Owen Sound: A Four-Year City Business Plan

Home › The Public Scorecard › Chapter 49

The Public Scorecard

Chapter 49Housing: The Public Housing Scorecard

9,989 words · Mike Seiler · Owen Sound, Ontario

Open in the reader →

Vote on the proposals, hear the audio, read the reviews, search the whole plan.

In this chapter

Housing numbers are easy to inflate.

A City can announce:

and still produce very few homes people can actually occupy.

The Housing Scorecard should therefore follow housing through the entire pipeline:

Inquiry. Application. Approval. Permit. Construction. Completion. Occupancy.

The central rule is:

An approval is not a home.

Neither is:

The strongest housing measure is:

lawful housing that reaches occupancy.

Municipal government does not build most housing.

Private owners, builders, nonprofits, cooperatives and other public bodies do.

Owen Sound's role is to:

The source plan specifically proposes helping residents understand basement and garden suites through a one-window process, while also helping them navigate applicable federal financing options.

The Scorecard should measure whether that promise produces:

Not merely inquiries.

49.1Purpose

The Housing Scorecard should answer:

How many housing inquiries are occurring?

How many become formal applications?

How many applications are approved?

How many approved projects receive permits?

How many permits become construction?

How many units are completed?

How many become legally occupiable?

Where are projects falling out of the pipeline?

How much delay is controlled by the City?

How much delay belongs to applicants or outside agencies?

What infrastructure constraints exist?

What municipal land is being considered?

What public subsidy is being provided?

What housing types are actually being created?

Are more stage-of-life options becoming available?

Are downtown upper floors turning into homes?

Are additional dwelling units actually being built?

What significant barriers remain?

That is housing accountability.

49.2Housing Is a Pipeline

The public Scorecard should treat housing as a sequence.

Stage 1

Inquiry.

Stage 2

Pre-application or concept review where applicable.

Stage 3

Formal planning or development application where required.

Stage 4

Planning approval.

Stage 5

Building permit.

Stage 6

Construction start.

Stage 7

Construction completion.

Stage 8

Occupancy or legal completion status appropriate to the project.

This structure makes bottlenecks visible.

49.3Not Every Project Needs Every Stage

A simple additional residential unit may not follow the same process as:

The Scorecard should use:

Do not create artificial stages where the law does not require them.

49.4Housing Scorecard Headline Measures

The first page should include a manageable set such as:

  1. Housing inquiries.
  2. Formal housing applications.
  3. Planning approvals.
  4. Building permits issued.
  5. Units permitted.
  6. Construction starts where reliably measurable.
  7. Units completed.
  8. Units reaching occupancy.
  9. Net new housing units.
  10. Additional residential units.
  11. Downtown upper-floor units.
  12. Affordable or below-market partnership units where clearly defined.
  13. Accessible units where reliable.
  14. City-controlled processing time.
  15. Applicant-controlled delay.
  16. Outside-agency delay.
  17. Approval-to-permit conversion.
  18. Permit-to-occupancy conversion.
  19. Municipal land housing status.
  20. Servicing constraints.
  21. Public subsidy committed.
  22. Public subsidy actually spent.
  23. Housing files stopped or withdrawn.
  24. Major unresolved housing barriers.

That is enough for the headline.

49.5Do Not Use One Housing Number

Avoid:

Housing Score: 91/100

Housing can improve in one area while worsening in another.

For example:

Show the components.

49.6Define "Housing Unit"

The City should use a consistent legally and administratively meaningful definition.

Do not count:

as completed housing units unless the adopted methodology clearly does so.

49.7Proposed Unit

A proposed unit is:

not yet approved.

Track separately.

49.8Approved Unit

An approved unit is:

not yet permitted for construction unless all required permits have been obtained.

Track separately.

49.9Permitted Unit

A permitted unit is:

authorized for construction under the applicable permit process.

It is still not necessarily built.

49.10Started Unit

A started unit should have a consistent definition.

Possible:

Do not invent start data if the City cannot measure it reliably.

49.11Completed Unit

A completed unit should mean the building work is substantially complete according to the applicable municipal process.

49.12Occupied or Occupancy-Ready Unit

Use the lawful completion or occupancy milestone appropriate to the building type and Ontario framework in force.

Do not create a casual political definition.

49.13The Strongest Housing Number

Where measurable:

Units reaching legal occupancy

should receive more weight than:

That is the point at which housing becomes usable.

49.14Housing Pipeline Table

A core public table should resemble:

StageProjectsUnitsMedian Time at StageChange From Baseline

Possible stages:

49.15Project Count and Unit Count

Always distinguish:

One 100-unit apartment project is not:

one unit.

One homeowner suite application is not:

one hundred projects.

Both measures matter.

49.16Do Not Add Incompatible Counts

Do not report:

500 housing actions

by adding:

That counts the same project multiple times.

49.17Unique Project Tracking

Where the City's systems allow:

Track a project through the pipeline using an internal identifier.

Public reporting should remain aggregate where appropriate.

49.18No Resident Profiling

Pipeline tracking does not require public profiles of:

Protect personal information.

49.19Housing Inquiry

The Housing Navigation Desk may receive:

Track inquiry volume.

49.20Inquiry Is Demand Signal

Inquiry can indicate:

It does not prove construction demand.

49.21Inquiry-to-Application Conversion

Possible measure:

Inquiry-to-Application Conversion Rate = Eligible Housing Inquiries That Become Formal Applications Within Defined Period ÷ Eligible Housing Inquiries × 100

Use only if the City can match inquiries responsibly.

49.22Privacy Alternative

If linking individuals is too intrusive or operationally difficult:

Use aggregate cohort estimates or do not report conversion.

Do not build unnecessary tracking solely for a metric.

49.23Drop-Off

Where many residents inquire but do not apply:

Investigate why.

Possible causes:

49.24Drop-Off Is Not Automatically City Failure

A homeowner may decide:

I do not want to build the suite.

That is not municipal failure.

49.25Housing Navigation Quality

Survey users with questions such as:

Did you understand your options?

Did you understand what approvals were required?

Did you know the likely municipal fees?

Did you know the next step?

Did the City tell you early if the proposal was unlikely to work?

49.26Before You Spend

Housing navigation should help residents understand feasibility before they spend heavily on:

49.27Early No Can Save Money

A quick:

This proposal cannot proceed in the form described

may be valuable service.

Measure clarity.

Not only approvals.

49.28Formal Application

Track applications by meaningful housing type.

Possible categories:

Use current planning terminology.

49.29Do Not Force Outdated Categories

Housing law changes.

Definitions should be reviewed regularly.

The Scorecard must follow the legal framework actually in force.

49.30Application Completeness

Track time to determine whether an application is:

where that is a formal concept under applicable law.

49.31Incomplete Application

An incomplete application should receive:

49.32No Moving Requirements

Do not repeatedly add new requirements after an applicant believes the file is complete unless:

requires it.

Track recurring complaints about this.

