Citizen Comments/Feedback…

Citizen Comments/Feedback upon review of Proposed regulation under the Planning Act related to inclusionary zoning forementioned:

Part 1 a) provide that zoning by-laws giving effect to the policies described in subsection 16(4) could only apply to developments or redevelopments that propose no less than twenty (20) residential units;

Recommendation to remove this policy or limit policy effect to non-density cities like Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, etc as it is counterproductive to achievement of residential density, home ownership availability, and home affordability in otherwise dense areas. If this policy also covers identified high density transit-station areas, ask that the policy 1a be narrowed to exclude identified high density transit-station areas so that developers are not building <20 unit developments.

Part 3 a) a) Unit Set Aside – The total number of affordable housing units or the total gross floor area proposed to be occupied by the affordable housing units that could be required: i. would not exceed five (5) percent of the total units or would not exceed five (5) percent of the total gross floor area of a proposed development or redevelopment to which the by-law applies; or ii. if a development or redevelopment is proposed to be located in a high density transit-station area identified in an official plan, would not exceed ten (10) percent of the total units or would not exceed ten (10) percent of the total gross floor area of a proposed development or redevelopment to which the by-law applies; and

Proposal to change these figures to 10% of total units and 20% of total units in a development of high density transit-station areas, respectively. This keeps Canada competitive with similar inclusionary zoning by-law policies in the United States. Additionally, the increase would encourage developers to build more phases of developments to increase their overall profitability spread over several developments. Furthermore there is weakness in condition of percentage of total units or total gross floor areas that should be obvious. If you have 100,000 sqft development and breakdown units into 90 non-affordable homes, affordable homes would barely be 5 total units and available square feet for affordable homes would be 5,000 sqft. Municipality can only enforce the developer to create 5 x 1000 sqft units that are affordable and cannot be required to spread the 5,000 into 6 or more units therefore increasing home ownership capacity and home affordability. Developer would probably prefer to create more 500 sqft units to increase profitability and residents/non-residents would too since they have more avaiable at more affordable prices.

Part 3 c) c) Measures and Incentives –

i. where a development or redevelopment is on land subject to a community planning permit system, no measures or incentives would be required to be provided; or ii. Where a development or redevelopment is not on land subject to a community planning permit system, the measures and incentives would be a financial contribution paid by the municipality to the development or redevelopment;

Point i should remain and take full effect for entirety of provision c under the Provisions Required in Inclusionary Zoning By-laws. Point ii should not exist for competitive developed nations. We do not need to incentivize this, that is what business and adventure of risk or trade is for. We dont want developers who want money grabs. Also the formula is all wrong as the formula only takes 40% of the average market price for all the affordable units required. Simple analysis and accounting would suggest that it should be the total sum of the average price less the amount paid by the affordable home owner (i.e. the delta or difference of average market price and what the affordable home owner bought it for) otherwise the municipality would be paying a hefty market premium beyond what the affordable home owner really requires to acquire a home and politicians/taxpayers are on the hook.

Part 4. Provisions Required in Inclusionary Zoning Agreements - Share of Proceeds Related to Equity Policy should not be based on home ownership equity. If municipality is subsidizing home affordability, the payable amount should be a percentage of the subsidized amount and not the equity that is based on selling price. Further, there are no 'related persons' provisions in this policy so it will face severe weakness that would limit policy effectiveness to incentivize home owners as anyone can sell to a related party at below market value therefore producing no equity on which to repay the municipality.

Overall, the policy is seen as weak in it's governance towards mandating home affordability. The major loophole being that no municipality is enabled, not obliged to adopt the Inclusionary Zoning Policies therefore would be a moot and shelved policy. On secondary factors, the policy would not be a sustainable policy under current immigration levels and is ignorant to encouraging livelihood in other parts of Canada where homes are significantly more affordable and abundantly available. I would recommend the creation of an independent and multi-discipline think-tank body or committee to rework the proposed legislation.

[Original Comment ID: 212245]