comprehension, including clarity and ease of interpreting the bylaw (102 comments): Negatives exceed positives by 35.2%.
•Neighbourhood Character and Heritage (70 comments): Negatives exceed positives by 6.9%.
•Implementation, Process, and Technology (65 comments): Negatives exceed positives by 31.5%.
Who was engaged? The Sentiment Report said the city “heard from a wide variety of stakeholders,” including “residents” and various business and community groups. It also listed 6 “specialized stakeholders” with which it had “regular check-in meetings and presentations.” Four of the 6 were development industry groups; one represented business improvement areas; and one was the Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues (EFCL). In 2022, the EFCL had gone through an internal upheaval and signed a new funding agreement with the city, and in January 2023 presented a letter to council offering its support for the proposed zoning bylaw.
The engagement also included “a few ‘Chat with Planner’ meetings” with MacEwan University; unnamed development industry representatives; property owners and residents; and the Edmonton Public School Board.
Links to documents.
🡪The full Sentiment Analysis Report Phase 3 is available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UFWWSQ3rqJik4Y0258jVCiDzSYpP4v4C/view?ts=68c4a2f4
🡪The detailed results of the May 2023 poll are here: https://ecb17698-a1aa-4ef0-9566-4951bfca0922.usrfiles.com/ugd/ecb176_9ec09e2961404932b1187c0f4ba0423a.pdf
Hello Better Infillers—
Our numbers are growing rapidly—these emails now go to more than one thousand people. It’s a privilege to help inform Edmonton’s debate on infill.
Since it’s the middle of summer let’s start with fun: a short light-hearted YouTube video about how community consultation really seems to work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0Tgu5CnllU
We’ve heard a lot of confusion about what city council can and cannot do concerning zoning bylaws, infill, and the city plan. Sometimes councillors themselves don’t seem to understand the rules. You may know of council’s infamous debate on June 30 about declaring a moratorium on certain kinds of infill, only to decide a moratorium was legally out of order. And you may have heard some developers threaten to sue the city for lost property values if council makes zoning changes.
To cut through the confusion, BetterInfill hired a lawyer specializing in municipal law. The situation is clearer than you may think.
Here are key findings:
1. City council can change any of its bylaws, including zoning bylaws; district plans and policy; and the city plan. To do this, it must follow proper procedures, including advertising the proposed changes and holding a public hearing. City council could, for example, repeal the new zoning bylaw, district plans, and city plan, and replace them with the previous ones while it consulted with the public, as long as it followed proper procedures. Or it could restore the previous mature neighbourhood overlays requiring developers to work within neighbourhood contexts. The moratorium motion failed because it did not follow proper procedure.
2. Neither developers nor homeowners have a right to sue the city for losses that result from zoning changes. If a property loses value because of changes to zoning, the owner cannot come after the city for compensation.
3. A developer who applies for a development permit is subject to any changes in the zoning bylaw until that permit is granted. An applicant for a development permit has no right to that development until the city approves it.
4. Normally a council can only consider a bylaw once a year, but there are two exceptions. If a councillor who voted with the prevailing side changes their mind, they can bring forward a motion to revisit a bylaw in less than a year. And after a general election like the one coming October 20, the new council begins with a fresh slate: they can revisit any bylaw they want, as soon as they want.
We’ve included the opinion letter from the lawyer, Bill Shores.
LATE BREAKING NEWS!! On July 22, an esteemed group of 27 experts sent an extraordinary letter to Prime Mininster Mark Carney, presenting in two pages an incisive analysis of Canada’s housing problems and offering proven solutions. Let's hope governments at all levels pay attention. It was published by The Tyee at this link: https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2025/07/29/Memo-Carney-Robertson-Fixing-Housing/
Keep the movement growing!
--from the team at Better Infill
Please find below the opinion letter from our lawyer.
