Facts & opinion · September 13, 2026

520 Highway 8: FEAR NOT! The City of Hamilton will bail you out

An Open Letter to Property Owners in Ward 10 and Across Hamilton

Dear fellow property owners,

For all Hamilton property owners who bought at the top of the market and have watched their property values fall: FEAR NOT. Look at the message the City of Hamilton has sent with its recent approval of the 520 Highway 8 development application.

If the value of your property needs a boost, just submit an application to City Council for a major zoning change and watch your property value double.

Don't worry about having everything figured out first. Don’t worry about a complete plan. Don’t worry if there are still major issues with traffic, servicing, landscaping, parking, rooftop impacts, windows, privacy, or anything else. Those can all be pushed off to Site Plan Control. Even if City staff put holding provisions on unresolved items, it doesn’t matter. Council can still approve the zoning now and let someone else deal with the problems later.

And if you sell the property before any of that gets worked out? Even better. Let the next guy deal with it. There’s actually a name for this kind of strategy: an entitlement play. Buy a property, increase what can legally be built on it, and your land can be worth a whole lot more. You can build it yourself, or you can sell it to someone else who will. If Council is concerned about you not building anything and selling it, you just tell them you intend to refinance the property, keep the project, and develop it yourself. You can say the rezoning is needed so the project can move forward. Then, once Council gives you the approval and the value of the property jumps, you can put it up for sale and let somebody else take it from there. I know what you’re thinking: that doesn’t sound like an honest way to do business. I agree. Council doesn’t seem too concerned.

They might ask you to come up with some reasons why the project is a "good development". That's another easy one to handle.

If there is an issue anywhere in the city, or the province for that matter, simply say your project helps address it. Need more housing options? Done. Want more density? Call it intensification. There’s a bus route nearby? Now it supports transit. A school or park is within walking distance? Perfect, now it contributes to a complete community. Existing sewers and roads? That means you’re making efficient use of infrastructure.

Put enough of those phrases together and suddenly a proposal that blows past the existing zoning becomes a “good planning application.”

As for the local residents raising a stink, you don’t have to worry about them either.

Even if they gather together. Even if they organize themselves. Even if they take the time to learn how the planning process works, collect close to 600 signatures opposing the zoning changes, send hundreds of emails and letters, and use their vacation time to speak at a Planning Committee meeting. Even if they make their case well enough to convince the committee to oppose the project.

Don't worry. None of it matters.

Now, there are a few councillors you need to watch out for. They seem to take the time to actually listen to the concerns of the local residents, the people who know their community, live with the consequences, and understand what their neighbourhood actually needs.

But lucky for you, they seem to be the minority.

The majority of councillors and the Mayor can just ask a few leading questions, get the answers they are looking for, focus on the information that supports the application, make a few references to big city-wide issues that have very little to do with whether this particular proposal belongs on this particular site, and get on with their day.

There are a few in the middle too. You can almost see them battling with their better judgement. That’s when you pull out the secret weapon.

OLT.

Mention the Ontario Land Tribunal. Talk about the cost of an appeal. Talk about the risk of losing. That simple threat is all it takes to get them on your side. And just like that, you’ve got your majority.

It’s that easy.

So fear not, fellow Ward 10 residents. Buy whatever property you want. Don’t worry too much about the market. Don’t worry if you overpay. Don’t worry if your development plan doesn’t really fit the neighbourhood.

The City of Hamilton will be there to BAIL YOU OUT.

Yours truly,

Leslie Farago

Ward 10 resident

The sarcasm ends here

That was a ridiculous letter to write but unfortunately, it's based on a true story. The 520 Hwy 8 story.

I find that concerning. I find it disappointing. And honestly, I find it sad.

Up until now, we have tried very hard to keep our emotions in check. We wanted to trust the process. That meant taking the time to learn how the process worked, doing the research, reading the reports, going through the policies, informing as many people as we could, and trying to make the case to Council for why this proposal is so obviously wrong for this property. We believed our voices would be heard and that they would matter.

After attending these meetings, watching Council, listening to the questions being asked, and reading the reports, letters and correspondence, I don't believe our municipal government currently operates in a way that truly allows residents to be represented.

I think that is at the root of something a lot of us have been feeling for a long time. We feel like we have no agency in our own communities. We feel like we have no voice in the decisions being made around us.

But that's not actually true.