49.33Planning Approval

Track planning approvals by:

49.34Approval Is Not Completion

Every Housing Scorecard page should reinforce:

Approved Units

is different from:

Completed Units.

49.35Approval-to-Permit Conversion

A useful measure:

Approval-to-Permit Conversion = Housing Units With Required Planning Approval That Subsequently Receive Building Permits ÷ Approved Units Eligible to Proceed × 100

Choose a reasonable cohort period.

49.36Conversion Lag

A project approved in December may not seek permits until the following year.

Use cohort reporting rather than simplistic annual division where necessary.

49.37Permit Issuance

Track:

49.38Permit Processing Time

For appropriate building-permit categories:

Track City-controlled processing time according to the legal framework and adopted service standards.

49.39Do Not Override Statutory Definitions

Where Ontario law defines:

the Scorecard should use current legal terminology accurately.

49.40City-Controlled Time

A central measure should isolate:

time the complete eligible file is under City control.

49.41Applicant Time

Separately track:

where operationally possible.

49.42Outside-Agency Time

Separately identify meaningful delay involving:

where relevant.

Do not blame another body casually.

Use actual file status.

49.43Clock Pause

Every pause category should be defined.

49.44No Hidden Clock Stops

Do not improve performance by marking files:

awaiting applicant

for minor questions that do not actually prevent City review.

Use honest process definitions.

49.45Median Processing Time

Use median where appropriate.

49.46Percent Within Standard

Also show:

percentage of eligible files completed within the published standard.

49.47Long-Tail Files

A few extremely delayed files matter.

Show:

where useful and privacy-safe.

49.48Do Not Publicly Identify Applicants Through Outlier Data

Aggregate or anonymize.

49.49Why Files Take Longer

Possible reasons:

Explain material patterns.

49.50Approval Quality

A fast approval later overturned because of serious error is not good performance.

Speed must coexist with:

49.51Appeal Rate

Where meaningful:

Track planning decisions appealed or challenged through applicable processes.

49.52Appeal Does Not Equal City Error

Someone can appeal a lawful decision.

Do not treat every appeal as failure.

49.53Successful Challenge

Where a significant municipal decision is overturned for a correctable process problem:

Review the cause.

49.54Permit-to-Start Conversion

Where the City can reasonably measure construction commencement:

Track whether permitted projects actually begin.

49.55Permit Expiry or Dormancy

Where a permit remains inactive or expires:

Track aggregate numbers according to applicable rules.

49.56Construction Starts

Use actual administrative evidence.

Do not count:

as a start unless it corresponds to real construction.

49.57Ground-Breaking Is Not Housing

No housing scorecard should count:

as a completed outcome.

49.58Completion

Track completed housing units.

49.59Occupancy

Where distinct from completion:

Track occupancy milestone separately.

49.60Permit-to-Occupancy Conversion

A critical outcome measure:

Permit-to-Occupancy Conversion = Permitted Housing Units Reaching the Defined Occupancy Milestone Within the Measurement Cohort ÷ Eligible Permitted Units × 100

Use appropriate time horizons for different project types.

49.61Large Projects Take Longer

Do not compare:

using the same expected build period.

49.62Cohort by Housing Type

Use project-type cohorts where needed.

49.63Withdrawn Applications

Track:

housing applications in aggregate.

49.64Withdrawal Reason

Where applicants voluntarily provide information:

Possible categories:

Do not guess.

49.65Stopped Projects

Some projects stop after approval.

That should remain visible.

49.66Net New Units

Housing supply should account for:

49.67Net Formula

Possible:

Net New Units = New Housing Units Reaching Defined Completion or Occupancy Milestone - Lawfully Removed Housing Units

Use Finance/Planning/Building definitions appropriate to the data.

49.68Demolition

Track residential demolition where it affects net supply.

49.69Conversion Out of Residential

Where legal conversion removes units:

Include where measurable.

49.70Conversion Into Residential

Likewise.

49.71Gross Versus Net

Always show both where meaningful.

A City may complete:

while losing:

Net:

49.72Do Not Claim Gross as Net

Basic anti-gaming rule.

49.73Additional Residential Units

Secondary suites and other additional units deserve their own measure.

The source proposal places particular emphasis on helping homeowners navigate basement and garden-suite opportunities.

49.74Additional Unit Pipeline

Track:

inquiries

applications

permits

completions or occupancy

for this category.

49.75Do Not Count Inquiry as Unit

If 300 homeowners ask about suites and 25 complete them:

The housing result is:

not:

Do not count an already existing lawful unit as new merely because it enters a new database.

49.77Legalization

Where an existing unit becomes lawful through proper process:

Track separately as:

existing unit legalized

rather than:

new unit constructed

if that distinction is accurate.

49.78Safety

Legalization can improve:

safety.

Do not treat it as mere paperwork.

49.79Garden Suites

Where permitted:

Track separately if the category is large enough to be useful.

49.80Detached Additional Units Are Not Universal

Some properties will not be suitable.

The navigation service should explain site requirements early.

49.81Parking

Where parking is legally relevant:

Measure recurring barriers.

Do not invent additional requirements beyond current law.

49.82Servicing

Additional units can create:

considerations.

Coordinate with infrastructure.

49.83Federal Financing Information

Where external financing programs are referenced:

The Housing Desk should verify the program's:

before telling residents it is available.

49.84No Financing Guarantee

The City should never promise:

You will receive the federal loan.

Municipal approval and federal financing are separate decisions.

49.85Financing Verification Date

Any public page describing outside financing should include:

Verified as of [date].

Programs change.

49.86External Program Tracker

For major housing programs:

Track:

Active

Closed

Changed

Under Development

Unknown / Verification Required

Do not leave stale incentives online.

49.87Municipal Approval Is Independent

A homeowner may qualify municipally but not financially.

Or financially but not municipally.

Keep the processes distinct.

49.88Housing Navigation Should Explain That Distinction

Plainly.

49.89Downtown Upper-Floor Housing

This should be a dedicated Scorecard category.

49.90Upper-Floor Pipeline

Track:

inquiry

feasibility

application

permit

construction

occupancy

49.91Fire and Building Requirements

These may be substantial barriers.

They are not automatically:

Some requirements protect life safety.

49.92Distinguish Barrier Types

Possible:

Municipal process

Provincial code

Fire / safety

Servicing

Financing

Building condition

Owner decision

Market

This prevents false blame.

49.93Adaptive Reuse Assistance

The City can help applicants identify requirements earlier.

49.94One-Window Does Not Mean One Rulebook

Planning, building and fire requirements may remain distinct.

One-window means:

49.95Upper-Floor Occupancy

Measure actual legal housing occupied or ready for occupancy.

49.96Existing Vacant Upper Floors

If reliable data exists:

Track potential.

Do not speculate from street-level appearances.

49.97Potential Is Not Supply

A vacant upper floor that could theoretically become four apartments is not:

Keep potential separate.

49.98Opportunity Inventory

The City may maintain a broad opportunity inventory for planning.

Label:

potential subject to feasibility.

49.99No Private Owner Pressure

Do not shame or pressure an owner to convert a building.