Re: Opinion Letter
You have asked for our opinion on the following questions:
A. Can the City of Edmonton change the City Plan, District Plans and Zoning Bylaw to reduce the number of infill units per lot?
B. Is compensation payable in respect of a change to the City Plan, District Plans and Zoning Bylaw to reduce the number of infill units per lot?
C. If someone has applied for a Development Permit under the current Zoning Bylaw, would a change affect them?
A. CAN THE CITY OF EDMONTON CHANGE THE CITY PLAN, DISTRICT PLANS AND ZONING BYLAW TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF INFILL UNITS PER LOT?
Answer
Yes, the City Council can amend any of these bylaws by following the process in the Municipal Government Act (“MGA”).
Analysis
Edmonton’s City Plan, the District Plans and Zoning Bylaw are each made under the bylaw making authority granted to the City of Edmonton (“City”) under bylaw making power granted under the MGA:
City Plan
City Plan is intended to satisfy the obligation of the City to adopt a municipal development plan as required under section 632 of the MGA. Under section 632, a municipal development plan must be adopted by bylaw.
District Plans
Edmonton’s District Plans are additional statutory plans authorized under section 635.1 of the MGA (which is incorporated into the MGA for the City under the City of Edmonton Charter, 2018 Regulation (“City Charter”).
The Zoning Bylaw
The Zoning Bylaw is intended to satisfy the obligation of the City to pass a land use bylaw as required under section 640 of the MGA.
Any bylaw made under the MGA can be amended by the Council, who must follow the same process as required for the original bylaw. Section 191 of the MGA expressly provides for the amendment of any bylaw made under it. The relevant subsections read:
Amendment and repeal
191(1) The power to pass a bylaw under this or any other enactment includes a power to amend or repeal the bylaw.
(2) The amendment or repeal must be made in the same way as the original bylaw and is subject to the same consents or conditions or advertising requirements that apply to the passing of the original bylaw, unless this or any other enactment provides otherwise.
In short, any City bylaw can be amended or replaced by following the advertising and public hearing requirements set out in the MGA.
Municipal councils must be free to amend or alter their bylaws as circumstances dictate. They cannot bind themselves or a successor council to a course of action. An undertaking, a promise or a contract to maintain zoning cannot be enforced and cannot give rise to damages resulting from rezoning.
In a recent decision, the Court of King’s Bench said:
“it cannot be said that property owners have a right to the continued existence of the regime prevailing at any given time.”
B. IS COMPENSATION PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF A CHANGE TO THE CITY PLAN, DISTRICT PLANS AND ZONING BYLAW TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF INFILL UNITS PER LOT?
Answer
No. Generally, if changes are based on valid planning purposes, compensation would not be payable for the impact on the value of land from changes to any of these bylaws.
Analysis
Any change to planning bylaws is likely to affect the value of that land, either increasing or decreasing the value of a parcel. A landowner does not have to pay compensation to the City when a zoning change increases the value of their land. A landowner cannot claim compensation from the City if there is a reduction to the value of their land as a result of a zoning change that is made in accordance with the MGA.
The MGA expressly denies the right to compensation for bylaws made under Part 17 of the MGA, which deals with planning and development. Section 621(1) provides:
Compensation
621(1) Except as provided in this Part and in section 28 of the Historical Resources Act, nothing in this Part or the regulations or bylaws under this Part gives a person a right to compensation.
(2) Subsection (1) applies only to this Part and does not create, extinguish or affect rights created, extinguished or affected by the rest of this Act.
City Plan, the District Plans and the Zoning Bylaw are all made under Part 17 and accordingly protected from claims for compensation by section 621(1). In respect of section 621(2), no other provision of the MGA provides any right to compensation from the City for an amendment or replacement of a bylaw made under Part 17.
C. IF SOMEONE HAS APPLIED FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING BYLAW, WOULD A CHANGE AFFECT THEM?
Answer
Yes. Generally, an application for a development permit that has been made but not decided, is subject to the provisions of the new bylaw.
