Some months ago, I was shocked to read Alfred Nikolai, president and CEO of Habitat for Humanity, quoted as saying, “How the homes are structured isn’t a concern for us …” I thought, “Could Habitat have changed so much since I was involved with it?” I was on the board of directors when Habitat first started in Edmonton. Back then Habitat’s mission was “a decent house in a decent community.”
So I visited the website of Habitat for Humanity International. Their mission statement still talks about “decent houses in decent communities.” Their construction technologies specify “durable, safe, healthy, energy efficient and sustainable houses.” While local affiliates are independently run, they operate within the framework of the Habitat Affiliate Covenant.
What community would not welcome such a development in their midst? The new homeowners, having put in 500 equity hours, are motivated and competent to maintain their homes. The first blitz build in Edmonton was a simple, attractive, well built home that fit very well into the neighbourhood.
The first problem with the Arlington Drive proposal was that the local Habitat for Humanity affiliate chose to team up with an inexperienced developer. The plan they presented was terribly flawed (cramped living quarters, drainage ditches, no yards for children to play in). I can’t understand any city council that would look twice at such a development plan, let alone be prepared to bend rules to make it happen. Crowding people into tenement-like buildings does not begin to provide them with decent housing. Where is the incentive to maintain their properties?
The second problem was the chosen location. Infill is good, but why is it that the green spaces are targeted for infill? Green spaces are necessary for air quality and for the quality of life of the residents. The plan presented had far too many buildings and parking lots to retain any green space or any privacy for homes adjacent to the development.
When Akinsdale residents attempted to point out the flaws in the plan, they were unjustly vilified as NIMBYists and bullies. Dave Evans summed up our approach best when he said, “residents’ concerns were more about having the development fitting into the neighbourhood in a way that’s reasonable for the space.”
To placate residents, charettes were held, supposedly to obtain input from the people. The charettes should have been called charades, as city council subsequently ignored the residents’ input.
Habitat was concerned that reducing the number of residences rendered the development unfeasible. Considering that Habitat was to receive the property gratis and that they receive donated building supplies and that much of the labour is volunteered, perhaps this was simply too big a project for them to take on. Maybe Habitat could more effectively use their resources by going back to building single-family homes and duplexes.
I recognize that there are people who need affordable housing (maybe not as many as city council would have us believe). But when you try to help too many people at once, you help no one. I don’t think that throwing up slum housing was what Habitat for Humanity envisioned when they talked about giving people a “hand up.”
Patricia Jackel, St. Albert