The City can:

49.100Housing Type

The Scorecard should show the mix of units created.

Possible categories:

Use current official definitions.

49.101Housing Mix Is Descriptive

Do not assume one type is inherently:

The goal is a healthy range.

49.102Stage-of-Life Housing

The plan emphasizes housing that works across different stages of life.

The Scorecard should therefore ask whether new supply includes options suitable for:

49.103Do Not Assign People to Housing Types

A townhouse is not:

family housing

simply because government labels it that way.

Use design characteristics where measurable.

49.104Unit Size

Where reliable:

Track broad unit size or bedroom categories.

Possible:

49.105Family-Sized Units

If Council has a policy interest:

Measure units with sufficient bedroom count.

Do not assume occupancy.

49.106Accessible Units

Track units meeting applicable accessibility definitions where reliable.

49.107Visitability Versus Full Accessibility

Do not conflate different accessibility standards.

Use correct terminology.

49.108Accessible Housing Need

Municipal government may not possess a complete count of accessible-housing demand.

Do not invent one.

49.109Seniors Housing

Track relevant new housing types descriptively.

Do not treat all older residents as needing specialized housing.

49.110Aging in Place

Additional units and multigenerational options may help some residents remain in their neighbourhood.

Measure program use.

Do not claim every suite was built for aging in place.

49.111Student or Young-Adult Housing

Where relevant:

Track without creating a special surveillance category.

49.112Rental and Ownership

Where reliable:

Show tenure of new projects:

49.113Tenure Can Change

A project initially proposed as rental may change.

Use actual legal or operating status.

49.114Rental Covenants

Where the City uses lawful agreements or covenants intended to preserve long-term rental use:

Track:

The source plan specifically contemplated long-term rental protections in connection with certain suite opportunities.

49.115No Covenant Without Enforcement

A restriction is useful only if:

49.116Public Cost of Covenant

If the City provides an incentive in exchange for long-term rental protection:

Publish the value.

49.117Affordability

Housing affordability is one of the most difficult areas to measure responsibly.

Municipal government influences only part of it.

49.118Do Not Claim City Hall Controls Home Prices

Housing costs respond to:

Municipal policy matters.

It is not the only factor.

49.119Do Not Promise a Specific Home Price

A municipal approval cannot guarantee:

49.120"Affordable" Needs Definition

Never publish:

200 affordable units

without defining:

49.121Publicly Subsidized Affordable Units

Where a formal public program defines affordability:

Use that definition.

Show:

49.122Below-Market

If using:

below-market

define the comparison.

49.123Attainable

Avoid vague terms such as:

attainable housing

unless the City defines them clearly.

49.124Deeply Affordable

Likewise.

Use the formal program definition where applicable.

49.125Affordability Duration

A unit affordable for:

is different from:

Show the term.

49.126Subsidy Per Unit

For major public partnerships:

Possible measure:

Municipal Subsidy per Supported Unit = Total Quantifiable Municipal Contribution ÷ Supported Units

Use cautiously.

49.127Lowest Subsidy Per Unit Is Not Always Best

Projects may differ in:

Context.

49.128Municipal Contribution

Possible forms:

Show material value.

49.129Land Is a Public Asset

If City land is provided below market value:

The subsidy is not zero.

Use independent valuation where appropriate.

49.130Fee Waiver

A waived fee is foregone municipal revenue.

Show it.

49.131Infrastructure Subsidy

If the City pays for off-site infrastructure primarily benefiting a project:

Show that contribution where material.

49.132No Hidden Subsidy

Housing policy deserves the same Open Books standard as any other public investment.

49.133Subsidy Can Be Worthwhile

Transparency does not imply subsidy is bad.

Council may decide public benefit justifies it.

Show the bargain.

49.134Public Benefit

For a major housing subsidy, define:

49.135Performance Agreement

Where legally appropriate:

Use agreements that protect the public benefit.

49.136Clawback or Remedy

If promised public benefits are not delivered:

The agreement should have appropriate remedies where lawful.

49.137Municipal Land

The Housing Scorecard should maintain a public high-level inventory of City-owned sites reviewed for housing potential.

49.138Land Status

Possible:

Not Suitable

Potential

Under Study

Housing Preferred

Partner Selection

Under Agreement

Construction

Retained for Other Public Purpose

49.139Potential Is Not Commitment

A site appearing on the opportunity map does not mean:

Label clearly.

49.140Land Evaluation

Each site should consider:

49.141Do Not Sell Strategic Land Too Quickly

Housing urgency does not erase long-term municipal need.

49.142Do Not Hold Surplus Land Forever Either

If a site is genuinely surplus:

Reach a decision.

49.143Land Decision Date

Each major site under study should have:

49.144Independent Valuation

For disposal or partnership:

Use valuation appropriate to the transaction.

49.145Political Favourite

Do not select a developer because:

Use lawful transparent process.

49.146Partner Selection

Housing partnerships should use:

selection.

49.147Public Land Sale Versus Lease

Consider both where appropriate.

A long-term lease may preserve public ownership.

A sale may provide simplicity and capital.

Evaluate case by case.

49.148One-Time Land Revenue

Do not treat land sale proceeds as permanent operating revenue.

49.149Land Handoff

If a City site remains unresolved at term end:

Leave:

for the next Council.

49.150Servicing Capacity

Housing supply depends on:

49.151Servicing Constraint Map

Where safe and technically sound:

Publish a high-level view of:

Do not expose security-sensitive infrastructure details.

49.152Capacity Is Not Development Approval

A location having infrastructure capacity does not mean:

Planning and other requirements still apply.

49.153Capacity Confidence

Servicing estimates should have:

49.154Growth Cost

Track significant infrastructure cost associated with housing growth.

49.155Existing Infrastructure Advantage

Where existing infrastructure can support additional housing at lower public cost:

That may strengthen the business case for growth.

49.156But Capacity Is Not Unlimited

Existing neighbourhoods may still require:

consideration.

49.157One Street, One Plan

Housing growth should inform upcoming:

renewal.

Where developers fund applicable infrastructure under law:

Show the framework.

Do not describe it as:

free infrastructure.

Costs are part of development economics.

49.159Development Charge or Equivalent Tools

Use the lawful framework in force.

Do not hard-code outdated program rules into the Scorecard.

49.160Growth Pays What Law Requires

Avoid slogans.

The actual allocation of infrastructure cost should follow:

49.161Infrastructure Timing

A project may be delayed because servicing is not ready.

That should appear as:

infrastructure dependency

rather than planning delay.

49.162Infrastructure Upgrade Timeline

Where a known municipal project unlocks housing:

Show:

49.163No "Housing Enabled" Claim Before Capacity Exists

Do not claim a road or pipe:

unlocked 500 homes

unless the development path is credible.

Better:

created infrastructure capacity potentially supporting up to X units, subject to approvals and market decisions.

49.164Zoning Capacity

The City may measure theoretical zoning capacity.

Use carefully.

