Claim: At the Tri-City Chamber of Commerce debate last night Hunter Madsen again claimed that the City would pay for its amenity demands by “making developers pay their fair share”. Madsen has spoken at length about this and in the past has claimed that the City can achieve affordable housing, new parks, and amenities without impacting the value of Port Moody residents property when selling to a builder.
Verdict: False. Even Madsen himself admitted this and stated that Port Moody needs to deflate property prices.
Hunter Madsen has stated that the City can get developers to provide amenities like parks, rental housing and other items without impacting property values. Does Madsen believe it himself?
In an email written in 2018 to Coronation Park residents on the eve of that election, Madsen asked for votes in support of himself, Steve Milani and Rob Vagramov. In that e-mail, Madsen told the owners of the community that was slated to be redeveloped that “paying attention to these things (amenities, parks, and subsidized rentals) doesn’t have to delay the redevelopment process or kill the sale price of your property.”
That sounds comforting, although any land economist would surely disagree with you. Contrast that to April 19, 2022, when Madsen stated in a Council meeting while discussing the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Policy for Affordable Rental Units. Keep in mind, Madsen had just heard a presentation from City Staff and a third-party expert who told them that requiring new multi-family projects to provide a minimum of 15% subsidized housing would result in property values in Port Moody being reduced by 47%.
Madsen stated: “If they (developers) won’t be able to make the economics work because off current hyper inflated land cost…then what developers will be able to pay land Owners for parcels will go down”. Madsen continued, speaking about what he called “unrealistically, unsustainably high land prices” and stated that “we have to find a way to deflate gradually”.
This is a very different claim that he made to Coronation Park residents. You can watch the video for yourself here – tune in at the 2:55:45 mark.
You can also read the e-mail to Coronation Park residents below, where a few other unsubstantiated claims were also made. We emphasized key items in bold, which were not bolded in the original text from Madsen in 2018
Madsen stated in 2018 that “Given its downtown location (ideal for both residential and commercial) and its proximity to Translink and amenities, Coronation Park is probably the city’s most appropriate neighbourhood to be redeveloped and densified…” Let’s compare that to his statement at Council in April 2022, Madsen stated “If we move forward with this development, we may be making the most unfortunate urban planning mistake in the history of Port Moody” Madsen then finished with “In sum, Rob, Steve and I view ourselves as your allies: let’s get Coronation Park out of the idle gear and moving forward again. This starts with receiving your support at the ballot box tomorrow, so we can make change happen at City Hall.”
Looking at what actually happened, Milani and Madsen were the two votes against the project going forward in 2022, and Madsen was quoted as saying that moving the project forward would be the most unfortunate urban planning mistake in the history of Port Moody. Read it here.
Dear Coronation Park residents:
Having read the interpretation in Grant Gardner’s report on the
conversation that Rob Vagramov, Steve Milani, and I had with CP residents
at Tyler Brown’s home in late September, I am concerned that readers might
not leave with an entirely accurate perception of where we stand regarding
the future of Coronation Park. So before you folks head to the polls
tomorrow, here is what you should know.1) Given its downtown location (ideal for both residential and
commercial) and its proximity to Translink and amenities, Coronation Park
is probably the city’s most appropriate neighbourhood to be redeveloped and
densified, and we want to see the area move from vision to sale and
construction without further delay. If we can shift the mayoralty and
majority on Council, we’re pretty sure that we can do a better job of
helping this along than your neighbourhood has gotten, of late, from the
current leadership at City Hall.2) You and your neighbours have been fully involved from the start in
decision-making about CP’s future, which is the right way to do things.
The Coronation Park community took time to go through a very difficult and
contentious but proper process of building toward neighbourhood alignment
(not complete, of course, but, at this point, very substantial) in favour
of land assembly and redevelopment. While this outcome may not be perfect
in all regards, and though it can still be improved, and while we do
understand that it’s not to everyone’s satisfaction today (and that the
dissenters have some valid gripes), we must and do support the collective
outcome as legitimate.3) The thrust of London Pacific’s message seems to be that CP
residents who are eager to move forward with the land sale are best advised
to support the city’s longstanding incumbents instead of those of us who
want to bring fresh leadership to the city. But the brute fact is that the
current regime has been at the City’s helm throughout this long, drawn-out
process over many years, and what we’ve observed looks more like
foot-dragging rather than progress toward removing critical roadblocks,
such as road access. If any of us three lived in Coronation Park at this
point – with the escalating taxes and declining neighbourhood care and
general loss of momentum around this project – we’d be pretty upset and
pissed off too. It’s got to change, and fast, but you’re likely to
continue getting exactly what you’ve been getting, so far, if you keep
re-electing the same folks who got you to this stagnant spot. Rob, Steve,
and I – each of us – believe that the City has let its Coronation Park
residents down in this affair. If elected, we’re committed to tackling the
roadblocks and getting redevelopment back into forward drive as quickly as
possible.4. That said, we have to advise you that getting your properties sold and
you moved out as quickly as possible so that you finally advance to
whatever you’re doing next will be a key goal of ours, but it cannot be our
only goal, or else we’d be lousy city leaders. That is why, yes, we have to
worry about things like ensuring that Coronation Park’s *next* residents
get enough additional park space to play with their kids (if not on the CP
parcel, then acquired elsewhere), and that the CP plan includes, alongside
all the top-priced condos, a decent amount of affordable rental housing so
that Port Moody remains a diverse, welcoming, and livable place for folks
from all walks and stages of life. These are simply the right things to do
in city development, and the right things to do for persons who care about
others in this world. Even if you’re planning to sell and leave town, we
suppose that you would wish the leaders of your next town to be worried
about such things as well.That said, paying better attention to these things doesn’t have to delay
the redevelopment process or kill the sale price of your property: what the
development community needs most of all is better clarity about the city’s
expectations in these regards, so that they can factor them into planning
and pro forma, and move forward. Fresh leadership at City Hall will get
everyone off the fence and clear up the remaining clouds of uncertainty
concerning what’s really on the plate here.In sum, Rob, Steve, and I view ourselves as your allies: let’s get
Coronation Park out of the idle gear and moving forward again. This starts
with receiving your support at the ballot box tomorrow, so that we can make
change happen at City Hall.Sincerely,
Hunter Madsen
City Councillor, candidate for re-election
Port Moody Fact Check 