I am concerned by the…

I am concerned by the current draft inclusionary zoning regulations. Many parts of Ontario are experiencing housing shortages, skyrocketing housing prices and increasing levels of homelessness. Implementing inclusionary zoning properly is one strategy to address some of these concerns. I would like to echo the recommendations from Social Planning Toronto:

1)The current draft regulations forbid municipalities from applying inclusionary zoning

policies to any building under 20 units. Since development patterns vary widely across municipalities, municipal governments should be able to set the appropriate size of

developments covered by inclusionary zoning bylaws locally, without constraints form

the province.

2) The current draft regulations forbid municipalities from asking that developers make

any more than 5% of the units in any development affordable (10% in high density

transit zones). Across North America, limits that low are unusual, and “set asides” in the neighbourhood of 20% are far more common, though New York’s inclusionary housing

plan includes set asides of up to 50%. Allowing municipalities to set their own set aside

levels is more in keeping with the legislation and with best practice, so no limit should

be set in the regulations.

3) The affordability periods are limited to 20-30 years in the draft regulations. This

effectively passes the affordable housing crisis on to the next generation but does little

to address the need for a long-term solution. It also flies in the face of other North

American jurisdictions which are moving to longer affordability periods and in many

cases to perpetual affordability or 99-year affordability periods. Developing regulations

that force municipalities to limit the duration of affordability is inconsistent with the legislation’s support for allowing municipalities to make the choices that are right for

their residents’ affordable housing needs and their housing markets. There should be no province-wide imposed cap on affordability periods.

4) The draft regulations impose “measures and incentives” that require every municipality in Ontario to shift costs from developers onto taxpayers. For every unit of affordable

housing created by a new development, this draft regulation requires municipalities to

compensate developers for 40% of the cost of making units affordable. Compensation to

developers is an unusual policy, rarely included in other inclusionary zoning programs

in North America and, even in the jurisdictions where it is allowed, it is used minimally.

Across North America, the cost of affordable units is absorbed by the developments,

primarily by lowering land prices, which is also a significant benefit given overheated

land prices in many Ontario communities. Municipal funds are generally best spent on

deeper subsidy programs that the development market can’t address, not diverted to

payments to developers. There is no reason for Ontario to ignore best practice and the preponderance of public policy by having taxpayers subsidize the highly profitable

development industry. No compensation should be required under the regulations.

5) Limits on building affordable units offsite are also included in this draft regulation. The offsite units are required to be “in proximity” to the original building, but proximity is not defined. Municipalities should be required to create a locally appropriate definition

of “proximity” to ensure consistent application of the offsite development rules. Many inclusionary zoning policies in North America also require developers to provide

additional units if they employ the offsite provision. This is an appropriate addition to

the draft regulations, though units provided by non-profits should be exempt from this

requirement.

6) The regulation also forbids building offsite affordable units funded by inclusionary

zoning unless the buildings they are in are at least 50% market units. This makes it

almost impossible for non-profit providers to play a role. Few non-profits have the

capacity to build and market an additional unit for every unit of affordable housing they

provide. The capacities and capital of the non-profit sector are best focused on

providing badly needed affordable units. The draft regulations should exempt non-

profits from this restriction.

7) As housing markets vary widely, exemptions for purpose-built rental should not be

imposed province wide. It is worth noting that many new rental developments are

luxury rental buildings and are ideal candidates for participation in inclusionary zoning

programs. This exemption should be removed.

[Original Comment ID: 212324]