For example, the Vancouver School Board (VSB) owns 223 properties assessed at over $9.5 billion, including not only school buildings but also apartments, a shopping mall, daycare sites, and more reddit.com. Yet the district regularly faces budget shortfalls and deferred maintenance (estimated at $750 million) due to inadequate provincial funding thetyee.ca.
This contradiction has led some to propose liquidating “surplus” school lands to raise funds. Indeed, VSB’s non-school assets have been poorly managed, with critics noting a lack of strategic vision: “This is not about selling to developers for a one time gain, it’s about [the] inability to think strategically and work with others… who can turn the properties into more useful spaces while still giving VSB a continued revenue stream.” reddit.com. In other words, school boards have treated land as a liability to offload, rather than a strategic public asset to leverage for long-term benefit.
The pitfalls of short-term “fire sales”
When school boards resort to fire sales or cut-rate leases of public land to patch budget holes, the public loses out. A case in point is Vancouver’s Kingsgate Mall site: the VSB currently leases this centrally located property for only $750,000 per year, far below market value thetyee.ca. Tempted by a quick windfall, some argued the board should sell the site outright, which could fetch “millions of dollars” to solve short-term budget problems thetyee.ca.
But selling irreplaceable public land in a hurry is short-sighted and potentially irresponsible. VSB Trustee Jennifer Reddy bluntly stated, “I don’t believe that we should sell public land, ever… [it] is the responsibility of us all to hold in trust for future generations.” thetyee.ca. Once land is sold, the public forever loses control, and any future appreciation benefits private owners, not the community.
Importantly, a volatile real estate market makes fire sales even riskier. Land values can swing dramatically year to year. In the Kingsgate example, the assessed value jumped from $107 million in 2017 to $147 million in 201 9thetyee.ca. Selling during a market lull or before major zoning changes (such as a new transit line or area plan) means underselling the asset’s true potential.
Reddy warned that with a new subway station and rezoning on the horizon, “selling it without knowing the full potential value of the land for future generations is financially irresponsible.” thetyee.ca. A one-time sale might ease this year’s budget, but it sacrifices decades of potential value and public use. In many jurisdictions, school boards that hastily sold off land later experience “seller’s remorse” when enrolment rebounds or community needs shift – it is exceedingly costly (if not impossible) to buy back urban land once lost.
Finally, offloading public land for private development can backfire if it’s not done carefully. If a deal is rushed or lacks enforceable conditions, a developer may not deliver the promised community benefits. In Montreal, for instance, a new inclusionary housing bylaw aimed to compel developers to include affordable units, but weak penalties allowed developers to simply pay fines instead.
In two years under that policy, not one affordable unit was built – developers all opted to pay a modest total of $24.5 million in fees rather than build the required housing globalnews.ca. Housing advocates noted the fines were “too low to actually discourage” builders from skirting the rules globalnews.ca.
This cautionary tale underscores that poorly structured deals can let private partners profit while the public goals go unfulfilled.
Transparency is another concern: in one Vancouver case, the school board quietly advanced plans to lease out part of an elementary school site for 99 years, with key steps (like subdividing and rezoning the land) approved behind closed doors long before the public was consulted cityhallwatch.wordpress.com.
Parents decried the “lack of transparency” and wondered whose interests were being served by a deal that would displace playground space at a school already over capacity cityhallwatch.wordpress.com cityhallwatch.wordpress.com. The lesson is clear – secretive, hasty land deals erode public trust and may ultimately prioritise private gain over public need.
Mixed-use developments for public benefit
Instead of selling off assets in desperation, school districts should pursue visionary, multi-purpose developmentsthrough public-private partnerships – but on public terms. Imagine school campuses that not only educate children, but also provide affordable housing for families and teachers, child care services, community centres, and other amenities, all on the same site. By master-planning such mixed-use developments, a district can meet multiple community needs and tap into diverse funding sources (municipal, provincial, federal) that are earmarked for housing or infrastructure.
This isn’t just a theory – it’s starting to happen. In Vancouver’s Coal Harbour neighborhood, a partnership between the City, the Vancouver School Board and other agencies is delivering a new elementary school integrated with a childcare centre and 60 units of affordable housing on city-owned land vancouver.ca. The project stacks a 340-student school and a 65-space daycare in the same building as family-oriented affordable rental apartments, right next to a community centre and park vancouver.ca.
Such co-location creates a vibrant community hub and efficiently uses high-value urban land for public benefit. A City of Vancouver report noted that co-locating amenities “offers efficient means of sharing project costs and co-locating complementary land uses and services on a single site,” and lauded the Coal Harbour project – uniquely including non-market housing – as “a great example of optimising public land and partnership resources for… much needed community services” council.vancouver.ca council.vancouver.ca. In other words, one public asset is leveraged to achieve many public goals: education, childcare, housing, and recreation, all in one go.
Crucially, the public ownership is retained in this model. In Coal Harbour’s case, the city (and ultimately the school board for the school portion) maintains ownership of the land and building, leasing units to non-profit operators and the school to the VSB vancouver.ca. Elsewhere, school districts have also embraced long-term leases instead of sales.