Analysis
Once a permit is issued (and the limitation period for appealing passes), the person to whom it is issued has the vested right to develop in accordance with the permit. However, an application for a development permit does not create any vested rights in the applicant. If a developer applies for a permit and before the developer receives the permit, the City amends the bylaw to reduce the number of infill units, the new bylaw applies to the application.
However, as we have discussed, it would not be open to the City to administratively put a hold on consideration of development permits while a new bylaw made its way through Council. That would be problematic from the perspective of lawfulness and good faith. During the consideration of the new bylaw, the City development officers would have to continue to consider permit applications in the ordinary course and issue permits where applications comply with the bylaw in effect at the time.
CONCLUSION
The establishment of planning bylaws, including City Plan, the District Plans and the Zoning Bylaws, are exercises of democratic decision making by City Council under the MGA. As long as Council acts in accordance with the MGA and for legitimate planning purposes, Council can amend the Land Use Bylaw by reducing the number of infill units (and indeed even take more drastic action to limit where infill units can be built or the rules relating to them).
A developer has no more rights to a specific planning regime than a homeowner on a neighbouring lot. Both of them are subject to changes in the law and neither of them are entitled to compensation when the law changes in accordance with the MGA.
LIMITS ON USE OF OPINION
This opinion is prepared based on the general questions posed and provides general advice in response. It is not intended to be used and should not be used in respect of any specific matter involving a specific property, the zoning applicable to a specific property or any application for a development or use of a specific property or any issue respecting compensation arising from circumstances unique to a specific property. Land use planning law is complex and factually dependent. Specific legal advice must be sought for issues respecting specific properties and their circumstances.
Hello BetterInfillers—
This Saturday BetterInfill is hosting a live discussion and QnA with Larry Beasley, Canada’s most renowned urban planner. Larry is a strong advocate of neighbourhood engagement in urban planning, believing that people have a right to a voice in how change is managed in their neighbourhoods. You may know of Larry from his webinars with us.
Larry will be projected live onto a screen and people in the room will have a chance to ask questions. What is reasonable to expect in neighbourhood planning? How can neighbours organize? What is neighbourhood-led planning? What works and what doesn’t? There’s no end to the topics.
Larry will field questions and share a lifetime of experience to take back to your neighbourhood.
There are about a dozen spaces still open. BetterInfill is covering the cost so there is no charge. Meet and linger in person with other concerned citizens.
The session is this Saturday, June 14, from 2-4 pm in the upper hall at Belgravia Community League, 116 Street and 74 Avenue.
Register by email to betterinfill@gmail.com. Space is limited.
THIS WILL BE AMAZING.
--The Team at BetterInfill
P.S. If you don’t think it’s time for people to regain a voice in what happens in their neighbourhoods, the photo below was recently taken in Crestwood by the man whose house is in the middle. If this can happen there, it can happen anywhere.
P.P.S. Please, no candidates for the upcoming election.
Hello Better Infill—
We begin with what may be the most important news concerning Edmonton’s infill since the zoning bylaw was passed. In February, BetterInfill received unrelated emails from three neighbourhoods asking if there was a multi-neighbourhood campaign to press for better ways to manage infill. In one neighbourhood 350 people signed a petition in a week; in another, 170 came to a meeting on infill. A third neighbourhood had set up its own website on infill.
BetterInfill hosted an initial meeting, where people from a handful of neighbourhoods met to share concerns and strategy. A week later a dozen neighbourhoods met. Ten days later people from more than twenty neighbourhoods came out, and Edmonton Neighbourhoods United was born.
More than thirty neighbourhoods are now connected, and the number is rising fast. Neighbourhoods are no longer prepared to be picked off one-by-one by city hall and developers.
