Gearing Up for Growth

As Mayor of one of the fastest growing municipalities in the province, along with Surrey, Langley Township’s Eric Woodward is laser-focused on safeguarding the momentum to create opportunities for his constituents. And if that means challenging the status quo or the dictums from Victoria, then so be it. After all, it’s the same growth mindset that saw him succeed in the private sector and that got him elected Mayor in 2022. Since late 2023, when the Province passed sweeping housing legislation, Woodward has been a staunch critic of what he and some of his peers see as overreach. He spoke to FVREB in late 2024 about the Province’s misguided approach to housing—and what the NDP could learn from the Township, if they actually listened.

FVREB: It’s been over a year now since the government launched its Homes for People strategy and the sweeping legislation to support it. How would you grade it so far?

Mayor Eric Woodward: Well, I think it’s still too early to tell as the implementation of it was only finalized by many municipalities this previous summer. In the case of the Township, we’ve only adopted it as of October, so it’s going to take some time to see the overall impact and whether it has the ability to generate the density that the government thinks it will.

FVREB: According to your interim housing needs report, Langley Township will need to add an additional 43,000 housing units over the next 20 years, and about 15,000 over the next five years. Is this a realistic target?

EW: That interim report was required to update our Official Community Plan as part of Bill 44. The methodology to produce those numbers was dictated to us by the provincial government but I think it’s questionable in terms of how there’s such a drastic change from our previous report. It suggests the province is establishing a methodology to produce higher numbers, which makes me question the validity of the process.

FVREB: Some municipalities have been critical of the province’s approach for its potential overreach and for not taking into account the ongoing work already being undertaken.

EW: I think a “one size fits all” solution mandated down to local government simply doesn’t work or is not applicable, and that’s been my criticism from the beginning. The Township of Langley is approving and producing thousands of units per year, well in advance of the previous housing needs report. So my question is: Why is this legislation necessary? If the problem is that other municipalities are not producing housing approvals in the right locations or at the right quantities that the government wants, then why not work with them individually? I think the way they’ve gone about Bill 44 is causing problems for municipalities like the Township of Langley and the City of Surrey, which are already growing rapidly, and are now being expected to grow even faster.

FVREB: What might have been a more productive or collaborative approach?

EW: I think it’s been irresponsible, both financially and from a policy perspective. A more constructive approach would have been to work with municipalities that government feels aren’t producing enough housing, and to reward those that are growing and are willing to grow, instead of punishing all cities just because the Premier decided that cities are the problem.

FVREB: Growth requires sufficient infrastructure to support it. Is there a way to cover it without relying solely on increasing taxes?

EW: More tools are going to be required from the federal and provincial governments for local municipalities to fund infrastructure. Requiring new growth to pay for the infrastructure required by new growth isn’t feasible anymore. Further, property tax levels are already extreme—and as Metro Vancouver, TransLink, school funding, etc. continue to put significant pressure on property tax, they’re effectively taking [those sources] away from local governments. So you have to look at other options, and an obvious one is for the province to directly fund the infrastructure required by growth if they want to see development cost charges (DCC) come down or level off.

FVREB: Some have pointed to DCCs as one of the main reasons for escalating housing costs.

EW: Right. But we never hear about land costs, or marketing costs, or materials costs. You only hear about government fees and taxes, and I think that’s on purpose. It’s a campaign by the development industry to lobby away these fees to make money on land acquisition. One of the problems local governments have is that as land values continue to go up due to increasing densities, it puts more pressure on providing parks, especially, for new residents. It’s an upward spiral. My concern has always been that if local government was to subsidize growth, all that would end up happening here in the Township would be land values would rise. It doesn’t get passed on to the end consumer in terms of savings at all, instead it ends up being direct profit to the landowner or the developer. And they have very effective public relations strategies to distract from the true motive, which is to increase profits. I think it’s important for the provincial government to start to look at a per unit infrastructure distribution to cities for every unit that’s built to make sure that development costs charges are kept at a reasonable level or from increasing.

FVREB: On the topic of financing, the Township of Langley was recently denied an application for Housing Accelerator Fund monies. Was there a particular reason your application wasn’t approved?

EW: Our experience with the Housing Accelerator Fund has been a deeply frustrating one for the Township of Langley because we took a number of steps to reform the process early on in our term. We increased density, we redid multiple neighborhood plans, we’ve embarked on a new vision for 200 Street—all of which theoretically accelerates housing significantly. Yet we were not approved under Minister Fraser, because of his perceptions of development cost charges and other politics that started to occur at Metro Vancouver. The process became deeply politicized very quickly. For example, they wired money to Bowen Island, however I’m not sure what housing is being accelerated there. It directly highlights that the program became political and had very little to do with accelerating housing.

FVREB: With the new administration now in place and Premier Eby taking on closer oversight of municipal dealings, how will this impact things moving forward?

EW: Remains to be seen. Given that our staff and myself worked directly with ministers previously, it’s not clear how that’s going to work. I can say that, in the past, there was no listening or collaboration on the part of the Ministry of Housing. In fact, it was the opposite. They were consulting with senior staff here on potential reform but signing them to non-disclosure agreements so they weren’t allowed to discuss it with the elected officials that represent the Township of Langley. They clearly embarked upon a program to exclude elected officials to not consult with us. It’s their prerogative who they consult with on new legislation. They could have reached out to mayors like myself and [Surrey Mayor] Brenda Locke and others who are in fast growing communities to learn how new housing can be delivered in the right way and how it can be funded. But they chose not to ask. I think the legislation can be better. I think we could have all worked together to come up with some decent ideas on how to accelerate housing, how to help cities produce and build infrastructure. We could have had a really constructive, positive dialogue. I don’t know why that wouldn’t have been the approach. For example, here at the local level when we bring in an OCP or bring in new bylaws, we consult with the community. We’re very good at that and I think maybe Victoria could learn from cities on how to better consult with stakeholders before they make legislation.

FVREB: What would you like to see the government focus on more to support the Township’s efforts regarding housing and infrastructure? What could they be doing differently?

EW: I’d like to see the province focus on solving the things that are their responsibility that are holding up housing, and stop interfering at the local level, unless they’re actually here to help and not impose things that don’t work. For example, they are changing the BC building code on an ongoing basis adding all kinds of requirements that will only increase construction costs. The [BC Energy] Step Code process that’s being implemented over the next five years is easier for some municipalities than others—that should be standardized. Water Act approvals here in the Township are holding up housing for up to a year or more. So maybe they should solve those issues that are in their purview and their domain first before casting stones on others. Imposing housing targets using a made-up methodology and then putting us on a naughty list, isn’t really the best way. I’d like to see the province focus more on what they’re responsible for—financing or BC Housing for example—where they can actually bring their resources to bear, and let cities do their work, with actual consultation and real collaboration.

FVREB: Beyond housing, the rising cost of everything from gas to food to services is straining the budgets of households across the province. How do you make sure that folks who move to the Township are able to thrive and grow here?

EW: Along with Surrey, we are uniquely positioned for growth in the Metro Vancouver area and so it’s incumbent upon us to make sure that we’ve got a livable community that is affordable. That means affordable housing, but it also means having recreation facilities, roads to get around, other infrastructure and amenities. Delivering these services while trying to keep property taxes from increasing too much is a priority for the Township. The federal and provincial governments need to get their houses in order—I don’t run a $9 billion deficit and call it a victory. I have to balance my budget every year. Of all levels of government, municipalities are probably the most responsible fiscally, given the resources we have, and we’re doing all we can to deliver core services as affordably as possible.