June 16, 2020 To: …

June 16, 2020
To: Environmental Registry of Ontario
Subject: Proposed Amendment to a Place to Grow: Growth Plan for Greater Golden Horseshoe.

The opportunity to provide public consultation on Ontario’s land use plans is appreciated, but open public commentary is not likely the most effective way to plan for the one of the most dynamic economic regions of North America and perhaps the world. As a long-term business professional and engineer in the Capital Markets area here are my observations both about this consultation and the overall land use planning process in Ontario.

1. Canada and Ontario will be sought after place to live for the next 100 years and beyond due to both climate change and the fact we are underpopulated by many measures including land, resources, capital, and wealth. In the UK when planning for subways and other major infrastructure projects there is often a 100-year scenario developed. Land use planning even to 2051 seems very short sighted when even fast developments can take 10 years and developers say larger projects can take 20 years. Where is the 100-year planning scenario?

2. The Hemson forecasts develop detailed bottom up Ontario analysis but do not provide any top down base line Canadian population forecasts. There have been many credible policy discussions at the Canadian Federal government level that Canada needs a population of at least 100 million people to allow the development of a more diversified economy and to create prosperity for all Canadians. What is the expected Canadian population in 2050, 2075 and 2100? It is a simple assumption that Ontario will have a likely greater than average share of people settle in the GTA area. It is hard to predict what the economy and types of jobs will be like in those periods but if government policy decisions are allowed, higher population growth is very easy to implement. There may even be a humanitarian need to provide a Canadian home for climate refugees. This could be further accelerated if the goal of Affordable Housing for all, an existing Federal Policy was accelerated with infrastructure investments that accelerated an increase in supply at lower prices. There would be no harm to anyone, particularly the younger generations and new immigrants if governments helped to provide better value for all types of housing in all parts of Ontario.

3. There are also references that population forecasts by the Ontario Ministry of Finance do not reflect policy goals. Why not? It is the role of government to plan for all aspects of provincial policy. There are provincial staff and resources to provide a more fulsome policy analysis. These are long term plans for stable predictable issues. I believe the population forecasts are conservative and there should be much more ambitious growth goals. Provide scenarios that plan for completely new communities and cities by 2100 when Ontario’s population could easily be double or triple what it is today without any negative consequences. By observation municipal politics are much too short sighted given the direct impact local decisions have on Canada’s future. I would rather have better plans than too much local political input that has a high NIMBY influence.

4. The Covid crisis has accelerated the ability to work remotely from anywhere. No longer should the assumption that everyone needs or wants to commute to downtown cores of large cities be a given. As of June 2020, Elon Musk of SpaceX is announcing the Starlink satellite internet goal is to provide high speed service to all of Canada and rural US. Combine universal internet access with Amazon like delivery services and many economic scenarios where people live become very realistic. To compete, with the best countries in the world, we need to make Ontario a desirable place to live. A full range of housing types in different locations with affordable valuation is needed to attract the best immigrants from around the world. We need to strive for an oversupply of serviced land that is ready to develop to keep housing costs down. Canadians already have affordable health care. It is a very achievable goal to provide affordable housing for everyone.

5. The policy statements and comments from anti-development critics that somehow an oversupply of serviced land costs taxpayers has no merit and need to be challenged. This is long term infrastructure that will create long term tax revenues. We are at unprecedented low interest rates. Governments are seeking long term infrastructure projects. Making the plans for community and city infrastructure are the low cost part of these projects compared to many other government operating expenses.

6. A valid critique is that municipal planning takes too long with too many costs. Allocate more resources to make things happen faster. There is not any downside. Too often the critics are retired bureaucrats that believe they mean well, but they do not provide realistic plans that reflect more ambitious growth forecasts that are aligned with Canada’s global responsibility to provide affordable housing to a growing global population.

7. Overall, politicians are too sensitive to anti-development critics who make cases for higher density that do not actually stand up to economic or environmental scrutiny. These types of policies create an undersupply of affordable housing by creating land overvaluation that benefits a select group of existing landowners. Ontario government policy and planning can do much better for the benefit of all citizens.