It comes at great political cost to be an elected official who makes a choice that prioritizes future generations in the face of what can feel like overwhelming opposition demanding their eyes turn to relieve the short-term inconveniences of the present.

When change, progress, iteration, and innovation become synonymous with resistance, anger, hate, and contempt, the easiest thing to do for a political leader is nothing. In municipal politics, inaction is often rewarded and action always challenged.

A local high school student visiting city hall on a field trip once remarked, “Doesn’t seem like it makes political sense to actually solve problems.” Look back at the solutions City Hall has attempted over the last few years.

Secondary suites took eight years to approve after first being proposed by incoming Mayor Naheed Nenshi in 2010. Calgary was once divided over the Peace Bridge, now seen in every tourism video here and abroad. The Downtown Conversion program is constantly under fire despite international acclaim.

Now, many Calgarians once again oppose a made-in-Calgary solution to our housing crisis that is leading the nation in housing construction, rent decreases, and ensuring that Calgary families have more choice in the housing they choose than any other city in Canada.

And yet, Calgary City Council is currently debating a repeal of that solution, and returning us to a time where inaction defined our housing market. The policies that a majority of council have committed to bringing back led to a Calgary home costing more than five times what an average family makes in a year.

Since 2001, the cost of a single detached home in Calgary has tripled. The average rent in Calgary in 2021 was $1,347; by the time the Housing Strategy was passed, rent was $1,870. Imagine the strain on Calgary families when, before these increases, 1 in 5 households were already overpaying just to keep a roof over their head.

Calgary has been under great strain due to rapid population growth, has a deepening deficit in the number of homes available, and significant competition driving costs higher, which puts more people in need of affordable options.

These cost escalations, if left alone, would’ve become the new normal for Calgarians. Without strategic intervention to reverse the extremes of an increasingly unaffordable city, city council will simply become observers as Calgarians struggle, trying desperately to point to someone else (past councils, Ottawa, the UCP, immigrants) to deflect from their choices.

Despite the desire for housing solutions, decisions are unpopular

According to Abacus Data, 64 per cent of Canadians think municipal governments aren’t doing enough to address affordability for families looking to buy a home. Further, Abacus reports that Canadians want solutions for more than just homeownership; they want rents to come down, and to build more non-market affordable housing. Canadians are calling for a solution that spans the entire housing sector, not just one part of it. And Calgary already has one.

So why is Calgary City Council debating repealing the rezoning part of its own Housing Strategy, despite how much need there is in our community? Because the solutions to the housing crisis and the change they demanded were unpopular.

In the last election, many candidates aligned themselves with a very loud voting bloc that opposed rezoning and the Housing Strategy, despite being the most unaffected by the housing crisis: Homeowners above the age of 45. Calgary city council has committed to elevating the voices of those who have homes, rather than putting their time and energy into supporting those who are in pursuit of an affordable home.

Many homeowners, and voters, benefit from housing prices increasing. While most housing opponents look at homebuilders and developers as profit-mongering crooks, they do so to absolve themselves of their own profit motivations. While levying accusations, many opponents to rezoning cite homeownership as their “biggest investment,” and people want their investments rise in value and turn a profit. Homeowners and housing opponents alike look to reap a windfall from escalating housing prices, while placing the cost on the feet of future generations trying to buy into the Canadian dream of homeownership.

Young people, or the generation in waiting, have never been a powerful voting bloc and just under a third of young people don’t believe homeownership is in their future. Statistics Canada has in the past shown that in municipal elections across Canada, approximately 65 per cent of voters were above the age of 45.

This generational divide plays out often in council chambers, where a simple scan of the room during a public hearing demonstrates the influence our aging populations have in municipal politics.

Fresh off the campaign trail, Mayor Jeromy Farkas said “council [has] to show Calgarians that we’re taking their concerns seriously and getting to work on them” when talking about repealing rezoning. An election survey from Janet Brown Opinion Research demonstrated that, despite voters electing a city council that primarily campaigned on repealing rezoning, save for a few, a majority of people below the age of 45 support keeping rezoning, while a majority of those 45+ oppose it.

This is the primary dilemma of the housing debate. When weighing the competing interests of Calgarians, should Councillors steward the city with the needs of the next generation in mind, even when they are minority voters? Or should Councillors prioritize those that are more likely to vote for them, at the cost of an affordable future?

Rent spikes and an abundance of alley bins aren’t created equal: Walcott

Councillors often attempt to utilize ‘both-sidesism’ or false equivalence in the face of such strong emotions. Housing is a very emotional subject, and people, both for rezoning and against, present their position with strong feelings and no shortage of tears.

Councillors struggle to step back from the emotions to work through, validate, and quantify the concerns of their constituents. Instead, councillors often choose to hold all concerns as equal. This problem is not unique to Calgary municipal politics, either.

But are year-over-year double-digit rent increases really equivalent to “too many recycling bins in the alley?”

Is competing with neighbours to park your second, third, or fourth car on the street really equivalent to building a city that makes home ownership a possibility for future generations?

Is protecting the aesthetic appeal (re: community character) of your community worth more than giving families a chance to live in the neighbourhoods Calgarians love?

These issues are not equal. Calgarians and councillors alike who can’t see this imbalance are blinded by their own concerns rather than supporting the future of Calgary, its next generation, and those most in need of housing. The fear and discomfort that accompany change should not be prioritized over the threatening realities of our current housing challenges.

You can’t both-sides your way through the housing crisis.

I recognize, having sat in those seats, the painful political cost of looking Calgarians in the eye and saying, “I hear you, but I disagree.” And while critics often claim this as “not listening to constituents,” a councillor’s job is to triage the issues in front of them and make an informed decision that is in the best interest of all Calgarians, not just appeasing the ones that vote, or the ones that show up to a public hearing.

Building Calgary with the next generation in mind has always been politically costly. Now we get to find out if that cost is too high for this Calgary city council.