What the Bike Lane Lawsuit Teaches Us About Conservative Housing Policies

This is a bit of a follow-up to this blog from last week discussing the various party platforms as it relates to housing. I noted, at the time, that the Conservative approach was too heavy-handed and would tie up projects in lawsuits for years.

Well, let’s use the bike lanes as an example as Toronto announces its first Court Challenge regarding the removal.

The ongoing housing crisis in Canada isn’t just about home prices or making it easier for first-time buyers to enter the market. It’s about addressing the core issue: housing the unhoused and under-housed. The conversation should focus on creating safe, accessible, and affordable housing for those who need it most—not chasing the impossible dream of “outbuilding” Toronto into affordability. That’s a fantasy.

Conflict-Driven Policies Lead to Legal Gridlock

We’re seeing an example of conflict-driven governance play out right now in Toronto. The province’s heavy-handed mandate to remove bike lanes from major corridors has triggered an active lawsuit from the city. This unnecessary and wasteful conflict shows how forcing municipalities into compliance doesn’t lead to progress—it leads to expensive legal battles, wasted time, and public frustration.

What Happens Under Conservative Housing Policies?

The Conservative Party’s housing plan, with its punitive measures against municipalities that fail to meet federally imposed targets, risks replicating this scenario on a much larger scale. Here’s what that could look like:

Legal Battles: Municipalities may sue to defend their planning autonomy, creating years of legal gridlock.
Wasted Resources: Taxpayer dollars will fund these lawsuits instead of building housing or supporting community initiatives.
No Real Progress: Time spent in courtrooms means fewer homes being built and no immediate relief for the unhoused or underhoused.

Housing the Unhoused vs. Market Affordability

Let’s be clear: Toronto is not going to build its way into market affordability. The economics of urban land use, demand, and development costs make that goal unattainable. Instead, the focus needs to shift toward targeted solutions:

Building deeply affordable, social, and supportive housing.
Incentivizing and streamlining the development of non-profit and co-op housing.
Addressing systemic barriers like zoning laws that prevent density in areas where it’s needed most.

Lessons from the Bike Lane Conflict

The bike lane lawsuit is a preview of what happens when governments prioritize mandates over collaboration. Top-down directives might seem efficient, but when they provoke municipal resistance, the result is stagnation. In the case of housing, this would mean fewer affordable units built, more people on the streets, and more public frustration.

A Collaborative Approach Yields Results

Housing the unhoused and under-housed demands cooperation between all levels of government, community organizations, and the private sector. Incentives, funding, and streamlined processes can encourage municipalities to act without the need for punitive measures. Unlike conflict-driven strategies, collaboration ensures progress without the distraction of endless court battles.

Key Takeaway

The housing crisis isn’t about making the market more affordable for middle-class buyers—it’s about providing housing for those who desperately need it. Conflict-driven policies, like the Conservative plan, risk turning the housing crisis into a legal crisis. Instead of enriching lawyers, let’s focus on solutions that deliver real results for Canada’s most vulnerable.