Ward papastew Candidate Survey
The Garneau Community League is non-partisan. We invited all candidates in papastew to answer questions around key issues related to concerns that residents have voiced to the league. We emailed all candidates, and received three responses.
Out of fairness to all candidates, we provide unedited and uncut answers to the questions. We also note that these questions are based on what the community has supported in the past and based on feedback from our members and residents who have engaged with us. The Community League will be conducting engagement in the coming months to better understand the needs of the whole community, which will inform our planned application to amend the Scona District Plan.
E-mail to Candidates
Garneau is Edmonton’s densest neighbourhood, with over 9,000 residents in 80 hectares. If you count jobs Garneau is currently sitting at 220 jobs and people per ha- just under the Major Node target. Current zoning allows a build out to 500 jobs/people per ha so Garneau is going to get a lot more dense. As a community we would like to welcome that while preserving what makes Garneau vibrant and unique. Despite its growing density, Garneau remains one of Edmonton’s most vibrant and character-rich neighbourhoods. Established over 100 years ago, it still exudes the charm of its historic roots thanks to a thoughtful blend of housing types—its 400 or so century-old homes and low-rise walk-ups to modern infill and apartment buildings. This mix fosters a diverse, intergenerational community that keeps the area lively while preserving its timeless appeal.
It’s not without its challenges.
High Turnover & Transience: With a large student population, many residents are temporary, leading to less long-term community cohesion. Less than 25% of residents have been in Garneau longer than 5 years.
Parking & Traffic Congestion: The influx of students, staff, and visitors creates intense demand for parking and contributes to daily traffic bottlenecks.
Pressure on Housing Affordability: Demand for rental units near campus drives up prices, making it harder for families and long-term residents to find affordable housing.
Commercialization & Development Pressure: Proximity to Whyte Avenue and campus amenities increases commercial interest, which can threaten the preservation of historic homes and green spaces.
Skewed housing typology: Less than 10% of housing types are single family and 80% are apartments with half being one bedroom. The available housing for families in apartments to single family is very low.
We have some priorities:
Despite already absorbing significant density, recent zoning changes and District Policy of Garneau as a Major Node threaten the last remaining 10% of available small-scale housing, much of which are original heritage homes.
Preserving pockets of small-scale housing helps balance growth with heritage, affordability, and livability and having that small-scale family have family adaptable amenities.
Ensuring new apartment buildings have units that support families and those who want to live in a multi-generational, multi-person household.
Ensuring that the surplus tax revenue (~8 million per year) is reinvested in the neighborhood.
We seek clear commitments from candidates on preserving community diversity, family housing, and heritage and investing in our community. Garneau provides something of value for all Edmontonians, is fiscally a net contributor, and is a model for other communities struggling to add density.
We are asking you:
Zoning & Housing Diversity
Do you support preserving the remaining 30% of Garneau’s small-scale housing stock that will be recommended as part of a plan amendment to the Scona District Plan? If yes, how will you advocate for this within council? If no, why not
Would you support revisiting the interpretation of “low and mid rise throughout” a Major node to mean on all lots?
Will you commit to supporting and advocating for our community-led amendment to the District plan and accompanying heritage overlay for the remainder of the RS zoning in Garneau?
Would you support refinement to the Major Node policy that sets an upper limit on mid-rise and high-rise throughout to 70% of a communities land base?
How will you ensure that new developments throughout Garneau include family-sized units (3+ bedrooms) and not just micro-units?
Do you think that all neighbourhoods should have densities that make them financially sustainable (ie. tax revenue generated covers renewal and services)?
Community Representation
Will you publicly support a community-led zoning overlay or custom district plan for Garneau?
Do you believe Garneau should remain a mixed-demographic neighbourhood, not dominated by transient student housing? If yes, what policies will you support to achieve this balance?
Accountability & Transparency
Will you commit to regular public forums with Garneau residents to discuss development impacts?
Have you or will you canvassed your council colleagues to support Garneau’s preservation goals? If yes, who has committed? If no, why not?
Heritage & Livability
Do you support preserving Garneau’s heritage homes and streetscapes as part of Edmonton’s cultural fabric?
What is your stance on incentivizing long-term residency (e.g., aging in place, family retention) in Garneau?
