Hamilton councillors vote down a massive expansion to the city's urban boundary

Hamiltoncity councillors havevoted down a controversial plan to expand the city's urban boundary by1,310 hectares.

After more than nine hours of discussion, councillors voted 13-3 against an "ambitious density" scenario. That scenario would have expanded the city limits to so-called "whitebelt" land betweenthe existing boundary and the greenbelt.

It was seen as a win bythe advocates who had spentmuch of 2021 rallying in support of a no-expansion option.

Now city planning staff will report back in January with a plan toaccommodate Hamilton's projected population growth over the next 30 years, but without expanding the boundary.

Those who wanted the expansionsay the decisionwill nowrestrict people who want backyards and single-family homes.

Those against the expansion Friday cited climate change as a factor,and a desire to see how much housing is built along the city's planned light-rail transit line from McMaster University to Eastgate Square.

Most of all, those opposed to expansion say they don't want to gobble up precious land for growing food.

"That's what's caused me serious concern," said Tom Jackson, Ward 6 (east Mountain) councillor.

Jackson said he still anticipates residents complaining about more density in neighbourhoods. He also pointed out that most, if not all, of the councillors live in single-family homes.

"I'm lucky to have my little bungalow," he said."My own little piece of earth."

Terry Whitehead, Ward 14 (west Mountain) councillor, voted for the expansion, saying people need choices when it comes to housing. Rejecting the expansion, he said, will only create more commuters, working against people's desire to protect the environment.

"We're closing the gate behind us so my children, your children, will never be able to afford a single-family home," he said.

"We're making a huge mistake right now, and land values will jump significantly and will be priced beyond our control."

Mayor Fred Eisenbergerdoesn't think so. At Eisenberger's prompting, city staff will now report every year on the following:

• Residential intensification.
• Construction activity in terms of housing mix.
• Supply of vacant land to accommodate forecasted growth.
• A comparison of actual versus forecasted growth.

If need be, Eisenberger said, the city can revisit the issue later. For now, "there's an opportunity here for us to create the kinds of infill andintensification that we aspire to," he said.

"This is not a no-growth option. This is a where-do-we-grow option. And in my view, that where-do-we-grow option ought to exist in the current urban boundary."

City staff hadsaid an expansion wasnecessary to meet provincial density targets, and to accommodate a projected population increase of236,000 people over the next 30 years, for a total population of 820,000 by 2051.In that time, the expansionplan said, the city will need to grow by 110,000 more housing unitsand 122,000 more jobs.

The province can still intervene and force a plan on the city.

How they voted

In favour of the urban boundary expansion

Lloyd Ferguson (Ward 12), Maria Pearson (10), Terry Whitehead (14).

Who was opposed

Maureen Wilson (1), Jason Farr (2), Nrinder Nann (3), Sam Merulla (4), Russ Powers (5), Tom Jackson (6), Esther Pauls (7), John-Paul Danko (8), Brad Clark (9), Brenda Johnson (11), Arlene VanderBeek (13), Judi Partridge (15).