City approves affordable housing land policy

Summary#

Edmonton City Council approved revised City Policy C437B, replacing the existing Policy C437A on using City land for non-profit affordable housing. The policy’s stated goal is to support affordable housing by making surplus City land available to housing providers; it does not require any particular site to be transferred or guarantee that housing will be built.

• The revised policy recognizes Indigenous governments as partners and adds a formal definition of affordable housing.
• City staff say a new procedure is intended to set out how sites are offered, with eligibility information in advance and a public inventory of available land.
• The staff report says the approach continues to favour below-market sales, while setting out circumstances in which leases may be considered.
• City Council approved the policy 12 to 0 on July 7, 2026. The recorded motion approved C437B; it did not separately name the draft procedure.

What it means for you#

• Non-profit housing providers and Indigenous governments: The revised policy recognizes Indigenous governments as partners. City staff say the accompanying procedure is intended to give applicants earlier information about available land and eligibility criteria. The City would still decide which sites to offer and which proposals to accept.
• People seeking affordable housing: The decision does not give anyone a right to housing, set rents for a particular home, or require construction on a specific site.
• Edmonton residents generally: The City may continue to sell or lease surplus land below market value for affordable housing. This decision does not transfer any named parcel of land.

Money#

No new cost estimate is provided for the approved policy.

• City staff say the new processes described in the report can be carried out within existing budgets and resources. The Council motion does not separately approve the draft procedure.
• The staff report estimates that below-market land transfers since 2015 involved $58.5 million in potential sales revenue the City did not receive. That is a historical figure, not an estimate of the cost of this decision.
• The staff report says past land contributions helped support housing projects, alongside City grants and funding from other sources. Those past results are not a forecast of what this policy will produce.

What is unclear#

• The approved policy text in Attachment 1 was not provided, so the exact policy wording and how it replaces C437A could not be checked.
• The recorded motion approves C437B but does not separately approve the draft procedure. It is unclear from the materials whether and when City staff will put that procedure into effect.
• The report describes a public land inventory, annual online reporting and criteria for considering leases. The materials do not establish when these steps will start or how they will work in practice.
• The decision does not set out how sites or proposals will be ranked, or how the City will involve Indigenous governments in decisions about particular sites.

Case for#

• City staff say below-market land can help non-profit providers secure financing and other government funding. Their report says 32 sites with a combined municipal land value of over $58.5 million have been distributed since 2015.
• Engagement participants who provide or seek affordable housing described City land as an important tool for getting projects built. A public inventory and advance eligibility information could help organizations plan applications.
• Recognizing Indigenous governments as partners responds to their stated request to be treated as governments with distinct status, rather than only as non-profit service providers.

Case against#

• The City gives up potential sale revenue when it transfers land below market value. City staff estimate that past transfers since 2015 involved $58.5 million in foregone potential sales revenue.
• Housing organizations told the City that applications can cost thousands of dollars, and that land may still require costly servicing, utility work or demolition. The policy change does not, by itself, remove those barriers.
• City staff note that leases can leave the City with long-term risks if a provider cannot meet maintenance costs or has unrecovered insurance losses. The materials do not show how those risks will be managed for each future project.