In Berkeley, California, the school district recently provided a 99-year ground lease on part of a parking lot to enable a 110-unit affordable housing project for teachers and staff housingfinance.com housingfinance.com. Multiple funders – the city, state housing agency, and even private bank financing via tax credits – came together to fund the $77 million development, while the district retains ownership of the land and secures affordable homes for its workforce housingfinance.com. “We’re not just building more housing – we’re making a long-term investment in public education for the benefit of our students,” said one nonprofit partner in that project housingfinance.com.
This highlights an important point: innovative partnerships can unlock provincial/federal funding that school boards alone might not access. Programs through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), Infrastructure Canada’s community infrastructure funds, or provincial housing grants can significantly subsidise these mixed-use projects council.vancouver.ca. By packaging schools with affordable housing or childcare, districts can attract grants and low-cost financing earmarked for social infrastructure – effectively bringing in new revenue streams and capital rather than relying solely on provincial education budgets council.vancouver.ca council.vancouver.ca.
Equally important, treating land as a long-term asset allows the public to weather real estate market volatility. Rather than selling at a moment when prices are down or uncertainty is high, a ground lease or partnership lets the public sector participate in the upside over time. For instance, if affordable rental units are part of the deal, the ground lease income (or public equity share) remains steady even during market downturns – unlike luxury condo projects, subsidized rents don’t collapse when the market dips, which means the value of the lease stays stable alliantstrategicdev.com. The private partner shoulders the immediate market risk of construction and financing, while the school board secures a reliable long-term revenue source indexed to the project’s success. In short, public-private partnerships done right can turn “idle” school lands into engines of community value, without losing public control. But to do this successfully, certain conditions must be in place.
Principles for successful public-private partnerships on school land
Any joint development involving school district land must be structured with ironclad safeguards to protect the public interest. The following principles are essential:
- Retain public ownership (no outright sales): The land should remain publicly owned via long-term lease or similar arrangement. This ensures the school board (and by extension the public) can control land use, prevent misuse, and capture future value. Experts note that by entering into a ground lease rather than a sale, districts can generate revenue without losing control of their land alliantstrategicdev.com. As one Vancouver trustee put it, public land must be “held in trust for future generations,” not sold off for a one-time gain thetyee.ca. Leasing still allows development, but the lease terms can be as prescriptive as needed to align with public goals gfdrr.org. In practice, this might mean the lease explicitly requires a new school on-site, or caps rents for certain housing units, etc., as conditions for the private developer.
- Transparency and public accountability: Any partnership deal should be pursued through an open, transparent process, with community consultation and competitive bidding. Decisions to lease or develop school land must be made in public, not in camera. Lack of transparency breeds suspicion and can lead to bad outcomes. In the Fleming Elementary case, significant steps to dispose of school land were taken “behind closed doors,” well before parents and the community were even informed cityhallwatch.wordpress.com. This is unacceptable. Clear communication about the goals, the partners, and the deal structure is vital so that stakeholders can provide input and hold the school board accountable. Ideally, key documents (feasibility studies, business cases, contract terms) should be publicly accessible. Transparency not only protects the public interest, it also builds trust that the partnership isn’t a backroom giveaway.
- Enforceable performance guarantees: The partnership agreement must include strong performance requirements and penalties to ensure the private partner delivers on all promises. If the plan is to build, say, 100 affordable housing units and a childcare center as part of a new development, there should be legally binding milestones and outcome targets. It is standard best practice in PPP contracts to require the private partner to post a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit that the school board can claim if the developer fails to perform ppp-certification.com. Similarly, the contract can impose financial penalties for missing deadlines or not meeting affordability criteria, up to and including termination of the lease if a major default occurs ppp-certification.com. The goal is to shift the risk of non-delivery onto the developer. As seen in Montreal, if penalties are too weak, developers may simply choose the easy way out (paying a small fine) rather than fulfil affordable housing commitments globalnews.ca globalnews.ca. A well-crafted agreement will make it financially untenable for the private partner to shirk its obligations. Public partners should insist on “zero-tolerance” for non-compliance, with clauses that allow the board to step in or re-tender the project if the private side isn’t delivering as agreed.
- Shared vision and mixed-use integration: Any development on school land must be planned holistically to serve public needs, not just maximize private profit. This means embracing mixed-use designs that integrate educational facilities with other community benefits. Schools can be co-located with affordable housing (especially family-sized units and educator/staff housing), early childhood education centers, parks, libraries, community health clinics, or other public services as appropriate. The key is to ensure the project genuinely enhances the community and the school’s mission. If done right, this approach can even help keep schools open rather than closed – adding housing for young families near a school boosts enrollment and vitality, addressing the demographic shifts that often underlie “surplus school” debates. “Selling assets for short-term gain, without realizing full potential, is short-sighted,” Reddy argues, noting that simply auctioning land could result in luxury condos “far beyond the reach of most families,” whereas a partnership could produce affordable rentals that keep local families in the city thetyee.ca. School land is uniquely positioned to deliver social infrastructure, not just another condo tower. The planning should involve city governments and public agencies (e.g. BC Housing, CMHC, nonprofits) from the start, to align with broader housing and community goals thetyee.ca. By ensuring a mix of uses, the development can create synergies – for example, housing and childcare on-site make life easier for young families, a community centre can share space with the school gym, etc. These synergies multiply the public value of the land.