49.165Zoning Capacity Is Not Housing Supply

A parcel zoned for:

may remain:

Do not count theoretical capacity as homes.

49.166Approved Capacity Is Not Built Capacity

Same principle.

49.167Planning Reform Measurement

If zoning changes are intended to allow more housing:

Measure whether actual:

follow.

49.168Gentle Density

Track outcomes from:

where applicable.

49.169Neighbourhood Effects

Monitor legitimate recurring issues such as:

Do not assume every complaint proves the policy failed.

49.170Complaint Rate

Use as one indicator.

49.171Complaint Validity

Differentiate:

where formal investigation exists.

Do not shame complainants.

49.172No Neighbour Veto

Neighbour concerns matter.

They should not automatically override lawful housing rights.

49.173No Applicant Veto Over Neighbours Either

Applicants must still comply with:

49.174Public Consultation

Use consultation where required or useful.

Do not use consultation as a substitute for Council making lawful planning decisions.

49.175Rights Screen

Housing policy should consider:

49.176Family-Friendly Neighbourhoods

Housing quantity should not be measured without neighbourhood quality.

Cross-reference Section 21 and future scorecards.

49.177Housing Near Services

Where useful:

Track housing growth near:

Do not claim proximity alone makes a project superior.

49.178Transportation

New housing may change:

Coordinate.

49.179Parking Policy

Parking requirements can materially affect housing feasibility.

Use current law and local evidence.

49.180Do Not Promise Zero Parking Everywhere

Site conditions differ.

49.181Do Not Require Parking Solely by Habit

Likewise.

Use:

49.182Building Height and Density

Measure actual approved and built forms.

Do not reduce the housing scorecard to:

49.183Housing Quality

More units are not success if they are:

Building and fire standards remain.

49.184Code Compliance

Do not pressure building officials to:

safety to improve housing numbers.

49.185Illegal Units

Where unlawful units are discovered:

Handle according to law and safety.

Do not publicly map households.

49.186Legalization Path

Where lawful compliance is possible:

Provide clear information.

49.187Enforcement Is Not Housing Destruction Metric

If an unsafe illegal unit must cease occupancy:

Do not count the enforcement action as:

City reduced housing supply

without context.

Public safety matters.

49.188Demolition Replacement

Where residential demolition accompanies redevelopment:

Show:

49.189Net Gain

Example:

20 units demolished, 80 completed, net gain 60.

This is clearer than:

80 new homes.

Both figures can be shown.

49.190Replacement Timing

If demolition occurs years before replacement:

The temporary housing loss matters.

49.191Vacancy in New Housing

The City may not have reliable data on whether privately owned units are occupied.

Do not invent vacancy numbers.

49.192Census or Other Public Data

Use broader official datasets for housing-stock context when available.

Keep the municipal pipeline separate.

49.193Market Vacancy

Rental-market vacancy may come from external sources.

Do not present it as City-generated data unless it is.

49.194Rental Prices

Likewise.

Municipal scorecard may provide context.

Do not imply City control.

49.195Home Prices

Context only.

Not a City performance measure.

49.196Construction Cost

Context.

Not direct City performance.

49.197Interest Rates

Context.

Outside municipal control.

49.198Income

Context.

Municipal government does not set household income.

49.199Housing Context Panel

A separate panel can show external market conditions.

Clearly label:

Context, not City-controlled performance.

49.200City-Controlled Measures

The Scorecard should visually distinguish:

City Controlled

Examples:

Shared

Examples:

External Context

Examples:

This prevents false accountability.

49.201Grey County

Where Grey County has lead responsibilities for:

the Scorecard should state that.

49.202No Shadow Housing Department

Owen Sound should not create a duplicate bureaucracy simply to claim activity.

49.203City Role With County

The City can contribute through:

49.204County Partnership Units

Where a County partnership produces units in Owen Sound:

Track:

Do not double-count.

49.205One Resident

A resident should not need to understand jurisdiction before asking for housing help.

No Wrong Door applies.

49.206Housing Help Desk Referral

Track whether residents are routed correctly to:

programs.

49.207Wrong Program

Do not tell a resident:

apply here

before verifying current eligibility and program status.

49.208Program Changes

Housing funding programs change frequently.

Every external program page should have:

49.209Expired Program

Remove or clearly archive expired programs.

49.210Housing Data and Privacy

Housing information can be sensitive.

The Scorecard should generally use:

data.

49.211No Map of Vulnerable Households

Do not publicly map:

at household level.

49.212Affordable Housing Locations

Publicly known projects may be mapped as:

Do not map individual resident information.

49.213Applicant Privacy

Public planning information may be subject to lawful public processes.

Still avoid unnecessary personal details in the Scorecard.

49.214No Tenant Tracking

Do not build a municipal profile of tenant movement merely to measure housing outcomes.

49.215Data Minimization

Collect only what is necessary for:

49.216Housing Dashboard Does Not Need Individual Names

Aggregate.

49.217Accessibility Data

If measuring accessible units:

Use project-level or aggregate data.

49.218Housing Satisfaction

The City should be cautious about trying to survey:

about housing quality.

That can create a large unrelated data program.

Focus on municipal interactions.

49.219Applicant Experience Survey

A better municipal measure:

Were municipal requirements clear?

Were timelines understandable?

Did different departments give consistent information?

Did you know who owned your file?

Did you receive a useful decision?

49.220Approval Satisfaction Is Not Service Quality

An applicant denied permission may still receive excellent municipal service.

Ask about:

49.221Neighbour Experience

For major development processes:

A periodic survey may ask whether residents understood:

Do not ask:

Did Council vote the way you wanted?

49.222Public Notice Quality

Measure whether required public notices are:

Plain-language summaries supplement formal notice.

They do not replace legal requirements.

49.224Development Application Status

Residents should be able to understand at a high level whether a major application is:

Submitted

Under Review

Awaiting Applicant

Public Process

Decision Made

Appealed

Approved

Closed

49.225No Confidential Negotiation Disclosure

Protect information the City cannot lawfully disclose.

49.226Development Status Date

Every project status needs:

49.227Stale "Under Review"

A file should not sit:

under review

for 18 months with no explanation.

Show the current stage.

49.228Major Housing Project Card

For significant projects:

Project

Proposed units

Current stage

Municipal approvals required

Units approved

Units permitted

Units completed

Public subsidy if any

Infrastructure dependency

Last update

49.229No Developer Marketing on City Card

Keep the project card factual.

Do not reproduce:

49.230No City Endorsement

Status reporting does not imply:

49.231Housing Starts Target

If Council adopts a housing target:

Define whether it refers to:

Do not switch definitions mid-term.

49.232Target Is Not Quota on Private Builders

Municipal targets are planning measures.

The City cannot force private construction merely because it approved a target.

49.233Provincial Housing Targets

If Ontario sets or changes municipal housing targets:

Report them separately from the City's own measures.

Verify the current rules.

49.234No Outdated Target

Do not hard-code an external target indefinitely.

Update as law or policy changes.