Edmonton Neighbourhoods United (ENU) is supporting neighbourhoods that want to push back at zoning and infill policies and demand better. One of their first actions was to host a very informative webinar on the new infill bylaws with Jan Hardstaff. You’ll learn a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ9pilMgqLE
Visit ENU’s website at www.edmontonneighbourhoodsunited.com, get a lawn sign, consider becoming a neighbourhood leader, and PLEASE sign their petition.
Consider speaking at one or both of the following two city hall meetings.
On May 20 council will decide whether to proceed with another experiment in zoning: a mass rezoning of 1400 properties to higher density. The properties are in selected “priority growth areas”: Garneau; 124 Street corridor; Oliver; Stony Plain Road corridor; and 156 Street corridor.
Mass rezonings like this are not normal. Usually developers apply for rezonings, so why is council doing it for them in advance, 1400 times over? City administration claims this makes it easier for developers, but the Canadian Home Builders Association already ranks Edmonton as the easiest big city in Canada for developers.
Learn more at the city’s link: https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/city_vision_and_strategic_plan/priority-growth-area-rezoning
See the maps of the areas being rezoned and the list of addresses here: https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/default/files/public-files/BL21128.pdf?cb=1747160824
Register to speak May 20 by calling the City Clerk’s Office (780-496-8178) or at this link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfjK1JQOPRWVORUVKsSbRn3yLN5E9vcVLu3nifMO4N1ZfmgFg/viewform
On June 3, city administration is bringing a one-year review of the zoning bylaw to city council's urban planning committee. Every Edmontonian has the right to speak to this committee for five minutes.
You don’t have to be Shakespeare; just be yourself. Describe what you’re seeing in your neighbourhood. Is it what you want? How could it be better? Have you had any say in what’s happening? Explore www.BetterInfill.ca and www.EdmontonNeighbourhoodsUnited.ca for information that will help you prepare.
Here is a link to the city website to register to speak at the June 3 urban planning committee. The infill industry will be there pressing for even more concessions; councillors need to hear from neighbourhoods.
Finally, reaction to our special report Tough Questions for the EFCL has been strong. (Read the article at www.betterinfill.ca.) We’ve been especially gratified by comments from people with direct knowledge of the events we wrote about:
“Very well researched and written...It all needed to be said.”
“I loved the article.”
“[O]nce I started I couldn't quit reading it. It really demonstrates the transition of EFCL from being a critical partner of leagues to being a partner of the city.”
“My wish is for everyone affected by this zoning nightmare to carefully consider the facts...and take all necessary steps to reclaim the EFCL and restore its rightful role in empowering communities and citizens.”
It is time the taxpayers of Edmonton get what they want and not what city hall wants! From their beginning two years ago, people have repeatedly asked us why their community leagues have been absent from discussions on the new zoning bylaw and district plans, which bring the biggest changes to Edmonton’s neighbourhoods in a lifetime. Community leagues are the voice of citizens, and that voice has gone almost silent.
Check out www.betterinfill.ca, scroll down to important reads and click on view article to download the pdf. Make the EFCL (edmonton federation of community leagues) effective again! Reinstate their funding and make them independent from city hall again which would be one thing that would help a lot with corruption in city hall and would bring back power to the citizens in regards to zoning and many other issues of concern to Edmontonions.
Every community league in Edmonton should open their own group on focaLOCAL.com and get the ball rolling for change at the local level.
Most Edmontonians don't really understand what the the City's new District Plan Policyis all about. Thanks to Lorne Gunter who scoured the fine print and the volunteer group BetterInfill.ca residents who have been sharing infuriating glimpses into the new district plan’s shocking details. Better Infill thinks what is proposed in Edmonton’s district plans are far more radical than proposed changes in any other Canadian city.
What treally is being proposed in the City's new District Plan Policy and who is driving this massive change to Edmonton's landscape? Call your City Councillor to ask then how they voted and why? Contact Keren Tang for Ward Karhiio -780-496-8142 or keren.tang@edmonton.ca.