Garneau has a relatively modest amount of park space compared to other Edmonton neighbourhoods. According to the City of Edmonton’s urban design analysis, approximately 4% of Garneau’s land area is dedicated to parks and open space. For the densest neighbourhood in Edmonton this is inequitable. What would you propose as a solution to this?
Josh Doyle’s Response
Do you support preserving the remaining 30% of Garneau’s small-scale housing stock that will be recommended as part of a plan amendment to the Scona District Plan? If yes, how will you advocate for this within council?
I stand for an end to “blanket zoning” in which one zoning approach applies to almost every neighbourhood inside the Henday. I’m going to install Custom Family Friendly Zoning, delivered by community led planning. This means amending the district policy or zoning bylaw (design regulations) for specific neighbourhoods or a collection of similar neighbourhoods in collaboration with neighbourhood residents, as part of a neighbourhood-based planning process. It may be necessary to carve out areas within nodes to protect our historical neighbourhoods or change certain boundaries to respect the sustainable equilibrium of density within defined boundaries.
Will you commit to revising the blanket upzoning of Garneau to a Major Node which was done without the support of the community?
I stand for policies that discourage rezoning applications for higher density in mature neighbourhoods. Carve outs and exceptions can be built onto specific areas using the approach I detailed in the last answer. The major node will still exist in some form, but its spirit will be better executed.
Would you support revisiting the interpretation of “low and mid rise throughout” a Major node to mean on all lots?
Maybe. If the Node is built better perhaps we won’t have to reinterpret its meaning.
Will you commit to supporting and advocating for our community-led amendment to the District plan and accompanying heritage overlay for the remainder of the RS zoning in Garneau?
Yes.
Would you support refinement to the Major Node policy that sets an upper limit on mid-rise and high-rise throughout to 70% of a communities land base?
I support refinement to the Major Node policy, but I am hesitant to give exact numbers without knowing the full details and consequences of those actions.
How will you ensure that new developments throughout Garneau include family-sized units (3+ bedrooms) and not just micro-units?
By limiting the midblock units to a maximum of 4 we can safely assume that developers will not build something absurdly small on an average size lot.
Do you think that all neighbourhoods should have densities that make them financially sustainable (ie. tax revenue generated covers renewal and services)?
It is a goal to strive for but may not be possible in practice. Just as Canada redistributes money between Provinces, so too should Edmonton give every neighbourhood a chance at success.
Will you publicly support a community-led zoning overlay or custom district plan for Garneau?
Yes.
Do you believe Garneau should remain a mixed-demographic neighbourhood, not dominated by transient student housing? If yes, what policies will you support to achieve this balance?
No answer.
Will you commit to regular public forums with Garneau residents to discuss development impacts?
I stand for the creation of a ‘Community Advisory Committee’. Key individuals will be nominated from the community to represent non-profits; social service groups; youth, arts, and seniors’ organizations; community leagues, etc. Listening sessions will be quarterly, giving citizens a seat at the table to share their lived experiences.
Have you or will you canvassed your council colleagues to support Garneau’s preservation goals? If yes, who has committed? If no, why not?
Yes. I built my zoning policy and shared it with Tim Cartmell. Consequently, he has crafted his own zoning policy that has taken many of the themes and specifics of mine and expanded upon them. I will continue to foster this relationship with Tim and others.
Do you support preserving Garneau’s heritage homes and streetscapes as part of Edmonton’s cultural fabric?
Yes.
What is your stance on incentivizing long-term residency (e.g., aging in place, family retention) in Garneau?
A City must be built sustainably and provide the opportunity for everyone within it to live, work, and play. That means that seniors living on a fixed income should not be displaced because of the volatile actions of City Council. That also means that those that wish to move here are given the opportunity to do so. Good governance is finding the balance by making prudent and wise decisions when it comes to budgeting, zoning, services, and many other City responsibilities.
Garneau has a relatively modest amount of park space compared to other Edmonton neighbourhoods. According to the City of Edmonton’s urban design analysis, approximately 4% of Garneau’s land area is dedicated to parks and open space. For the densest neighbourhood in Edmonton this is inequitable. What would you propose as a solution to this?
