This is the third part in our week-long series The Future of Ottawa. In this post City Councillor Jeff Leiper tackles the issue of what roles the private and public sectors need to play in the future development of Ottawa. Twitter users: use hashtag #futott if you want to discuss this series on Twitter.
During the recent municipal election campaign, the issues in Kitchissippi were predominantly about growth. Our transition from a sleepy government town to fast-growing metropolis is both exciting and challenging.
Across Kitchissippi, voters raised time and time again the need to build Light Rail Transit (LRT), while mitigating its impacts on our residential areas. They raised the need for intensification to combat urban sprawl, while maintaining the character of the neighbourhoods in which they live. They raised the desire for parks and recreational programming, but were also worried about the potential for high taxes to render their communities unaffordable.
The public interest that lies between all these considerations can be difficult to discern. Based on what voters told Kitchissippi candidates at the door, however, it would include at least the following elements:
- Environmental sustainability;
- Shared economic prosperity;
- Cultural and recreation opportunities that are inclusive and healthy.
This article was originally pitched to me by Apartment613 as an opportunity to argue that when it comes to urban development , “public trumps private”. That doesn’t, however, always seem to be the case.
Photo of Jeff Leiper by Justin Van Leeuwen courtesy of Apartment613 flickr pool
Across the city, there are big swaths of land that will eventually be developed. Many are in public hands. In Kitchissippi ward, the Bayview Yards property, Tunney’s Pasture and 250 Lanark come to mind. Lebreton Flats is an obvious example the next ward over.
There are many more across the City. The challenge with which we’ll have to grapple in the coming years is how best to develop these parcels in the public interest. But what does that mean?
For instance, is it in the public interest to relocate the private-sector Ottawa Senators to Lebreton Flats, a location with excellent public transit? Such a move has obvious environmental benefits that can contribute to a better quality of life through reduced traffic congestion.
There are significant costs being borne today by the public associated with our hockey team being so far away from the downtown core that are hard to discern on a balance sheet. A private use for public land could be in the public interest if it helps mitigate those costs.
Then there is the Bayview Innovation Centre, in which the private sector can foster the next generation of companies that will contribute to job growth and attract investment. At Tunney’s Pasture or 250 Lanark, housing development by the private sector has the potential to increase supply and thus (theoretically) reduce prices for housing within the Greenbelt, increasing our chances of developing in an affordable, sustainable and environmentally friendly manner.
So, private development of public land can sometimes be in the public interest. Sustainability and shared prosperity, in particular, are not always incompatible with private sector profit motives.
What about cultural and recreational opportunities? Here it seems that the balance between the public and private sectors is more lopsided.
Market forces alone rarely result in the creation of new libraries, recreation centres, parks, ballet companies or art galleries. These almost always require public support.
Photo by Trevor Pritchard courtesy of Apartment613 flickr pool
As our city grows, the potential is real that if we rely solely on the private sector to make good on the public interest, then our cultural and recreational resources will suffer, or be exclusive to those able to pay. The big chunks of public land in our city could give these a leg up. Many of the swaths under discussion will be on the new light rail lines, easily accessible to all.
Improving the city’s recreational and cultural life – particularly if it is to be inclusive – will be difficult to achieve if we rely solely on the private sector.
Many public interest uses in these fields could never compete for prime real estate against profitable companies. Yet, a library or community centre could stand more to gain from being in an excellent location, which can be made possible through the granting of public land.
Economists call instances in which the public good cannot be met through market mechanisms “market failure”. It seems that an approach to growth that recognizes the contribution by the private sector to our environmental sustainability and prosperity alongside that of the public sector’s is needed. A thoughtful balance, with appropriate regulation, will help us achieve these goals.
