Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed inclusionary zoning regulations under the Planning Act. I welcome the Government of Ontario’s attention to the provincial housing crisis and the development of new tools to address concerns about affordability. Inclusionary zoning is an important tool as part of a broader suite of mechanisms to ensure Ontarians have access affordable housing. However, it is a tool that must be designed carefully to ensure it can actually effectively address the lack of affordable housing in both the property ownership market and the rental market. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the government to demonstrate the leadership required to keep Ontario’s communities diverse and inclusive for a range of income-levels. I would urge you to reconsider several aspects of the proposed regulations in order to ensure inclusionary zoning will be implemented effectively in Ontario to meet a full range of housing needs. It is critical that the government implement progressive and research-based policy to address Ontario’s housing and affordability crisis. However, at present the regulations require significant change to ensure the success of inclusionary zoning in the province.

1.The regulations should set minimums for affordable units not maximums

Municipal responsibility for housing in Ontario recognizes the role of each municipality in understanding and determining the best way to meet the housing needs of their communities. Provincial leadership in providing tools like inclusionary zoning should provide municipalities with the autonomy to craft progressive policies matched to the distinct needs of their residents. The current restrictions on units set aside will limit rather than empower municipalities to address the distinctive housing needs in their communities. This is inconsistent with Supreme Court of Canada’s recognition of the principle of subsidiarity as an important lens through which to understand municipal governance:

law-making and implementation are often best achieved at a level of government that is not only effective, but also closest to the citizens affected and thus most responsive to their needs, to local distinctiveness, and to population diversity.

Further, the proposed maximums are out of step with international practice. The 2017 CMHC report on inclusionary zoning noted a range of 10-20%, and up to 30%, set-aside standard in the United States.

The regulations should be redrafted to provide for a minimum requirement of between 10-20%. Municipalities should be empowered to set a higher standard should they determine it is appropriate and reasonable in their local circumstances. If a maximum is to be imposed it should be no less than 30%, with provision for municipalities to apply for exceptions if warranted in the circumstances.

2.Inclusionary zoning must include affordable rental housing

Not only is limiting the application to ownership housing out of step with international approaches to inclusionary zoning, it will quite simply fail to address the needs of most Ontarians in need of affordable housing. While home ownership is a goal for many Ontarians, and it is essential to ensure it remains in reach for as many people as possible, many people and families will continue to rely on rental housing indefinitely. Ontario communities need a range of housing options, including both affordable ownership units and rental units. In cities like Toronto where property ownership is already unaffordable for many, tools to ensure affordability in the rental market are an essential part of an effective housing policy. While inclusionary zoning is only one of the tools to address rental affordability, it is a useful and realistic tool for municipalities to implement to right now.

The regulations should be redrafted to apply to rental housing in addition to ownership housing and to enable non-profit ownership and management of the resulting affordable housing units.

3.Affordability must be guaranteed for future generations

The CMHC found ‘permanent’ affordability is an essential feature of effective inclusionary zoning. As with the units set aside, municipalities be empowered to require long and enduring control over affordability to avoid losing units to the general property market, including in perpetuity.

4.Non-profit housing ownership and management should be encouraged

Non-profit housing providers and community land trusts have an important role to play in ensuring diverse and affordable communities, particularly with respect to affordable rental housing. The regulations should actively enable ownership and management of affordable rental units by non-profits. One key way to do so, as identified by the Parkdale Neighbourhood Land Trust, is to waive the 50% affordable housing unit limitations on off-site developments where a non-profit will either purchase the units or partner with owners to manage rental housing. Off-site or stand-alone developments would allow for purpose built non-profit housing, which may be more suitable for specialized housing and other affordable housing developments. The current 50% affordable unit maximum limits the involvement of charitable organizations, such as housing providers and land trusts, because they cannot own or manage market rate housing. While mixed use development can play an important role in urban development, the regulations should be modified to ensure the role non-profit housing partners is maximized.

The regulations should be amended to waive the 50% affordable housing unit limitations on off-site developments where a non-profit will either purchase the units or partner with owners to manage rental housing.

5.Municipalities should not bear the cost of inclusionary zoning through either subsidies or incentives limiting their ability to build and maintain the essential infrastructure that services developments and benefits developers and residents.

Based on the extensive US experience, the recent CMHC report concludes inclusionary zoning does not require subsidies or regulatory concessions to be effective. In fact, they suggest such tools should be limited in use to negotiating with developers to go above the baseline requirements:

IZ does not rely upon conventional financial subsidies to provide the affordable housing, nor does it really need regulatory concessions. Although it is true that most programs do provide regulatory concessions, many others do not and still are productive. Whenever

subsidies or concessions are offered, they should be used only to achieve more units or units at greater affordability than the baseline obligation. The key to successful programs lies not in providing concessions to the developers, but in setting reasonable

affordable housing obligations, and then using fixed rules so that cost burden can be

passed back to the purchase price of the land.

Again, as with the unit set aside requirements, municipalities should be empowered to use the tools at their disposal to exceed minimum standards rather than be required to trade away valuable revenue for public infrastructure or compromise community planning-standards. Municipalities should not, under any circumstances, be required to pay the cost of inclusionary zoning. Developers always oppose the regulation of the housing market. The government’s response should be based on research and independent advice. In the case of inclusionary zoning, independent research demonstrates inclusionary zoning has little or no impact housing prices and does not stop developers from producing housing units.

Requirements for municipalities to shoulder the cost of affordable units through subsidies or incentives should be removed from the regulations.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the regulation. Ontario has the opportunity to be a leader in addressing housing needs through progressive and research-based policy, including the use of inclusionary zoning. Unfortunately, the regulation as proposed is likely to have the opposite effect and to set up inclusionary zoning to fail before it has even begun. I urge you to consider these amendments and the comments of municipalities, housing providers and community organizations as you redraft the regulation.

Sincerely,

Estair Van Wagner

Assistant Professor and Co-Director, Environmental Justice and Sustainability Clinic

Osgoode Hall Law School

[Original Comment ID: 212335]