49.235Target Performance

Show:

49.236Target Miss

If missed:

Explain.

Do not count unrelated metrics to manufacture compliance.

49.237Target Exceeded

If exceeded:

Good.

Still ask:

Quantity is not the only outcome.

49.238Municipal Land Target

A useful internal target may be:

Every significant City-owned site reviewed for housing potential receives a clear decision by the end of the term.

This is within municipal control.

49.239Processing Target

Likewise:

Publish and improve City-controlled processing time for complete eligible files.

Within municipal control.

49.240Suite Navigation Target

Possible:

Every resident asking about an additional unit receives a consolidated municipal requirements path.

49.241Occupancy Target

A City can aim to increase completed housing.

But it cannot guarantee private construction.

Use cautious language.

49.242Housing Affordability Target

Avoid:

Make housing affordable

as a scorecard metric.

Too vague.

Use specific measures tied to municipal actions.

49.243Publicly Supported Unit Target

If Council funds a project:

A defined unit target can be appropriate.

49.244Affordability Compliance

Track whether supported units remain within their required affordability terms.

49.245Covenant Compliance

Same for long-term rental commitments.

49.246Enforcement

Do not approve a covenant and then never verify it.

49.247Community Improvement Plan

Where a CIP or similar lawful program supports housing:

Track:

49.248Incentive Approval Is Not Housing

Again:

is not:

49.249Incentive Effectiveness

Possible measure:

Public Incentive per Completed Supported Unit

alongside:

49.250No Fake Return-on-Investment

Do not claim every private construction dollar occurred solely because of the municipal incentive.

Use:

associated private investment

unless causation is established.

49.251Incentive Sunset

Programs should have review dates.

49.252Incentive Demand

Low uptake may indicate:

Review.

49.253High Uptake

High demand may indicate:

Review that too.

49.254Subsidy Competition

If more qualifying projects exist than funding:

Use transparent criteria.

49.255No Favourite Developer

Same rules.

49.256Procurement Versus Incentive

A grant program is not the same as procurement.

Use the correct legal framework.

49.257Public Land Partnership

Where the City contributes land:

This may require a different selection process.

Get legal and procurement advice.

49.258Long-Term Public Value

A land contribution may deserve conditions such as:

Only where lawful and appropriate.

49.259Do Not Overcondition

Too many public conditions can make a project:

The purpose is housing.

Not creating a 200-page municipal wish list.

49.260Complete Project Economics

Before subsidizing:

Understand whether the project is financially viable.

49.261Public Subsidy Is Not Developer Profit Guarantee

The City should not guarantee:

49.262Housing Construction Workforce

Construction capacity can affect housing delivery.

The City does not control:

It can support:

49.263Do Not Count Training as Units

A trades program can help long term.

It is not current housing supply.

49.264Modular or Alternative Construction

If innovative housing methods are proposed:

Apply the same:

standards.

49.265Innovation Is Not Exemption

New construction technology still needs lawful approval.

49.266Prefabrication

Track outcomes if used.

Do not assume it is always cheaper.

49.267Tiny Homes

If considered:

Evaluate under actual:

rules.

Do not treat the label as policy.

49.268Garden Suites

Same.

49.269Multigenerational Housing

Where lawful additional units support families living together:

Measure the unit.

Do not collect unnecessary family-relationship data.

49.270Rooming Houses or Similar Housing

Where relevant:

Use current legal definitions and appropriate safety regulation.

Do not politicize residents.

49.271Short-Term Rentals

If short-term rental policy affects housing supply:

Measure separately under the applicable municipal framework.

Do not assume every short-term rental would otherwise be long-term housing.

49.272Long-Term Rental Conversion

If a policy aims to protect long-term rental:

Measure actual results where possible.

49.273Rental Licensing

If any licensing program exists or is considered:

Measure:

Do not assume licensing automatically creates affordability.

49.274Landlord-Tenant Jurisdiction

Many landlord-tenant rules are provincial.

The City should not promise authority it does not possess.

49.275No Wrong Door for Tenants

Where a concern belongs to:

route correctly.

49.276Property Standards

Municipal property-standards enforcement can affect housing quality.

Track service performance separately.

49.277Enforcement and Displacement

Where enforcement could displace residents:

Coordinate appropriately with social-service partners where possible.

Safety remains first.

49.278Do Not Ignore Unsafe Housing to Preserve Unit Count

An unsafe unit is not successful housing supply.

49.279Do Not Shut Units Without Lawful Basis Either

Equal rule.

49.280Housing and Homelessness

Do not confuse:

with

They are connected.

They are not identical.

49.281County Lead

Where Grey County leads homelessness and social housing:

Owen Sound should support rather than duplicate.

49.282Shelter Capacity

Do not count shelter beds as:

49.283Transitional Housing

Likewise:

Track under the appropriate housing category and definition.

49.284Supportive Housing

Where a project includes services:

Separate:

49.285Clinical Services

The City does not operate clinical care merely because housing includes supports.

49.286Housing Stability

The City may not have appropriate data to measure whether residents remain housed.

Do not create intrusive monitoring.

49.287Partner Data

Where County or nonprofit partners report aggregate outcomes:

Use their definitions and clearly identify the source.

49.288No Double Counting

If County reports:

and City reports the same:

do not combine to claim:

49.289Housing and Seniors

Cross-reference senior independence.

49.290Downsizing

The Housing Desk can explain options.

It should not pressure a senior:

you should sell your home.

49.291Additional Unit for Caregiver

Measure the housing unit.

Do not collect sensitive health information unless required for a lawful program.

49.292Accessible Renovations

These may be important.

But home accessibility improvements are not necessarily:

Track separately.

49.293Housing and Youth

Youth may need:

The City can improve information.

Do not build youth profiles.

49.294Housing and Families

Family-friendly supply may include:

Measure what can be measured.

49.295Housing and Downtown

Upper floors, mixed-use projects and infill should cross-reference Section 48.

Do not double-count units.

49.296Housing and Business

A strong housing supply supports:

Do not claim a direct job number without evidence.

49.297Housing and Transit

Where new housing is transit-served:

Record descriptive proximity where useful.

49.298Housing and Recreation

Neighbourhood services matter.

Do not make every housing approval contingent on a perfect amenity score.

49.299Housing and Environment

New housing may affect:

Use normal planning and environmental rules.

49.300Greenfield Versus Infill

Track broad development pattern where useful.

Do not assume one is always superior.

49.301Complete Cost of Growth

Infrastructure and Finance should estimate significant long-term municipal costs.

49.302Tax Base Benefit

New occupied housing can add assessment and tax revenue.

Do not count revenue before it exists.

49.303New Assessment Lag

Assessment may enter the tax roll after construction.

Finance should use actual tax data.

49.304No Housing ROI Fantasy

Do not claim:

every $1 in housing approval creates $12 in City value

without defensible analysis.

49.305Housing Construction Value

Permit value may be reported.

Label it correctly.

49.306Housing Tax Revenue

Actual new assessment revenue belongs in Section 45.

Cross-reference.

