1. Introduction
I am in favor of measured and contextual densification, in keeping with the unique character of the “Garden City” of Mount Royal.
Royalmount represents one of the most important and transformative projects for the future of the Town of Mount Royal. Properly managed, it could generate significant positive impacts. Poorly planned or rushed, however, it carries major financial and urban risks.
It is essential to take the necessary time to make Royalmount a truly sustainable, integrated, and beneficial project, both for our Town and for the entire metropolitan region. Any development on this strategic site must meet the social, environmental, and economic needs of the metropolis, while addressing current challenges: mobility, sustainable planning, social equity, and economic vitality.
The residential component must also respect the urban environment, human scale, and quality of life specific to the Town of Mount Royal, while fully integrating the heritage and landscape value of our Garden City.
2. Political and Budgetary Issues for the Town of Mount Royal
Despite several requests made to previous administrations and to that of Mr. Malouf, the detailed financial analyses of the residential component of the project have never been made public.
My preliminary analyses show that the large-scale residential development planned—approximately 5,000 units—could generate more costs for the municipality than it would bring in local taxes, especially in cautious scenarios. The arrival of thousands of new residents would place significant pressure on local services, infrastructure, and finances.
Conversely, the commercial and office components generate much higher property tax revenues per dollar of assessment while incurring few service costs. They are therefore essential to ensuring a sustainable fiscal balance.
• Optimistic scenarios: high values, low occupancy density, controlled costs → possible slight surplus.
• Cautious scenarios: structural deficit of up to $9 million per year for the Town of Mount Royal.
Example calculation
For 5,000 new residential units, if each household costs an average of $3,000 per year in municipal services (public safety, snow removal, recreation, infrastructure, etc.), this represents $15 million in annual expenses. However, local residential taxation covers on average only 70% of these costs, leaving a structural deficit of approximately $4.5 to $5 million per year to be offset by tax increases, service reductions, or external subsidies.
Key factors
• Value of condos and occupancy rate: the more expensive and less occupied the units, the better the fiscal outcome.
• Value of commercial and office space: the higher it is, the more favorable the fiscal balance becomes.
• Rapid population growth: leads to an accelerated increase in the costs of municipal services and infrastructure.
• Project phasing: costs often precede revenues, which can create significant temporary deficits.
The post-pandemic economic context has changed profoundly. It is imperative to redo the techno-economic analyses conducted between 2015 and 2019, taking into account the actual results of the commercial sector since 2023, as well as long-term investment costs (CAPEX) and debt servicing, in order to evaluate the project’s real profitability over 20 to 25 years.
In addition, recent customs tariffs and trade barriers have increased the cost of imported materials, equipment, and certain consumer goods. These measures can raise construction costs, influence retail prices for businesses, and, consequently, affect municipal revenues and expenditures. They increase uncertainty and require regular updates of financial scenarios (sensitivities on construction costs, value per square foot, CAPEX, and schedule).
3. Traffic and Road Safety Issues
The decongestion of the Namur–De la Savane sector and the strengthening of public transit must precede any significant residential development.
The addition of thousands of housing units would worsen already critical congestion, with direct repercussions across the entire metropolitan network.
Furthermore, the current lack of coordination among the multiple relevant authorities (1) seriously complicates the implementation of effective solutions. Without clear shared governance, any mobility intervention risks being fragmented and inefficient.
This increased traffic pressure could also harm Quebec’s economy, causing delays, productivity losses, and additional costs for businesses.
4. My Position and Vision
I advocate a responsible, rigorous approach based on clear data. Royalmount must not become a financial or urban burden for the citizens of the Town of Mount Royal.
I propose three main courses of action:
1 – Governance and Transparency
• No blank cheque: the Town must not commit without a complete and up-to-date understanding of the financial, social, and environmental impacts.
• Creation of a joint coordination committee (Montreal, MTQ, ARTM, STM, CN, CP, Quebec) at the start of the mandate to address planning and mobility issues.
• Designation of Royalmount as a “Special Intervention Zone” (ZIS)(2) to rapidly mobilize partners and reduce congestion.
• Prioritization of the decongestion of the Namur–De la Savane area and the development of public transit before any residential development.
2 – Financial Viability
• Priority to high-quality non-residential development to ensure local fiscal sustainability.
• Strong negotiations with the developer: development charges, public facilities, and structural investments before any residential authorization.
• Phased and transparent planning, with publication of agreements and studies before signature.
• Taking new customs tariffs into account: indexation and risk-sharing clauses in agreements, development charges calibrated to offset import cost increases, and annual review of fiscal and assessment assumptions.
3 – Identity and Local Democracy
• Preservation of the autonomy of the future Mount Royal district.
• Creation of a buffer zone between industrial and residential sectors.
• Protection of Mount Royal’s unique character and quality of life.
• Final citizen decision by referendum, once all data have been made public.
5. Citizen Conclusion
Royalmount is a major structuring project that deserves a thoughtful collective decision. We must act with transparency, rigor, and ambition.
Neither dogmatic opposition nor blind approval: a clear, strategic, and responsible position.
As a candidate for mayor, I am committed to defending citizens’ interests, demanding strong guarantees, and ensuring that this project truly serves the future of our Garden City.
Maryam Kamali Nezhad, Eng., Ph.D.
Candidate for Mayor of the Town of Mount Royal
www.avenircitejardin.com
(1) The relevant authorities are:
CN (Canadian National) and CP (Canadian Pacific Railway) for rail networks;
CMM (Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal) and the Agglomeration Council for metropolitan planning;
The City of Montreal and its related boroughs, as well as Mount Royal and Côte-Saint-Luc;
MTQ (Ministère des Transports et de la Mobilité durable du Québec), ARTM (Autorité régionale de transport métropolitain), and STM (Société de transport de Montréal) for mobility and public transit;
MAMH (Ministère des Affaires municipales et de l’Habitation) and the Government of Quebec for regulatory and budgetary coordination;
and the higher planning authorities (Montreal Agglomeration Council).
(2) In Quebec urban planning, a Zone d’intervention spéciale (ZIS), or Special Intervention Zone, is an exceptional legal tool provided under the Act Respecting Land Use Planning and Development. It allows the Government of Quebec to intervene rapidly in a territory when a major public-interest issue requires coordinated action among several jurisdictions.
In the case of Royalmount, a ZIS could:
– compel coordination among all public and private stakeholders;
– accelerate the implementation of transportation infrastructure before any residential densification;
– clarify financial and operational responsibilities;
– prevent the Town of Mount Royal from bearing alone impacts of regional scope.