We do have a voice. We do have agency. Some of our councillors, and our Mayor, simply chose not to listen to us. They are just people. They are elected representatives, and I think some of them have forgotten who they work for.

There is an election coming. We have the ability to decide what kind of representation we want at City Hall. We need representatives who will listen to residents, understand the communities they represent, ask difficult questions, and have the courage to make decisions based on what they believe is right rather than what they are afraid might happen at the OLT.

The 520 Highway 8 application has now been approved by Council. As far as I can tell, as residents, we do not have a public appeal available to us to challenge that approval at the Ontario Land Tribunal.

That doesn't mean we should stop speaking.

Councillors still need to hear from us. In particular, the councillors who voted to approve this proposal need to understand the facts of this property, the scale of what they approved, and why so many people who actually live in this community believe it is incompatible with this site.

Keep sending the emails. Keep asking the questions. Keep making them explain their decision.

The timeline section below brings together the events of the last few weeks, along with the key videos, documents and sources residents can use to examine the record for themselves. We strongly suggest you watch the videos and read the planning reports and supporting documents.

An invitation to our local media

The Hamilton Spectator, CBC Hamilton and CHCH should be asking a much bigger question than whether one 12-storey building was approved on Highway 8.

How common are entitlement plays in Hamilton?

How often are properties purchased, pushed through rezoning or Official Plan changes, increased in potential development value, and then put back on the market before the project is ever built? How often are councils being asked to approve major zoning changes while unresolved issues are left for Site Plan Control or made conditions of holding provisions?

And how often is the Ontario Land Tribunal used as the pressure point that gets a reluctant Council over the line?

In this case, One Way Path told Council it intended to refinance the property as zoned land and proceed with the development. It also said it expected to remain the long-term owner and operator. Those statements were made while Council was deciding whether to approve the application.

That makes what happens next worth watching. If the newly approved property is being marketed for sale at a dramatically higher asking price, that is not just a 520 Highway 8 story. It raises a broader question about how development approvals are being used to create land value in this city, and whether Council is doing enough to understand what it is actually approving.

There is another question the media should be asking too: how much due diligence is being done on the companies asking Council for these major planning changes?

When reviewing One Way Path’s advertised development experience, reporters should distinguish projects completed by the company itself from the previous work of people associated with it. What role did the company and its team actually play in each project?

That matters.

Before Council approves changes that could substantially increase a property’s development potential, shouldn’t somebody be asking who this company actually is, what projects the company itself has completed, what role it really played in the developments, and whether it has a demonstrated record of carrying projects like this through construction and completion?

CBC Hamilton, The Hamilton Spectator and CHCH should be digging into that too. Don't just look at the renderings and the planning language. Follow the ownership. Follow the applications. Follow the land sales. Verify the claimed development history. And ask how often companies are using the planning process to create entitlement value without ever being the company that actually builds the project.

These are concerns worth investigating and stories worth telling.

We need a Ward 10 councillor who will fight for our community

With Jeff Beattie leaving his position, our community needs someone at City Hall who understands why residents opposed this proposal and is prepared to stand up for them.

This website launched in March after the first meeting at Orchard Park. Since then, residents and families have shared information, delivered flyers, circulated the petition and spoken out about this proposal. That community effort began months before there was an open Ward 10 Council seat.

The political situation changed. Sam Oosterhoff's move, Neil Lumsden's retirement and Jeff Beattie's decision to run provincially all happened well after this fight had already started.

From the beginning, my brother Eugene has been helping with this project. When word got out that Ward 10 would need a new councillor, I thought he would be an excellent candidate. I know his character. I know his integrity. And I know he has the kind of vision and judgement that is badly missing from parts of our Council today.

There is no magic next step for 520 Highway 8. Another petition or delegation will not automatically reverse what happened or make nine councillors change their minds. But we can keep organizing, asking questions and demand better representation.

We should not assume this story is over.

We have an opportunity to elect a Ward 10 councillor who understands what happened here, believes Council got it wrong, and will do everything legally and practically possible to try to undo that mistake.

I know Eugene will do that. We can help by continuing the conversations, sharing the record and bringing more neighbours into this effort. Everyone is welcome to take part.

You can learn more about Eugene and his plans for Ward 10 on the campaign website. We will be walking the Ward, talking to residents, and sharing information about the issues that matter to our community. We hope for your support in the upcoming election.

Visit Eugene Farago’s campaign website

If you want to help, there is a Get Involved link on the campaign website. Fill it out and we will reach out.