- Leverage private expertise, retain public oversight: School boards are in the education business, not real estate development – nor should they try to be otherwise. We know transit has become a developer, ugh! The public sector’s role is to set the vision and guardrails (through the points above), then bring in experienced private or nonprofit developers to execute the project and bear the risks. In a well-structured PPP, the private partner finances and builds the project, and often operates the non-school components, while the public partner retains an ownership stake and oversight rights. This division of roles ensures the project benefits from professional development expertise and efficiency, without shifting educational dollars into speculative construction. By offloading capital expenditure and construction risk to the private sector, a ground lease deal “shifts all development and operating risk to the private partner, diminishing financial cost to the public sector” gfdrr.org. The school board should never guarantee the developer’s loan or put taxpayer money at risk if the market falters – instead, the contract can be written so that the developer carries the cost of overruns or market downturns (for instance, through fixed-price construction contracts or requiring substantial equity from the developer up front). Meanwhile, the board focuses on its priorities: that the new school or facility is delivered as promised, that safety and quality standards are met, and that the project serves students and families. A successful partnership is not a giveaway of public assets – it is a strategic alliance where the private side gets a reasonable return for building and managing the project, and the public side gets the infrastructure and long-term revenues it needs, without assuming the development risks.
- Center the public interest at every step: Above all, land-use decisions by public school authorities must put public interest before profit. This seems obvious, but it bears repeating when entering partnerships with private developers whose first priority is often profit. Clear value-for-public criteria should guide negotiations: How does this project improve educational outcomes? How does it address community needs like affordable housing or childcare? What is the long-term benefit to the public, and does it clearly outweigh any short-term inconveniences? If a proposed deal doesn’t pass this test, it should be reworked or scrapped. In practice, “centering public interest” means, for example, setting aside a portion of new housing for lower-income families or teachers, even if luxury condos would yield higher rent – the goal is to fill a social need, not to maximize rent. It means planning developments in a way that no current students are displaced or disadvantaged – e.g. if part of a school field is leased for housing, ensuring the project includes a replacement gym or playground for the school’s use. It also requires continual public oversight once the project is up and running: enforce the lease terms over decades to prevent subtle erosion of public benefits. When a school board in Vancouver moved hastily to lease out land needed for future school expansion, parents rightly blasted the decision as “prioritiz[ing] private interests over the public good” cityhallwatch.wordpress.com. That is exactly the opposite of how such partnerships should function. Instead, the public interest must drive the agenda, and private partners should be chosen based on their ability and commitment to deliver that public interest (even if it means a lower profit margin for them). The public sector should be an active steward throughout, not a passive landlord.
Toward better stewardship of public land
In an era of tight education budgets and sky-high urban land values, it is understandable that school boards feel pressure to “do something” with their real estate.
The answer, however, is not to hold a yard sale for school property.
Just a Parent
It is to become smarter asset managers. By treating school lands as long-term strategic assets and embracing well-structured public-private partnerships, districts can unlock immense value while safeguarding the public good. This approach demands patience, expertise, and political courage – it’s far easier to sell off land for quick cash than to shepherd a complex mixed-use development over several years. But the rewards for the community are vastly greater.
An assertive yet constructive path forward is for school trustees, cities, and provinces to jointly develop frameworks that encourage these innovative partnerships. Provinces should incentivise school boards to retain ownership (perhaps by allowing them to keep lease revenues for capital projects, whereas currently boards may feel pressured to sell assets to fund basics). Federal and provincial funding programs can be aligned to support multi-use school redevelopments – for instance, Infrastructure Canada and CMHC could target grants/loans to projects that include both educational and affordable housing elements council.vancouver.ca council.vancouver.ca.
Meanwhile, school boards must up-skill and obtain solid commercial advice so they negotiate strong contracts in the public interest. They should engage with community stakeholders early and often, building public support for bold ideas like building housing on school grounds – when people see that new housing could be for families, teachers, or seniors (not just luxury condos), and that it will come with a brand-new school or community facility, opposition can turn to excitement.
Better stewardship of public land is not just a financial issue; it is a moral one. These lands were assembled and held by past generations for public purposes – to educate children and support communities. We have a duty to manage them wisely, neither letting them languish underused nor disposing of them for short-term gains. With creative vision and ironclad partnerships, school districts can turn underutilized lands into community assets that keep paying dividends for decades. In a tumultuous real estate market, this strategy offers stability and resilience: public land stays in public hands, risk is carried by those best able to handle it, and the benefits of development (housing, revenue, amenities) flow back to the public sphere. It’s time to stop viewing school properties as dusty line items on a balance sheet and start treating them as the public trust that they are. By doing so – by insisting on transparency, accountability, and long-term vision in every deal – we can ensure that today’s partnerships truly serve tomorrow’s public interest. thetyee.ca gfdrr.org