49.307Housing Infrastructure Cost

Major growth-related infrastructure belongs in Section 47.

Cross-reference.

49.308Public Scorecard Integration

A housing project should not be counted separately as:

without explaining the different dimensions.

49.309Housing Processing Dashboard

A public process table might show:

ServiceFilesMedian City-Controlled TimeWithin StandardOldest Eligible File

Possible:

Use privacy-safe aggregation.

49.310Housing Pipeline Dashboard

StageProjectsUnitsChangeConversion to Next Stage

49.311Housing Type Dashboard

Housing TypePermitted UnitsCompleted / Occupied UnitsFour-Year Trend

49.312Public Subsidy Dashboard

Project / ProgramMunicipal ContributionUnitsAffordability / Rental TermStatus

49.313Municipal Land Dashboard

SiteStatusPotential UseNext DecisionPublic Value Note

Avoid speculative unit counts unless feasibility supports them.

49.314Servicing Dashboard

Area / ProjectCapacity StatusMajor ConstraintPlanned Municipal WorkTiming

At safe level.

49.315External Program Dashboard

ProgramGovernment / ProviderStatusLast VerifiedCity Role

This prevents stale financing claims.

49.316Housing Traffic Lights

Possible:

Green

Meeting the adopted municipal standard.

Amber

Material bottleneck or risk.

Red

Significant municipal corrective action required.

Grey

Data unavailable or external uncertainty.

Publish the rules.

49.317Green Does Not Mean Homes Are Affordable

A Green permit-processing metric means:

Do not extrapolate.

49.318Red Market Price Is Not City Performance

Do not place external house-price increases in the City's Red performance column.

Use context panel.

49.319Grey External Program

If a federal program's launch status is uncertain:

Grey:

Verification required

is better than false promise.

49.320Anti-Gaming Rule One

Do not count inquiries as homes.

49.321Anti-Gaming Rule Two

Do not count approved units as built units.

49.322Anti-Gaming Rule Three

Do not count permits as occupied units.

49.323Anti-Gaming Rule Four

Do not count legalizations as new construction without distinguishing them.

49.324Anti-Gaming Rule Five

Do not add all stages of the same project together into a larger headline.

49.325Anti-Gaming Rule Six

Do not count theoretical zoning capacity as housing created.

49.326Anti-Gaming Rule Seven

Do not count an identified municipal land site as a housing project until a real project exists.

49.327Anti-Gaming Rule Eight

Do not count announced senior-government financing as approved resident financing.

49.328Anti-Gaming Rule Nine

Do not report an expired housing program as available.

49.329Anti-Gaming Rule Ten

Do not restart the processing clock when a file becomes politically inconvenient.

49.330Anti-Gaming Rule Eleven

Do not classify City-controlled delay as applicant delay without a legitimate basis.

49.331Anti-Gaming Rule Twelve

Do not approve incomplete or unsafe work to meet housing targets.

49.332Anti-Gaming Rule Thirteen

Do not count shelter beds as permanent housing.

49.333Anti-Gaming Rule Fourteen

Do not double-count County and City partnership units.

49.334Anti-Gaming Rule Fifteen

Do not call public land:

free.

49.335Anti-Gaming Rule Sixteen

Do not call fee waivers:

no-cost incentive.

49.336Anti-Gaming Rule Seventeen

Do not count private construction value as City investment.

49.337Anti-Gaming Rule Eighteen

Do not claim City policy caused housing-price changes without evidence.

49.338Anti-Gaming Rule Nineteen

Do not call all new units:

affordable

without a definition and term.

49.339Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty

Do not count units that were demolished without showing the net change.

49.340Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-One

Do not count a groundbreaking ceremony as construction completion.

49.341Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Two

Do not move difficult projects out of the Scorecard to improve processing averages.

49.342Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Three

Do not change housing type definitions during the term without disclosing the impact.

49.343Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Four

Do not claim a municipal housing target was met using a different metric than the target originally defined.

49.344Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Five

Do not hide the public subsidy behind:

Show complete public contribution.

49.345Baseline

Year One should establish:

49.346Baseline Data Quality

If prior data is incomplete:

Publish:

not previously measured consistently.

49.347No Fictional Historic Pipeline

Do not reconstruct old inquiry numbers from memory.

49.348Year One Housing Objective

Build the measurement system and improve navigation.

49.349Year Two Housing Objective

Move more feasible projects from:

toward:

49.350Year Three Housing Objective

Identify persistent bottlenecks and make major municipal land and infrastructure decisions.

49.351Year Four Housing Objective

Publish the full pipeline and hand the next Council a clear housing-development environment.

49.352Four-Year Core Measures

Strong candidates:

49.353Do Not Predetermine Future Numbers

The plan defines:

Actual results belong to future reporting.

49.354Housing Target With Uncertainty

If Council adopts a numeric target:

Report:

Target

Actual

Forecast

At Risk

without pretending private builders are City departments.

49.355Forecast Units

A forecast should be based on:

Do not add speculative projects merely to create an optimistic number.

49.356High-Confidence Forecast

Could include projects:

49.357Medium-Confidence Forecast

Could include approved projects with active next steps.

49.358Low-Confidence Pipeline

Proposals at concept stage.

Keep separate.

49.359Do Not Call Pipeline "Guaranteed"

Private projects can stop.

49.360Major Project Dependency

For each large housing project:

Identify if dependent on:

49.361Project At Risk

If a major dependency threatens delivery:

Mark:

49.362No Developer Blame Without Facts

A delayed private project may have many causes.

Use verified information.

49.363No City Blame Without Facts

Same principle.

49.364Public Housing Narrative

The quarterly summary should answer:

How many units moved forward?

How many reached occupancy?

What major files stalled?

Why?

What did the City control?

What changed in municipal processing?

What infrastructure issue matters next?

Simple.

49.365Housing and Construction Season

Recognize seasonality.

A quarter with few starts in winter may not indicate failure.

49.366Multi-Year Projects

A large development may span several years.

Use cohort reporting.

49.367Do Not Reset at January 1

Keep project continuity across fiscal years.

49.368Public Communication

When announcing a housing project:

Use exact language.

Examples:

Proposed: 120 units

Approved: 120 units

Building permits issued: 80 units

Under construction: 80 units

Occupied: 40 units

No ambiguity.

49.369No "Delivering 120 Homes" at Proposal Stage

This should be prohibited in official scorecard language.

49.370No "Housing Created" at Zoning Stage

Same.

49.371Public Project Signs

If a City-supported project uses signage:

State the real stage.

49.372Media Releases

Use the same terms as the Scorecard.

No separate promotional vocabulary.

49.373Council Reports

Housing numbers in Council reports should reconcile with the dashboard.

49.374One Source of Housing Truth

Planning, Building and Communications should use consistent unit counts.

49.375Reconciliation

If departments use different operational counts:

Explain why.

Create a reconciled public measure.

49.376Data Correction

If a housing count was wrong:

Correct it publicly.

49.377Version History

Material corrections should enter the Correction Log.