But whether you vote for Eugene or somebody else, please vote.

Let’s make Ward 10’s voter turnout something City Hall cannot overlook. Together, we can show that people here are paying attention, care about our community and expect to be heard.

A timeline of recent events

September 11, 2026 · Listing checked September 13

Property re-listed at $6.499 million

As of this September 13 update, 520 Highway 8 is being marketed for $6,499,000, compared with the previous asking price of $2,699,000. REALTOR.ca records the price change on September 11, 2026 .

$2.699M → $6.499M

+$3.8M asking-price increase

Asking prices, not completed sale prices · MLS® 40857533

The current listing markets the site as approved for a 12-storey building with 161 units.

View the current REALTOR.ca listing

September 9, 2026

City Council reverses the Planning Committee result

September 1: Planning Committee defeated the staff approval recommendation, 5–3.
September 9: Full Council reversed that outcome and approved the planning applications, 9–6.
Official Plan: Council approved adoption of the draft Urban Hamilton Official Plan Amendment.
Rezoning: Council approved the Zoning By-law Amendment application and proposed site-specific C5,970,H220 framework, changing the site from C2,579 / R3.
What it means: Approval of the planning changes needed for the proposed 12-storey, 161-unit development to proceed through the next municipal stages.

Council result: APPROVED 9–6

Voted FOR approval — 9

Andrea Horwath — Mayor
Maureen Wilson — Ward 1
Cameron Kroetsch — Ward 2
Nrinder Nann — Ward 3
Tammy Hwang — Ward 4 Planning Committee: Against → Council: For
Brad Clark — Ward 9
Craig Cassar — Ward 12
Alex Wilson — Ward 13
Ted McMeekin — Ward 15 Planning Committee: Against → Council: For

Voted AGAINST approval — 6

Matt Francis — Ward 5
Tom Jackson — Ward 6
Esther Pauls — Ward 7
Rob Cooper — Ward 8
Mark Tadeson — Ward 11
Mike Spadafora — Ward 14

Alex Young’s letter to Council

In his September 7 letter for the September 9 Council meeting, Alex Young says that, once the applications are approved, they will refinance the project and proceed with the development. He also raises the prospect of an Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) process if the applications are refused, warning about costs to taxpayers and the possibility that they could lose ownership of the property.

Read Alex Young’s letter to Council (PDF)

My concerns

I read this as a commitment to carry out the development themselves, paired with the threat of an OLT appeal if Council refused the applications. In an email to me, Councillor Tammy Hwang, who changed her vote from against to for approval, stated that Alex Young had also claimed the property had already been removed from the market. I dispute that claim.

As of September 13, the property was being advertised for sale at $6.499 million. See the listing details above.

Video timeline — Council

1:01:37 — 520 Highway 8 Council discussion begins
1:01:50 — Councillor Craig Cassar Voted FOR approval
Asks staff to summarize the application and staff recommendation, then argues the proposal supports City and provincial planning objectives and warns about investment and OLT risk.
1:02:41 — Planning staff overview
Staff describe the 12-storey proposal, say transportation impacts are acceptable, engineering issues can be addressed through holding provisions, and call it a good planning application.
1:05:40 — Councillor Maureen Wilson Voted FOR approval
Questions staff about the site, road context, unit mix, ownership relevance, OLT implications and the planning rationale for refusal. She frames the decision around housing supply, affordability and the cost of defending a refusal.
1:13:03 — Councillor Alex Wilson Voted FOR approval
Acknowledges concerns about the democratic nature of the planning process, but says opposing the application would mean spending legal money on an OLT fight the City is unlikely to win.
1:17:17 — Councillor Nrinder Nann Voted FOR approval
Asks about the unit mix and then supports the staff recommendation, citing consistency, staff due diligence and the legal and financial risks of an OLT appeal.
1:22:00 — Councillor Matt Francis Voted AGAINST approval
Argues that the site is an anomaly, questions the scale and density, notes the property-sale issue, and says Council should respect residents, Planning Committee and the councillor representing the community.
1:24:35 — Councillor Brad Clark Voted FOR approval
Questions staff about provincial changes limiting neighbourhood-character arguments and emphasizes the cost and difficulty of defending a refusal at the OLT.
1:28:19 — Councillor Mike Spadafora Voted AGAINST approval
Pushes back on the OLT-cost argument, noting that Council has rejected staff recommendations before and accepted the legal risk when it believed that was the right decision.
1:30:24 — Councillor Cameron Kroetsch Voted FOR approval
Discusses the Province's treatment of buildings up to 12 storeys as mid-rise and argues that councillors should vote according to their planning principles rather than claiming any one side always represents local voices.
1:31:40 — Mayor Andrea Horwath Voted FOR approval
Frames the decision around the housing crisis, federal and provincial housing objectives, development-charge relief, jobs, economic growth and the City's obligation to keep building housing.
1:37:38 — Clerk clarifies exactly what Council is voting on
The Clerk confirms that Council is voting on the staff report and that the recommendation before Council is to approve the application as presented.
1:38:50 — Final vote begins
The Mayor explains that a yes vote supports the staff recommendation and a no vote opposes it.
1:39:14 — Result: staff recommendation carries 9 to 6
1:39:23 — 520 Highway 8 item concludes (approximately)

