Five Developers Own Most of Ottawa’s Housing Land. A Strong Public Builder Can Restore Competition.

A Public Option is Key to Keeping Housing Affordable for Ottawa Families

---

I’m running for Mayor if 1,000 people are ready to work together to win back our city. Follow here for my values, priorities and thoughts on how we get Ottawa back on track.

1,000 People Can Take Back Ottawa
We Need a Candidate Who Can Win the Mayor’s Race
Who Really Runs Ottawa?
Three Priorities for Restoring Ottawa
Winning Ottawa. Governing Differently.
Transit is Broken. Here’s How We Rebuild It.
Ready to Fix City Hall
The Infrastructure Bills We Delayed are Coming Due. Ottawa Needs a Plan.

---

The City absolutely needs to do everything it can to cut red tape and make it easier for builders to build. The City’s 2025 Housing Acceleration Plan was a step in the right direction.

But if the economy deteriorates and the housing market continues to soften, we are unlikely to see the desired supply response in the near term, given structural concerns with the Ottawa housing market.

Oligopoly, not a free market

Five developers control about two-thirds of the vacant land available for housing in the city.

That fact alone should make us pause.

When you train in economics, you’re drawn to free market thinking. In housing policy, that means reducing barriers to supply — making it easier for builders to build so supply and demand can meet at higher volumes and lower prices.

That logic works in a competitive market.

But over time, industries can become less competitive. Consolidation happens and a few large players end up dominating.

That’s the case in Ottawa housing.

Five companies — Minto, Taggart, Richcraft, Urbandale and Claridge — own about two-thirds of the land where new housing can be built.¹

When just a handful of companies control most of the land, housing stops behaving like a free market.

When the market slows, who keeps building?

When economic conditions are favourable, those firms build.

But when conditions turn uncertain, they slow down or wait.

That’s rational. When prices are softening, the last thing a builder wants to do is flood the market with supply that reduces their own margins.

But it leaves the people of Ottawa in a vulnerable position. When the private market slows down, housing construction slows with it.

And with all signs pointing to an economic downturn, it’s difficult to see private builders delivering the homes that Ottawa needs.

So the key question becomes: how do we keep building when the private market pauses?

And related, who will employ the thousands who work in the trades when the big developers slow down?

Scale up the public option

When private developers step back, we have two choices: housing construction slows — or another builder steps in.

That builder can be the public sector, the non-profit sector or smaller private developers.

Most non-profit housing organizations are small. Like smaller private developers, they do not scale.

But public builders — publicly owned corporations that develop and operate housing — can operate at a larger scale.

Ottawa already has one.

The City’s public builder operates through Ottawa Community Housing, with mid-market operations carried out as Arriv Properties.

Arriv operates on a non-profit cost-recovery basis. It builds housing as efficiently as possible, accesses grants when available to reduce costs, and finances the rest through borrowing. The rents from its units fully cover financing and operating costs.

In other words, Arriv builds attractive mid-market housing without requiring ongoing taxpayer subsidies.

A public builder is simply a builder whose goal is homes, not profits.

But Arriv faces a major constraint: its modest balance sheet. Its borrowing capacity limits how many homes it can build each year.

The City of Ottawa, however, has significant unused borrowing capacity.

We should use some of that capacity for good. Not for sweetheart deals like Lansdowne, but to make housing more affordable for people across the city.

By extending that borrowing capacity to Arriv, the City could allow its public builder to raise more capital and build far more homes.

To be clear, a public builder is not a department of bureaucrats swinging hammers.

Public builders operate much like private developers. They maintain small teams responsible for financing, design and project management. Once a project is approved, construction is carried out by private contractors and trades — just like any other development project.

The difference is cost structure and mandate.

Public builders benefit from several advantages that allow them to build housing more affordably:

• They can borrow with government backing at lower interest rates

• They do not set out to generate a profit margin

• Cities can contribute surplus public land

• Their non-profit mandate can reduce soft costs like development charges or allow for even more favourable financing

Together, these advantages significantly lower development costs.

Without the need for a typical 15% profit margin — and with lower borrowing costs — public builders can often construct housing around 20% cheaper than commercial developers. If public land is contributed to the project, those savings can be even larger.

Lower costs translate into lower rents.

You can already see this in Ottawa. The Arriv Properties’ Mosaic building at Gladstone and Rochester offers two-bedroom apartments for $1,550 per month. The Ottawa market average rent for a two-bedroom is $2,458.

That difference makes a real impact for families trying to stay in the city.

Why haven’t we done this before?

Ottawa has had a public builder for decades.

We simply have not used it at scale.

For many years, there was a broad belief that governments should not be in the business of building homes. The private market, the thinking went, would provide the supply.

That belief made more sense when housing markets were competitive.

But with Ottawa’s market concentration, that no longer holds true. When the five big developers slow down construction, the entire housing system slows with them.

A public builder provides a counterweight.

When residents have a genuine non-market option, private developers must compete — and housing prices remain far more stable.

This is how Vienna makes housing affordable, where about 60% of the population choose the public option. Or Singapore, where about 80% live in public or non-profit housing. Or Hong Kong, where it’s about 50%. Or the Netherlands, at about 30%. Or Paris, at about 25%. Across Canada, it’s only about 4%.

Providing a public or non-market option is how some of the great cities of the world keep housing affordable.

Many of us want the freedom to own our own home. Many others want to live comfortably and safely in a home that they can afford.

It’s about giving people choice.

Ottawa can learn from how other great cities are using a public option to achieve housing affordability.

And the momentum is already shifting.

The federal government has launched its own public builder, Build Canada Homes. British Columbia has a similar approach through BC Builds.

Across the developed world, governments are rediscovering something important: housing is too essential to leave entirely to market forces — especially when those markets have become concentrated.

A new era for housing in Ottawa

Ottawa needs a housing system that keeps building even when private construction slows.

Scaling up our public builder would help us do exactly that.

It requires the City taking three steps.

First, Ottawa would extend its borrowing capacity to Arriv Properties, in order to allow the public builder to finance the construction of 10,000 public-option homes over the next term of Council. These homes would be built and financed on a full cost-recovery basis, so in other words, without affecting your property taxes.

Second, the City would transfer suitable municipal lands to the public builder so projects can move forward without the high cost of land acquisition.

Third, Ottawa would partner with the federal government’s Build Canada Homes initiative and push the province to support public option housing — including reimbursing development charges and other soft costs.

Together, these steps would allow Ottawa to address housing affordability — even when the private market slows.

For too long, Ottawa has relied heavily on a small group of private developers to solve its housing shortage.

It’s time to get serious about having a strong public builder to provide some real competition.

Because Ottawa’s future should not depend on five developers deciding when it’s profitable to build.

Not me. Us.

I often say that 1,000 committed citizens can change Ottawa.

City Hall insiders have a vested interest in protecting the status quo. That won’t change on its own.

I cannot do this alone. No one can.

But if enough residents decide that Ottawa belongs to us — not to a handful of powerful developers — then we can return City Hall to its rightful owners.

This is bigger than any one candidate.

I’m prepared to stand at the front of that movement.

But it only works if we build it together.

Be the change Ottawa needs. Join The Thousand.

1. City of Ottawa (August 2025). Greenfield Residential Land Survey Mid-2024 Update. See Table 8b (p 18). Note that Riverside South Development Corporation, KNL Developments and CRT Developments are partnerships involving some of Urbandale, Richcraft, Claridge and Tamarack.