Sadly, I don’t know if I have an answer that can satisfy this problem specifically. Just like the many mistakes that have been made with regards to this new zoning policy and new transit projects, I can’t change what has already been done. I can only change the way we build and plan for the future and look for better ways to work with what we have. There may be ways to alleviate this inequity through some future idea or policy or project, but I don’t have that answer right now. Until then I do know the river valley is close by, but I will keep this in mind and consider it in the actions I make moving forward.
Mark Hillman’s Response
Do you support preserving the remaining 30% of Garneau’s small-scale housing stock that will be recommended as part of a plan amendment to the Scona District Plan? If yes, how will you advocate for this within council?
I do support preserving the small-scale housing that we currently have. No one denies that we need to densify as a city but this needs to be borne by the whole city not just a few select neighborhoods. It seems that a disproportionately large amount of the densification is occurring within our ward. It is especially apparent in areas where we traditionally would see families want to move into for long term. Instead we are seeing builds meant for more short-term. While I believe in densification, I want it done right and this current zoning bylaw has opened the flood gates
Will you commit to revising the blanket upzoning of Garneau to a Major Node which was done without the support of the community?
I believe one of the biggest failings of our current zoning bylaw is how poorly it gets community feedback and support. I will commit to revisiting the blanket zoning because I feel blanket zoning is simply a bad policy and especially to do so without any community feedback is a complete failure in planning.
Would you support revisiting the interpretation of “low and mid rise throughout” a Major node to mean on all lots?
Yes I want there to be room for us to protect the small scale housing that we do have in areas such as Garneau.
Will you commit to supporting and advocating for our community-led amendment to the District plan and accompanying heritage overlay for the remainder of the RS zoning in Garneau?
Absolutely, a core issue I take with the zoning bylaw as it stands is it excludes the feedback from communities. I feel that is not only morally wrong but a problem with planning. Who knows a community better than those who live there?
Would you support refinement to the Major Node policy that sets an upper limit on mid-rise and high-rise throughout to 70% of a communities land base?
Yes I would support refinement to this policy as it is very aggressive. We need to exercise extreme caution when we set an area to densify so quickly and heavily as these choices have long term implications that cannot easily be undone.
How will you ensure that new developments throughout Garneau include family-sized units (3+ bedrooms) and not just micro-units? Do you think that all neighbourhoods should have densities that make them financially sustainable (ie. tax revenue generated covers renewal and services)?
This comes down to zoning policy. Right now we are heavily encouraging single bedroom units and sometimes two-bedroom btu these are not inviting to families. The reality is that a family wants to live in a single-family home and is less inclined to want to live in an apartment. However the problem we have now is the choices are 1- or 2-bedroom apartment too small for a family or a single-family home. No transition or even option to stay in larger apartments because we are not building them. We are artificially creating a widening gap in home ownership.
We can adjust new builds to require a certain % of new units to be of a certain size. This can take the form of amendments to the current zoning bylaw or a new bylaw itself.
As for every neighborhood being sustainable economically. The city of Edmonton was never designed on this model. Some neighborhoods will contribute more than others overall. That said, the gap between which areas contribute more has widened greatly over the past few years. Garneau is a massive net contributor, the whole ward ranks 3rd in the city for revenue contributions yet we are receiving more densification than another ward in the name of increasing revenues. Essentially Papastew is being squeezed and the amount we contribute versus what we receive back from the city is widening.
Will you publicly support a community-led zoning overlay or custom district plan for Garneau?
I support district planning and removing the blanket zoning we are currently using. As for a specific district for one neighborhood that is a difficult model to sustain. That said I do want get community feedback and collaboration when we do create the new districts in both determining their layout and boundaries. Garneau is a unique case and it may very well merit its own district or specific amendments to the bylaw and the district that it falls into. That is not something I am opposed to reviewing at all and would eagerly engage in that process.
Do you believe Garneau should remain a mixed-demographic neighbourhood, not dominated by transient student housing? If yes, what policies will you support to achieve this balance?
I do believe Garneau should remain a mixed neighborhood. As it stands it is being pushed to being dominated by transient housing and this needs to change. What I would do is within the district overlay that affects Garneau I would ensure there are measures that account the fact that Garneau already has a large transient population and encourage larger unit sizes and preserving the amount of single family homes that do exist.
Will you commit to regular public forums with Garneau residents to discuss development impacts?
Yes. I strongly believe in showing up and having strong consultation with the community I represent.
Have you or will you canvassed your council colleagues to support Garneau’s preservation goals? If yes, who has committed? If no, why not?
