Published Apr 26, 2025 • Last updated 26 minutes ago • 4 minute readAt a public meeting on March 12, some Charlottetown residents pushed back against the city’s draft official plan, raising concerns about zoning changes, higher-density housing, and rapid development. Photo by Vivian Ulinwa /The GuardianCHARLOTTETOWN PLAN’S LASTING IMPACTFor those who missed it, due to short notice, the City of Charlottetown is at it again, inviting taxpayers to yet another information “opportunity” regarding the new official plan. This one was on Monday, April 7, at the library to “inform” the bylaw consultants’ coming work.The format, as is the habit, consisted of four large panels, side by side, displaying small maps of the city and other written information; one table with the indispensably ubiquitous coloured Post-It Notes and writing tools; and no chairs (although I was very kindly provided one by one of the many consultants on hand). This was all squeezed into half a meeting room, perhaps saving half the rent, I don’t know.THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY.Subscribe now to access this story and more:Unlimited access to the website and appExclusive access to premium content, newsletters and podcastsFull access to the e-Edition app, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment onEnjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalistsSupport local journalists and the next generation of journalistsSUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES.Subscribe or sign in to your account to continue your reading experience.Unlimited access to the website and appExclusive access to premium content, newsletters and podcastsFull access to the e-Edition app, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment onEnjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalistsSupport local journalists and the next generation of journalistsRegister to unlock more articles.Create an account or sign in to continue your reading experience.Access additional stories every monthShare your thoughts and join the conversation in our commenting communityGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorArticle contentRead More Charlottetown prepares for rapid population growth, changing climate in draft official plan HOW CANADA WINS: Charlottetown aims to be a ‘community for all’ There were no explanatory brochures or written material for reference to take home for sharing with other family members, no take-home material with times or contact information for possible further additional comments. A totally inadequate communications effort. Moreover, it seems rather cowardly and wasteful to leave the explanation of this important neighbourhood upheaval to the hired hands, the consultants, instead of “ward” meetings hosted by the individual councillors.Some things were shared: A flawed reason and lame excuse for the proposed neighbourhood density increases was floated, i.e., that the city can no longer afford to have the residents live as far apart as we do, and are happy with. Overall service cost per resident is too high, we are being led to believe. Interesting, in that we have managed to pay our way with the current density through our property taxes up until the new plan has been proposed.Article content Charlottetown’s draft official plan sets out the land use for different area of the city over the next 15 years. ContributedThe most crucial information to be had at the meeting was No. 8 on the third panel. It proposes that “as of right” to erect four-unit tenements anywhere in the city be instituted. This means that any owner of any approved city lot with or without a house on it, has a “right” to add to an existing house up to total of four units, or tear down an existing house and replace it with four units. The “as of right” means that no notification to or input from the neighbours will take place. “As of right” gives full right to the owner/developers, and takes away any right to consultation or input into the fate of the neighbourhood a taxpayer has invested his life earnings into.If passed, a home owner in a residential area could find the family home encircled on three sides by four-units tenements, at least two storeys high. Let that sink in, folks.Article contentWhy this turmoil? The federal Liberal government, pretending to remedy their disastrous immigration regime, offered the Housing Accelerator Fund to municipalities across the country. Charlottetown, although never having had a housing mandate, jumped on the bandwagon and signed on. But the payout is contingent on increasing density, allowing four units to a lot without “red tape.” Hence the urgency of ramming this new official plan through. Heavy machinery was used to take down most of the financial building at the corner of Kent and Great George streets in Charlottetown on Jan. 27 to make way for an 85-unit, eight-storey apartment building which needed approval from Charlottetown city council. Photo by Dave Stewart /Dave Stewart/The GuardianThis has been done without any analysis of the long-term financial impact re: the limited capacity of the old infrastructure, such as sewer, water and roads. And certainly, without sympathy for what this will do to the coherence and visual attractiveness in single-family neighbourhoods, as well as the reduced property values. Doubtless nobody would ever suggest that such density increases for Ottawa’s Rockcliffe neighbourhood (Mark Carney’s digs) or the Bridle Path in Toronto or Montreal’s affluent West Mount area should be instituted.Article contentSo, the big question, will city council opt to ignore homeowners’ objection to the proposed high-density plan, since they already have signed on to the blackmail by the federal liberal government? Or will they defend, honour and leave alone the inherent neighbourhood stability “social contract” the city has with the citizens/family homeowners now living and invested in the current R1 and R 2 zones?Speak up, people, before it is too late.Kirsten Connor,CharlottetownREFRESHING APOLOGY FROM UPEII was pleased to hear the report that the AVC was reversing its decision on Chris Griffin’s painting “The Crossing.” This in spite of the dean’s initial public response coming from Washington, D.C.The reversal transcends any particular artist or piece of art. At a time when we see institutions scrambling to appease a rogue American administration, the retraction and apology from UPEI was free of obfuscation and deflection. It was a straight forward acceptance of responsibility for a poor decision. How refreshing! Hopefully this will serve as an influence for other institutions.Kudos also to Mr. Griffin for making a stand on principle. Bravo!Eugene Murphy,Meadowbank, P.E.I.REFERENDUMS CUT BOTH WAYSPierre Poilievre wants a law that prevents governments from raising taxes that haven’t been approved by a national referendum.Here’s a question for P.E.I.’s four would-be Conservative members: Given Mr. Poilievre’s new-found commitment to direct democracy, will he also introduce a law that bars him from slashing government services unless Canadians approve it in a national referendum? David Cairns, Stratford, P.E.I.Article content
LETTERS: The real impact of Charlottetown’s official plan and other P.E.I. letters