49.378Election-Year Integrity

Housing reporting should use the same definitions during Year Four.

49.379No Pre-Election Pipeline Inflation

Do not move speculative projects into:

categories to improve the record.

49.380No Announcement Harvesting

Do not reannounce the same housing project repeatedly as:

new homes announced.

49.381No Counting Existing Work as New Mayoral Success

If a project began before the term:

Show:

Credit continuity.

49.382Inherited Pipeline

Year One baseline should identify projects already:

49.383New Administration Contribution

Where the City later changes:

show that contribution accurately.

49.384Previous Council Credit

Major projects often span terms.

Acknowledge previous decisions.

49.385Next Council Handoff

Likewise.

A project completed after the term may have begun during it.

No need to rush.

49.386Housing Handoff Package

The next Council should receive:

Pipeline

Active projects and unit counts.

Municipal Land

Status and analysis.

Infrastructure

Constraints and planned upgrades.

Subsidies

Agreements and future obligations.

External Programs

Current verified status.

Processing

Current standards and bottlenecks.

Active planning or appeal matters through proper channels.

49.387No Hidden Subsidy Handoff

Future Councils need to know:

49.388No Hidden Infrastructure Handoff

Likewise.

49.389No Hidden Approval Assumption

A future Council should know what is:

versus merely politically supported.

49.390Four-Year Housing Audit

At term end publish:

Housing inquiries

Formal applications

Planning approvals

Units permitted

Units started where measurable

Units completed

Units occupied

Net new units

Additional residential units

Downtown upper-floor units

Publicly supported units

Municipal land decisions

Processing time

Public subsidy

Infrastructure constraints

Major unresolved projects

External program status

49.391Name the Biggest Housing Process Improvement

Use evidence.

49.392Name the Biggest Housing Process Failure

Use evidence.

49.393Name the Biggest Drop-Off Point

Where do feasible projects most often stop?

49.394Name the Biggest City-Controlled Bottleneck

If one remains:

Say it.

49.395Name the Biggest External Constraint

Could be:

Use evidence.

49.396Name the Most Successful Additional-Unit Reform

Show:

49.397Name the Downtown Housing Result

How many actual upper-floor units reached occupancy?

49.398Name the Largest Municipal Land Decision

Explain:

49.399Name the Largest Public Housing Subsidy

Show:

49.400Name a Housing Idea That Did Not Work

This matters.

49.401Name the Largest Housing Opportunity Handed to the Next Council

Be specific.

49.402Housing Quantity Test

Ask:

Did more lawful units reach occupancy?

49.403Pipeline Test

Ask:

Did the City become better at seeing where housing projects stall?

49.404Processing Test

Ask:

Did City-controlled processing become clearer and more predictable?

49.405Accuracy Test

Ask:

Did the City distinguish inquiries, approvals, permits and completed homes honestly?

49.406Additional Unit Test

Ask:

Did homeowners who wanted lawful additional units receive clearer navigation, and did more units reach legal occupancy?

49.407Downtown Test

Ask:

Did unused upper-floor space become actual housing?

49.408Infrastructure Test

Ask:

Did housing growth occur where infrastructure could support it, or did the City create unfunded servicing pressure?

49.409Municipal Land Test

Ask:

Did the City reach deliberate decisions on land rather than simply identifying parcels?

49.410Subsidy Test

Ask:

Can residents see exactly what public support was provided and what public benefit resulted?

49.411Affordability Test

Ask:

Did the City define affordability honestly rather than use it as a slogan?

49.412Family Test

Ask:

Did the housing mix provide more practical stage-of-life options?

49.413Seniors Test

Ask:

Did municipal policy create more options for residents who want to remain in their community as they age?

49.414Accessibility Test

Ask:

Did supported projects improve accessible housing choices where the City had a role?

49.415Privacy Test

Ask:

Did the City measure housing without building unnecessary resident profiles?

49.416County Test

Ask:

Did Owen Sound and Grey County reduce duplication and give residents clearer housing navigation?

49.417External Program Test

Ask:

Did the City keep federal and provincial housing information current rather than promising stale programs?

49.418Election-Year Test

Ask:

Would the final housing numbers be reported the same way if the Mayor were not seeking re-election?

49.419Institution Test

Ask:

Can the next Council understand the entire housing pipeline without asking the former Mayor what the numbers meant?

49.420What Success Looks Like

Housing success does not mean:

Municipal success means:

49.421What Failure Looks Like

Failure includes:

49.422The Housing Scorecard Commitment

Owen Sound should commit to:

Treat housing as a pipeline from inquiry to occupancy.

Recognize that not every project follows the same approval path.

Publish project counts and unit counts separately.

Never add multiple stages of the same project together to inflate the housing number.

Define Proposed, Approved, Permitted, Started, Completed and Occupied consistently.

Treat lawful occupancy as the strongest housing-delivery measure where appropriate.

Track inquiries as demand and navigation data, not housing created.

Investigate where residents drop out of the housing pipeline.

Do not assume every drop-off is a municipal failure.

Measure whether the Housing Navigation Desk gives residents clear requirements and next steps.

Help homeowners understand feasibility before they spend heavily.

Treat an early honest no as useful service when a proposal cannot proceed.

Track housing applications by meaningful project type.

Update housing categories when the law changes rather than preserving outdated terminology.

Tell applicants exactly what is missing from incomplete files.

Avoid moving municipal requirements unnecessarily after an applicant believes the file is complete.

Publish planning approvals as approvals, not completed housing.

Track approval-to-permit conversion.

Track building permits and units permitted separately.

Measure City-controlled processing time.

Separate applicant-controlled delay.

Separate external-agency delay where material.

Define every clock pause.

Never stop the municipal processing clock invisibly.

Use median processing time and percent-within-standard rather than average alone.

Show persistent long-tail files where privacy can be protected.

Do not sacrifice legal or technical quality to improve processing statistics.

Track appeals and significant process failures without treating every appeal as City error.

Track construction starts only where the City can measure them reliably.

Never count a groundbreaking ceremony as housing delivered.

Track completion and lawful occupancy separately where the process distinguishes them.

Use project-type cohorts when construction timelines differ materially.

Track withdrawn and stopped housing applications.

Ask why projects stop, but do not guess when the reason is unknown.

Publish gross housing additions and net new housing where reliable.

Subtract lawful housing removals when reporting net unit growth.

Track additional residential units from inquiry through legal occupancy.

Never count suite inquiries as suites created.

Distinguish new construction from legalization of an existing unit.

Treat legalization as a safety and housing-quality outcome where appropriate.

Track garden suites or similar categories only under the current lawful framework.

Coordinate additional-unit approvals with real servicing and safety requirements.

Verify every federal or provincial housing-financing program before publishing it as available.

Date the verification.

Never promise a resident approval for financing controlled by another government or lender.

Keep municipal approval and external financing decisions separate.

Track downtown upper-floor housing through the full pipeline.

Distinguish municipal process barriers from fire, building, financing, market and owner constraints.

