In a contentious decision that has divided the community, Surrey city council has given the green light to a new Costco warehouse in South Surrey while simultaneously rejecting a proposed supportive housing development in the same neighborhood.
Contentious Council Meeting Draws Crowds
During Monday's regular council meeting, numerous residents packed the chambers to voice their opinions on both developments. While the Costco proposal underwent a formal public hearing process, the housing plan did not, though this didn't stop both opponents and supporters from making their positions clear.
Mayor Brenda Locke aligned herself with housing opponents, expressing concerns about the BC Housing application that would have created 260 housing units. The proposed development included 200 affordable rental units, 40 supportive housing studio units, and 20 complex care studio units designed for those with significant needs.
Mayor's Position on Housing Mix
"I personally do not support it but it will be up to council to see but I suspect that they will not support it," Locke stated, a declaration met with boisterous applause from many attendees. She clarified that she and council only support affordable housing units for "seniors, working families and people on fixed incomes (who) are struggling right now in this market and in our city."
The mayor argued that the social housing components, which would provide wrap-around support for people experiencing homelessness, should be located elsewhere. She placed responsibility for the proposed location on the provincial government, suggesting the area was inappropriate for such a development.
Geographic Disparity in Supportive Housing
While Surrey currently operates multiple supportive housing sites across the city, South Surrey has no such facilities. Most council members expressed concern about mixing affordable units with supportive housing in the same development and locating it near existing residential properties.
Councillor Harry Bains went further, suggesting that previous city councils made mistakes by approving supportive housing that permitted substance use. His comments reflected the ongoing debate about how best to address homelessness and housing insecurity while balancing community concerns.
While the majority of attendees celebrated council's decision to reject the BC Housing application, a smaller group of approximately 20 people expressed disappointment. Bonnie Gillies, a local resident and volunteer with South Surrey's extreme weather shelter, voiced her concerns about the outcome.
"I feel very sad for the people living on our streets," Gillies said. "People are so focused in their own best interests in a lot of ways and our group is small but mighty and we're not focused in our own best interests. We're focused on the needs of the unhoused in the community."
The contrasting decisions highlight the ongoing challenges municipalities face in balancing commercial development with social housing needs, particularly in neighborhoods resistant to both types of projects.
