We were told repealing blanket rezoning would protect taxpayers from reckless spending. Then we tallied what the repeal actually costs: more hearings, more paperwork, more delay, and $861 million in federal funding put at risk. We'd like to walk you through the numbers.
Every figure on this page comes from the City of Calgary's own published council record. We're happy to show our work — it's just the minutes.
A fiscally responsible body uses its scarcest resource — council time — sparingly. Here is how Calgary's scarcest resource was actually spent, item by item, straight from the published minutes.
We checked these figures against the City's eSCRIBE minutes line by line. If you find an error, we will correct it. Fiscal responsibility begins with getting the numbers right.
We support thoughtful growth as much as anyone. So we asked a simple question of the people who campaigned on it: what, exactly, has this council added? Here is the marquee record of the term — the decisions it chose to spend its political capital on.
The flagship act of the term: undoing the previous council's citywide housing reform — Land Use Bylaw 1P2007 amendments — after it was already in force.
On individual files, the recurring verb in the minutes is literally “refuse and abandon.” Proposed bylaws moved to the floor, then killed.
Calgary Planning Commission recommendations rescinded and sent back — re-advertise, re-hear, re-decide. The same file, twice.
“Repeal” appears in 33 of the term's contested-vote records. The defining fights were about taking things off the books.
We left space here for the marquee additions. We're still waiting on the entry.
In fairness: the buses still run and the budget still passed. We mean the fought-over decisions — the ones a council picks to define itself by. Theirs were subtractions.
Tearing things down is not a governing philosophy. It is just the part of the job that doesn't require you to agree on what comes next.
Blanket rezoning made modest homes permitted by right — no hearing, no separate vote. Pick what you'd like to build and see the process the repeal restores.
Each of these was the kind of home blanket rezoning permitted without a per-property hearing.
Select a project above to see the process the repeal restores.
The City's own staff report puts $861 million in federal Housing Accelerator Fund money at risk if the rezoning reform is fully repealed. A genuine fiscal hawk does not wave that away — and the federal government has already shown it will collect.
Entire Housing Accelerator Fund agreement cancelled. An Alberta city.
Full agreement terminated for non-compliance with the requirements.
Funding cut for failing to meet its HAF commitments.
Half an installment withheld pending corrective measures.
Reduced for non-compliance across several commitments.
Half an installment cut for non-compliance.
Six cities penalized. Two agreements cancelled outright. The money they gave back was redistributed to cities that kept their word.
Calgary signed the same kind of agreement. Reversing the reform it was built on does not save $861 million. It spends it — by sending it somewhere else.
The repeal carried 12–3. Below is how each member voted on restoring a per-property hearing for homes that had been permitted by right — and, where the minutes record it, what they said. No editorializing on the votes themselves: that is the public record.
Ward 10
“A better solution is something the community can buy into.”
Moved the repeal motion while ignoring the $861M price tag.
Ward 13
“The biggest barrier to building more housing is not zoning, it is in this building.”
Seconded the repeal while voting to add 41 more land use applications per hearing.
Ward 14
Gave no substantive debate speech. Focused on procedural challenges instead of defending the $861M cost to taxpayers.
Ward 5
“This is repeal. 100% repeal.”
Gave no debate speech. Made sure there was no room for compromise.
Mayor
“Councillor Kelly, your argument compelled me and persuaded me the most.”
Admitted the consequences were real — then voted for repeal anyway. Promised 'repeal and replace' but delivered repeal with no replacement.
Ward 2
Voted for repeal. Consistently skeptical of city-wide mandates.
Ward 1
“I will be voting for a complete repeal of blanket rezoning with no amendments.”
Refused to consider any middle ground that could have protected federal funding.
Ward 12
“I will not support any amendments that would meaningfully alter the intent of the motion.”
Cited 77% hearing support and 81% ward questionnaire support for repeal as his justification.
Ward 11
“I'm not interested in amendments today.”
Ward 11 had the second-highest redevelopment rate. Chose to punt rather than fix.
Ward 6
Gave no debate speech. Asked about helping builders and accelerating LAPs during Q&A — then voted to make building harder.
Ward 4
“Repeal carries consequences.”
“I ran to fix it. Unfortunately, fixing it is not in front of us today.”
“Leadership requires honesty about the trade offs, not denial of them.”
Gave the most honest speech in council — then voted for repeal anyway.
Ward 9
“Hope is not a housing strategy.”
“Policies that rely on indirect benefits often leave the most vulnerable waiting the longest.”
Claimed vulnerable residents were sold false hope by rezoning — then offered them nothing in return.
Ward 3
“This is not spreading the tax burden across the city. This is pushing it to the outskirts.”
“We're just doing another blanket rezoning.”
Called the repeal just another blanket rezoning — one that removes property rights instead of adding them.
Ward 7
“Are we here to preserve or are we here to steward a way to the future?”
“Our city's youth showed up and said, Where's my future?”
Proved row homes have lower parking rates than single-detached. Stood firm for Calgary's next generation.
Ward 8
“This policy needed a renovation, not a whole new build.”
“So much of what we heard demonstrated things needed to change. But instead of fixing it, we're tearing it all down.”
Got admin to confirm repeal adds 41 land use applications per hearing. Called for fixing parking, trees, and setbacks instead.