Never weaken life-safety requirements to improve upper-floor housing statistics.

Use one-window navigation without pretending all housing rules come from one department.

Count actual occupied upper-floor units, not theoretical potential.

Do not pressure private property owners to convert buildings.

Track housing type descriptively rather than deciding one form is inherently good.

Measure broad stage-of-life housing options where reliable.

Use bedroom and design characteristics rather than labelling who is supposed to live in a unit.

Track accessible units only using clear definitions.

Do not collect unnecessary health or personal information in the name of housing measurement.

Track rental and ownership tenure where reliable.

Monitor long-term rental covenants or agreements only where they are lawful and enforceable.

Show the public subsidy tied to long-term rental obligations.

Never use "affordable" without a published definition.

Publish the duration of affordability obligations.

Distinguish formal affordable units from vague below-market or attainable claims.

Show the full municipal contribution to supported housing projects.

Treat land, fee relief and infrastructure as real public contributions.

Do not hide housing subsidies simply because no cheque was written.

Use independent valuation where municipal land value matters.

Select housing partners through fair and lawful processes.

Consider land sale and long-term lease as different tools where appropriate.

Do not use one-time land-sale revenue to create unsupported recurring operating promises.

Give every significant municipal land site under housing review a clear status and next decision.

Do not count a possible site as a housing project before a real project exists.

Publish high-level servicing capacity and constraints without exposing sensitive infrastructure information.

Never treat infrastructure capacity as automatic development approval.

Track major infrastructure investments needed to support housing.

Recognize that existing serviced areas may provide lower-cost growth opportunities while still requiring neighbourhood and infrastructure review.

Use lawful development funding tools and explain who pays.

Never call developer-funded infrastructure free.

Identify housing delays caused by infrastructure separately from planning processing.

Do not claim infrastructure enabled a specific number of homes unless the evidence supports that number.

Keep theoretical zoning capacity separate from actual housing supply.

Measure whether zoning reform produces real applications, permits and occupancy.

Track gentle-density outcomes and recurring neighbourhood effects.

Do not give neighbours a veto over lawful housing.

Do not give applicants an exemption from lawful neighbour protections either.

Use public consultation for planning choices without converting technical safety requirements into popularity contests.

Protect property rights, accessibility and equal treatment in housing policy.

Cross-reference family-friendly neighbourhood outcomes.

Coordinate housing with transportation, parks and public services.

Review parking requirements using current law and local evidence rather than habit.

Never sacrifice building and fire safety to meet housing targets.

Provide a lawful path to legalize existing units where compliance is possible.

Do not publish maps identifying illegal or vulnerable households.

Report residential demolition and replacement so gross additions are not mistaken for net growth.

Use external market vacancy, rent, price, income and interest-rate data as context rather than City-controlled performance.

Visually distinguish City-Controlled, Shared and External housing measures.

Respect Grey County's lead responsibilities where applicable.

Do not create a duplicate municipal homelessness bureaucracy.

Use No Wrong Door to route residents between City, County, Ontario, Canada and community programs.

Never double-count units delivered through City-County partnerships.

Protect applicant, tenant and household privacy.

Never create maps of vulnerable households for scorecard purposes.

Measure applicant experience through clarity, consistency and process rather than whether the application was approved.

Make major housing-application status understandable to the public where lawful.

Date project-status information.

Do not leave major projects indefinitely labelled "under review" without meaningful status.

Use factual project cards rather than developer marketing language.

Do not imply City endorsement of a private housing investment merely because the application is listed.

Define every housing target before measuring it.

Do not change from permits to starts or starts to completions halfway through the term to improve target performance.

Treat municipal housing targets as planning objectives rather than commands to private builders.

Verify external provincial housing targets or rules before publishing them.

Use strong municipal targets for things the City actually controls, such as processing clarity, land decisions and service standards.

Avoid vague promises to "make housing affordable" without measurable municipal actions.

Track compliance with public affordability or rental commitments where the City subsidized the project.

Measure housing incentives by completed public benefit rather than grants approved.

Review incentive programs for both low uptake and unexpectedly high subsidy demand.

Never favour a developer because of political relationships.

Avoid overloading publicly supported projects with so many conditions that the housing becomes impossible to build.

Do not guarantee developer profit through public housing policy.

Support local construction skills where useful without counting training programs as housing units.

Apply the same safety and lifecycle standards to modular, prefabricated and other innovative construction methods.

Do not treat tiny homes, garden suites or other housing labels as exemptions from normal legal requirements.

Support multigenerational options without collecting unnecessary family information.

Keep landlord-tenant issues within the correct provincial and municipal jurisdictions.

Use No Wrong Door for tenant concerns outside City authority.

Measure property-standards service without ignoring displacement consequences.

Never tolerate unsafe housing simply to preserve unit counts.

Keep permanent housing, emergency shelter, transitional housing and supportive housing categories distinct.

Do not count shelter beds as permanent homes.

Do not use intrusive tracking to measure whether individual residents remain housed.

Use partner aggregate data according to the partner's definitions.

Cross-reference senior, youth, downtown, business, transit, environment and infrastructure scorecards without double-counting outcomes.

Do not claim a direct economic return from housing approvals without evidence.

Use one source of housing truth across Planning, Building, Council reports and Communications.

Correct material housing-count errors publicly.

Preserve definition and methodology history.

Use the same housing definitions during the election year.

Never inflate the pre-election housing pipeline with speculative projects.

Do not repeatedly reannounce the same project as new housing.

Identify projects inherited from previous Councils.

Give previous Councils and future Councils appropriate credit for projects spanning terms.

Leave the next Council a complete housing pipeline, land, infrastructure, subsidy and external-program handoff.

Publish the full four-year Housing Audit.

Name the largest City-controlled bottleneck.

Name the largest external constraint.

Name where projects most often fell out of the pipeline.

Name the actual additional-unit result.

Name the actual downtown upper-floor housing result.

Name the largest municipal land decision.

Name the largest public housing subsidy.

Name a housing initiative that did not work.

Name the biggest housing opportunity being handed to the next Council.

Judge the four-year housing record by lawful occupied homes and better municipal process, not announcements.

The Housing Scorecard should make it impossible for municipal government to hide behind the easiest number.

If Council approves:

but only:

the public should see all four numbers.

If:

the result is not:

300 new homes.

It is:

42 completed housing units, with information showing where the other files stopped.

If a project is delayed because:

say so.

If it is delayed because:

say so.

If it is delayed because:

say so.

If it cannot proceed because:

say so.

If public money supported it:

show the amount.

If affordability is claimed:

define it.

If municipal land was used:

show the value.

If an outside housing program changed:

update the information.

And if the City approved hundreds of units that the market never built:

do not pretend approvals became homes.

That is housing transparency.

Follow the unit from question to occupancy. Measure the City's part honestly. Separate approval from construction. Separate subsidy from rhetoric. Show where projects stop. Count a home when it becomes a home.

← Chapter 48: Downtown: The Public Downtown ScorecardChapter 50: Business: The Public Business Scorecard →