Is the opposition to the current application by Queenscorp to re-develop 4099 Erin Mills Parkway "NIMBY" (Not in My Backyard), as well as Anti-Housing and Anti-Immigrant?
Who claims that we are "NIMBY"? Why do they take that position?
How should we respond?
We are asking for Quality in My Backyard (QIMBY). We study Developers' applications and provide reasoned responses. If the particular application does not provide affordable housing that fits and improves the surrounding environment and community, we oppose THAT PARTICULAR APPLICATION.
We are not "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) hard-left or hard-right activists.
We are not "Yes In My Backyard" (YIMBY) hard-left or hard-right activists.
YIMBY:
Unfortunately some media and some politicians who favour the YIMBY approach, unfairly label anyone who disagrees with them as "NIMBY". YIMBYs are developers, politicians, media, and others who support ANY development, at all costs to the community and the environment, without regard to benefit to the existing or future community. They are not really concerned with affordable housing. They act without thinking about Quality.
NIMBY:
There are members of every community who oppose anything new, any development, no matter how much it helps the environment, affordable housing, public transportation, or reasonable densification. They do not take the time to read plans or engage in meaningful dialogue. They act without thinking about Quality.
QIMBY:
We should never agree or concede that we are NIMBY, because we are QIMBY. We seek quality in affordable housing for current residents and and have sound reasons for opposing a specific Developer's application, at 4099 Erin Mills Parkway, that is not well-planned, and WILL NOT result in affordable housing, benefit to the community, or benefit immigrants. The specific application that we oppose contradicts the original Erin Mills New Town plan AND Mississauga's current and future Official Plan 2051.
Examples of the YIMBY approach specifically directed at the residents of Erin Mills South:
"Not-so-fondly known as “Queen NIMBY” (Not In My Backyard) and the “Queen of No” on social media, Crombie’s extensive anti-housing record should render her candidacy a nonstarter in a province where housing affordability and, in particular, housing supply is the No. 1 issue."
"This was exemplified at a recent Mississauga planning and development committee meeting where there was discussion of a proposed 700-unit residential development comprising five buildings on a site that’s currently home to an outdated plaza. The buildings would range from six to 11 storeys in height."
"At the meeting, a group opposed to the development presented a video with taped interviews that ranged from ironic to downright offensive parroting of discriminatory stereotypes. The most shocking segment featured a woman who implied the condo units were likely to attract sex traffickers."
“Ontario and the GTA is a huge area actually for the trafficking of women and children. So I see this as being a potential actual threat to children that may be using the park if there’s such a large, unknown population living in this building,” she said."
"Other interviewees expressed concerns about the “strangeness of larger neighbourhoods,” “that (residents) will be peering down,” and that the traffic would “not be safe for the children,” even though the site currently houses a shopping plaza."
"These are classic, baseless excuses to oppose increased density near one’s own home while still claiming to support more housing in a general, theoretical sense. Elected officials who promote such fallacies risk running afoul of the Ontario Human Rights Code."
[The National Post was talking about us and our presentations May 29, 2024 before the City of Mississauga Planning & Development Committee. See agenda item 6.3:
2. In the House of Commons a motion was placed before the House on May 3, 2023. See 44th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION, Journals, No. 190, Wednesday, May 3, 2023, 2:00 p.m.
"on the motion of Mr. Poilievre (Carleton), seconded by Mr. Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka), — That, ...
"the House call on the government to make renting affordable and home ownership a reality for more Canadians by enacting policies that will remove big city gatekeepers, NIMBY local politicians who block construction of new housing, and unnecessary red tape by:
a) tying federal infrastructure dollars for municipalities to the number of new homes built, and imposing clawbacks on municipalities who delay new home construction;
(b) tying federal funding for major transit projects to cities that pre-emptively "up-zone" lands around transit infrastructure for high-density housing so that young and middleclass people don't need to use cars; and
(c) making available 15% of under-utilized federal properties across Canada for new housing while guaranteeing an appropriate ratio of affordable units in the developments.
The question was put on the motion and it was negatived."
3. June 1, 2023: On "X", previously known as "Twitter", please see the following posts by Scott Aitchison (Member of Parliament for Parry Sound—Muskoka & Conservative Shadow Minister for Housing and Diversity and Inclusion):
"There was a planning meeting in Mississauga this week. They were evaluating a proposal with over 700 new units. Let me show you the gatekeepers @PierrePoilievre and I will remove to get more homes built."
"Next up we have Councillor Mahoney. Instead of leading, he panders to the NIMBY crowd. Just listen to the applause for this gatekeeper."
"He uses an argument that I hear often - I'm opposed to this project because "it's not affordable." It's a smokescreen. It's a distraction. Even the CMHC says building more homes will bring affordability."
"That's just a brief look at the 'Gatekeeper Convention' that Mississauga hosted this week. The Federal Liberals think this is okay. That everything is going just fine. They let big cities like Mississauga get away with blocking homes. @PierrePoilievre and I won't stand for it."
Comments