What the discussion shows

Three themes dominated the debate. First, planning staff repeatedly described the proposal as a good planning application and said outstanding engineering matters could be addressed through holding provisions. Second, several councillors relied heavily on the legal and financial risk of an Ontario Land Tribunal appeal as a reason to approve the application. Third, Mayor Horwath and other supporters placed the decision in the broader context of Hamilton's housing crisis, growth objectives and economic development goals.

Councillors Francis and Spadafora offered the clearest counterarguments. Francis argued that supporting housing and intensification does not require approving every proposal at every scale, while Spadafora challenged the idea that OLT cost should determine the outcome when Council has accepted that risk on other files.

The most important procedural moment comes near the end of the discussion. The Clerk removes any ambiguity by confirming that Council is voting on the staff recommendation to approve the application. Council then approves that recommendation 9 to 6.

September 1, 2026

Planning Committee rejects the application 5–3

Planning Committee held the statutory public meeting for Report PED26140 , concerning the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for 520 Highway No. 8. The proposal was for a 12-storey multiple dwelling containing 161 residential units .

Residents and other delegates addressed Committee. After the delegations, questions and discussion, the motion to approve the staff recommendation was defeated 3–5 .

Planning Committee

Application rejected

5 against / 3 for

Voted FOR approval

Cameron Kroetsch — Ward 2
Craig Cassar — Ward 12
Alex Wilson — Ward 13

Voted AGAINST approval

Tammy Hwang — Ward 4
Matt Francis — Ward 5
Esther Pauls — Ward 7
Mark Tadeson — Ward 11
Ted McMeekin — Ward 15

Absent

Maureen Wilson — Ward 1
Nrinder Nann — Ward 3
Rob Cooper — Ward 8
Jeff Beattie — Ward 10

Planning documents

Download planning report PED26140 (PDF) Download Appendix F — Policy Review (PDF) Download Appendix G — Department and Agency Consultation (PDF)

Video timeline — Planning Committee

Vote labels show the September 1 Planning Committee vote on approval. Delegate labels show support or opposition to the proposal. Public delegates and staff did not vote.

