In the face of Sarnia’s mounting housing crisis, the introduction of the Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) Incentive Program seemed like a much-needed step toward increasing affordable housing. But several months after its launch, not a single application has been approved. Why? Because the program, like so many others, prioritizes eligibility and fairness over the urgent need to get housing built. This misalignment between bureaucratic processes and the community’s real needs reveals a fundamental flaw in how our municipal systems are being structured.
The ADU program, which promises homeowners up to $25,000 in forgivable loans to build rental units on their properties, is riddled with requirements that all but guarantee it remains underutilized. Homeowners must navigate a maze of regulations, including income testing for tenants, loan agreements registered on property titles, and adherence to the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). While these conditions are designed to ensure fairness and proper use of public funds, they are slowing the very progress the program was meant to accelerate.
At its core, this is a reflection of what’s wrong with municipal politics: the focus on bureaucratic fairness over urgency. Local governments are becoming increasingly bogged down in meeting criteria that, while well-intentioned, don’t actually serve the community’s most pressing needs. Instead of asking how quickly and efficiently we can get more affordable homes on the market, the conversation centers around who qualifies, what boxes need to be checked, and what rules must be followed. Meanwhile, families in need of affordable housing are left waiting.
In theory, ensuring that ADUs remain affordable and accessible to low-income tenants is crucial. However, when these safeguards come at the expense of real progress, they become part of the problem. Housing crises don’t wait for bureaucratic processes to run their course. The County’s decision to prioritize eligibility checks and multi-step processes over immediate action reflects a disconnect between municipal systems and the realities of housing shortages.
Consider the numbers: centralized housing projects, like the ones the County has been slowly working on, cost around $17 million to build 50 units. By contrast, subsidizing 50 ADUs at $50,000 each would cost just $2.5 million. And these ADUs could be available within months, rather than the years it takes for large-scale projects to break ground. The potential is enormous, but the County has chosen to shackle the program with bureaucratic red tape rather than empower homeowners to quickly provide the housing the community so desperately needs.
This isn’t just an isolated issue with the ADU program—it’s symptomatic of a larger problem. Our municipal systems are being built around principles of process and control, not community needs. What we see time and time again are programs designed to satisfy funding agreements and political optics, but not the real needs of residents. The housing crisis in Sarnia is not a hypothetical issue. It’s a very real, urgent problem that requires bold, fast action—not endless delays due to income testing, title registration, and reports.
If municipal governments want to make a real impact on housing, they need to prioritize action. Programs must be structured in a way that accelerates construction, not stall it. Instead of worrying about who gets the grant money, let’s focus on getting homes built as quickly and efficiently as possible. The ADU program is a step in the right direction, but without reforms to streamline the process and reduce bureaucratic barriers, it risks becoming just another well-meaning initiative that falls short of delivering real solutions.
At the end of the day, the success of any housing initiative shouldn’t be measured by how closely it adheres to bureaucratic fairness, but by how many families it helps house. It’s time for the County to re-evaluate its priorities and structure programs that reflect the urgent needs of the community. Housing crises don’t wait for bureaucracy—and neither should we.