I have canvased on the university and spoken with many students in regards to housing needs and balancing the need to preserve our neighborhoods with those needs.
Do you support preserving Garneau’s heritage homes and streetscapes as part of Edmonton’s cultural fabric?
Yes. We need to preserve historical sites and recognize the things that made Garneau a cultural hot spot within our ward and city.
What is your stance on incentivizing long-term residency (e.g., aging in place, family retention) in Garneau?
I believe that long term residence in neighborhoods is the backbone of a strong neighborhood. We need transient housing no doubt but if it becomes the majority then we lose a lot of the character and value of the neighborhood. I believe this can be achieved through responsible zoning and planning.
Garneau has a relatively modest amount of park space compared to other Edmonton neighbourhoods. According to the City of Edmonton’s urban design analysis, approximately 4% of Garneau’s land area is dedicated to parks and open space. For the densest neighbourhood in Edmonton this is inequitable. What would you propose as a solution to this?
Since Garneau is already one of the densest parts of the ward this is not an easy fix. However, we can place greater priority on replacing buildings with parks and green spaces as they need to come down. This is a long-term fix and requires us to include requirements for green spaces within our zoning.
Michael Janz’s Response
Michael Janz provided a statement instead of answering the questions. The league indicated that we wanted answers to the questions as a statement wasn’t fair to other candidates. He then responded “I'm sorry I can't finish this. I'm going to post something on my blog instead for residents. I have a lot more to say than fits into the bullets.”
We’ve included the original statement below:
I am a resident of Garneau and have been (off and on) for the last 20+ years. It is where my family and I work, live, shop, study, and play. I'm committed to ensuring family-friendly, multigenerational housing in the community. This can be done with a preservation of historic homes and streetscapes as well. I've moved motions in support of the community league objectives (some successful, some not) to ensure that historic preservation such as North Garneau and other areas were more sensitively addressed in the Priority Growth Area exercise.
I support reinvestment from higher density communities into those communities (invest where we want to grow). I support expanded and enhanced public transportation (especially our long awaited bus rapid transit from Bonnie Doon to WEM and Century Park to Castle Downs) and cracking down on parking abuses. I've supported spreading out density across Edmonton to help take the pressure off of Garneau. As we review our district plans, I think this is our opportunity to look for more ways to integrate non-market, family-friendly or family-possible homes into our plans and ensure that all neighbourhoods and districts can thrive with mixed non-market housing, commercial, childcare, greenspaces, and strategic density. For example, I championed the removal of North Garneau, the historic DC, (both successfully) and 81st ave (unsuccessfully) from the PGA work. I have voted against projects when I was displeased they didn't have enough 3 bedroom units. I've championed action on the problem properties in the area.
I have not been pleased with the level of community engagement afforded in the 2019+ city budgets and I think that this is something that we need to revisit in advance of future planning, including more bylaw officers to help support construction and infill issues. When it comes to small scale residential infill, I've already moved a number of motions reducing scale, scope, massing, and unit count. I'm trying to knock on every single door and speak with every single resident this election, including those in multi-family in Garneau, so if you are reading this and I haven't made it to your apartment yet, reach out. I'm encouraging everyone to fill out my survey at michaeljanz.ca/infill.
Here is the motion that I put forward on behalf of the community league with regard to the housing diversity that was not successful and I would be open to reintroducing a version of:
Due Date: Q2 2026, Urban Planning Committee
0.3 Analysis for Preservation of Small Scale Residential Development (M. Janz) Councillor M. Janz stated that at the April 8/9, 2025, City Council meeting, the following motion would be moved: That Administration provide a report on an analysis of a policy and regulatory approach that would result in the preservation of ten percent of the area in a neighbourhood for small scale residential development within the redeveloping areas as defined by The City Plan. The report should review best practices related to ensuring new development incorporates: ● design compatibility with heritage character, ● housing for multi-person households (such as requirements for min numbers of bedrooms or and max bathrooms per unit; minimum average unit size; max units/ha), ● affordability, and environmental sustainability. The report should recommend the most effective policy and/or regulation to achieve the above, such as the creation of a Direct Control zone, Special Area zone, expanding the boundaries of existing heritage character areas, creating design policy and/or creating policy sub-areas within the District Plans.”