2:53:31 — 520 Highway 8 public meeting begins
Committee introduces the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.
2:56:06 — Robert Walter-Joseph — applicant’s planner Supported the proposal
Supports the staff recommendation, describes work on the holding provisions and explains the proposed unit mix, setbacks and change from 11 to 12 storeys.
3:03:50 — Councillor Matt Francis Voted AGAINST approval
Questions the applicant’s planner about sewer capacity, the height increase and whether the revised design addresses residents’ concerns.
3:12:21 — Dr. Charles Hostovsky Supported the proposal
Supports the proposal as an example of intensification and smart growth along the Highway 8 corridor.
3:17:10 — Councillor Matt Francis Voted AGAINST approval
Asks whether the proposal is an outlier compared with nearby buildings. Hostovsky responds that corridor intensification is appropriate.
3:20:25 — Eric Miller Supported the proposal
Supports the application, citing rental housing, a mix of household sizes, existing infrastructure and development within the urban boundary.
3:25:19 — Leslie Farago Opposed the proposal
Questions the density increase, unresolved servicing and design matters, permissions that would remain after a sale, and the loss of the local commercial designation. Asks Committee to refuse the application.
3:32:12 — Marian Toth — recorded delegation Opposed the proposal
Raises concerns about the developer’s claims, building height, Escarpment views, privacy, parking and traffic near schools.
3:37:59 — Cal DiFalco Opposed the proposal
Argues that corridor locations are not interchangeable and that intensification must fit its immediate surroundings. Asks for a proposal that responds to the community.
3:41:22 — Janicka Glasova Opposed the proposal
Opposes the proposed scale and raises concerns about traffic, safety, infrastructure demands and whether residents are being heard.
3:44:23 — Magdalena Soltys Opposed the proposal
Raises concerns about residents’ quality of life, building amenities, parking and elevator capacity.
3:53:02 — Committee recesses for lunch
The Chair pauses the public delegations for the lunch break.
4:28:35 — Meeting resumes
The Chair calls the waiting public delegates back into the meeting.
4:30:18 — Tony Bifano and Faruk Golotic Opposed the proposal
Describe concerns about backyard privacy, building scale and views. Bifano also questions why the property is being marketed for sale.
4:35:35 — Maria Bartolini Opposed the proposal
Opposes the development, describing traffic congestion, pedestrian safety concerns and the limits of the site.
4:41:24 — Heather and John Wende Opposed the proposal
Describe the impact on their adjoining property, including privacy, parking, traffic and concerns about excavation near their backyard.
4:46:47 — Eugene Farago Opposed the proposal
Asks Committee to demonstrate that public participation matters by listening to residents and scrutinizing the requested density increase.
4:49:47 — Nathan Black Opposed the proposal
Questions the justification for the site-specific exception and asks whether traffic analysis reflects conditions experienced by families walking to school.
4:54:32 — Eleri McNab Opposed the proposal
Raises concerns about traffic, community resources and children’s safety, and asks Committee to listen to residents.
4:56:58 — Gurbir Benipal Opposed the proposal
Describes concerns about privacy, parking, noise and the effect of the building on neighbouring homes.
5:01:26 — Jemma Lambert Opposed the proposal
Supports more housing but argues for development better suited to the neighbourhood, including a broader distribution of buildings between four and eight storeys.
5:08:07 — Public meeting closes; approval recommendation is moved
The motion to receive submissions and close the public meeting carries 8–0. Cameron Kroetsch and Craig Cassar move and second the staff approval recommendation.
5:08:33 — Councillor Matt Francis Voted AGAINST approval
Questions the height and density, raises the property listing and asks about sewer capacity and what happens to the permissions if the property is sold. He concludes that the proposal is not the right scale for the site and will vote against it.
5:10:11 — Chief Development Engineer — sewer capacity
Explains that the applicant must demonstrate sufficient sanitary sewer capacity or pay for upgrades needed to support the development.
5:10:56 — James Van Rooi — permissions and holding provisions
Explains that planning permissions and holding provisions remain with the land after a sale. A future owner would still need to meet the sanitary, visual-impact and watermain requirements before a building permit.
5:12:39 — Councillor Esther Pauls Voted AGAINST approval
Asks when the property was listed for sale and says she will not support the application, referring to the concerns raised by Francis and the Ward 10 councillor.
5:13:52 — Councillor Tammy Hwang Voted AGAINST approval
Asks what the existing C2 and R3 zoning allows. Staff explain that the local commercial zone can permit residential uses above ground-floor commercial space.
5:15:39 — Councillor Ted McMeekin Voted AGAINST approval
Questions the integrity of considering the application while the property is for sale. Staff say the application is assessed on its merits and that holding provisions follow the land.
5:17:28 — Councillor Brad Clark
Asks about provincial policy changes, neighbourhood character, the weight given to residents’ concerns and privacy. Clark participates in the discussion but is not a voting member of Planning Committee.
5:22:26 — Planning staff — privacy and Site Plan Control
Discuss windows, rooftop screening, angular-plane encroachments and design measures that could be addressed through Site Plan Control.
5:24:41 — Final vote begins
Committee moves to the recorded vote on the staff approval recommendation.
5:25:27 — Result: approval recommendation defeated 3–5
The Chair announces that the recommendation is defeated: three votes for approval and five against.

What the discussion shows

Delegates presented contrasting views on intensification, rental housing and the scale of development appropriate for this site. Residents raised concerns about privacy, traffic, parking, servicing and the permissions that would remain if the property sold.

Staff explained how holding provisions would apply to a future owner and how design details could be addressed through Site Plan Control. After questions and discussion, Committee defeated the staff approval recommendation 3–5 at 5:25:27.

Read the City’s September 1 public meeting notice

Read the August 30 update for the staff report, supporting documents and earlier background on 520 Highway 8.