Tegan Hill and Austin Thompson are analysts at the Fraser Institute. According to Calgarians for Thoughtful Growth (CFTG) — an organization advocating against “blanket rezoning” — housing would be more affordable if the mayor and council restricted what homes can be built in Calgary and where. But that gets the economics backwards.Blanket rezoning — a 2024 policy that allowed homebuilders to construct duplexes, townhomes, and fourplexes in most neighbourhoods — allowed more homebuilding, giving Calgarians more choice, and put downward pressure on prices. Mayor Farkas and several councillors campaigned on repealing blanket rezoning, and on December 15, council will debate a motion that could start that process. As Calgarians debate the city’s housing rules, residents should understand the trade-offs involved.When CFTG claims that blanket rezoning does “nothing” for affordability, it ignores a large body of economic research showing the opposite. .QUESNEL: Sacred or sinister? Rethinking religious defences in hate speech.New homes are only built when they can be sold to willing homebuyers for a profit. Restrictions that limit the range of styles and locations for new homes, or that lock denser housing behind a long, costly, and uncertain municipal approval process, inevitably eliminate many of these opportunities. That means fewer new homes are built, which worsens housing scarcity and pushes up prices. This intuitive story is backed up by study after study. An analysis by Canada’s federal housing agency put it simply: “higher residential land use regulation seems to be associated with lower housing affordability.”CFTG also claims that blanket rezoning merely encourages “speculation” (i.e. buying to sell in the short term for profit) by investors. Any profitable housing market may invite some speculative activity. But homebuilders and investors can only survive financially if they make homes that families are willing to buy or rent..The many Calgary families who bought or rented a new home enabled by blanket rezoning did so because they felt it was their best available option given its price, amenities, and location — not because they were pawns in some speculative game. Calgarians benefit when they are free to choose the type of home and neighbourhood that best suits their family, rather than being constrained by the political whims of city hall.And CFTG’s claim that blanket rezoning harms municipal finances also warrants scrutiny. More specifically, CFTG suggests that developers do not pay for infrastructure upgrades in established neighbourhoods, but this is simply incorrect. The City of Calgary charges an “Established Area Levy” to cover the cost of water and wastewater upgrades spurred by redevelopment projects — raising $16.5 million in 2024 alone. Builders in the downtown area must pay the “Centre City Levy,” which funds several local services (and generated $2.5 million in 2024). .PINDER: The West’s breaking point — how Canada’s emissions policies expose a rigged federation.It's true that municipal fees on homes in new communities are generally higher, but that reflects the reality that new communities require far more new pipes, roads, and facilities than established neighbourhoods. Redeveloping established areas of the city means more residents can make use of streets, transit, and other city services already in place, which is often the most cost-effective way for a city to grow. .The City of Calgary’s own analysis finds that redevelopment in established neighbourhoods saves billions of taxpayer dollars on capital and operating costs for city services compared to an alternative scenario where homebuilding is concentrated in new suburban communities. An honest debate about blanket rezoning ought to acknowledge the advantages this system has in promoting housing choice, housing affordability, and the sustainability of municipal finances. .OLDCORN: Accountability, not politics — $34 million ‘questionable’ spending at Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations.Clearly, many Calgarians felt blanket rezoning was undesirable when they voted for mayoral and council candidates who promised to change Calgary’s zoning rules. However, Calgarians also voted for a mayor who promised that more homes would be built faster and at affordable prices — something that will be harder to achieve if city hall imposes tighter restrictions on where and what types of homes can be built. This unavoidable tension should be at the heart of the debate. CFTG is promoting a comforting fairy tale where Calgary can tighten restrictions on homebuilding without limiting supply or driving up prices. In reality, no zoning regime delivers everything at once — greater neighbourhood control inevitably comes at the expense of housing choice and affordability. Calgarians — including the mayor and council — need a clear understanding of the trade-offs.Tegan Hill and Austin Thompson are analysts at the Fraser Institute.
