Comments on proposed…

Comments on proposed revision of the Ontario Heritage Act and its regulations: Bill 23 (Schedule 6) – the Proposed More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022. ERO Registry Number 019-6196
The proposal states that,
“The goal of the proposed changes is to renew and update heritage policies, some of which haven’t been reviewed in over a decade, to reduce red tape and remove barriers that are slowing down housing construction and other priority projects while continuing to conserve and commemorate key heritage properties that matter most to local communities.”
This “goal” as stated is based on the false assumption that heritage preservation and new housing construction are somehow antithetical. They are not. There are many examples of new housing and increased density in heritage buildings and neighbourhoods in Ontario. Additions can be put on existing buildings. Single family dwelling have been converted into duplexes, triplexes and condos. Former factories have been turned into lofts, former churches and schools into multi-unit apartments and condos. Heritage districts have accommodated new apartment buildings, all while preserving heritage character and links to the past. There are many examples of renewed heritage neighbourhoods with increased densities. Look at the Distillery District or St. Lawrence Market area in Toronto. These are thriving communities and popular tourist destinations. These projects were not happy accidents but the result of time consuming and careful application of heritage preservation planning.
The governments proposed “goal” to increase housing starts while “continuing to conserve and commemorate key heritage properties that matter most to local communities” ignores the statement on the official Ontario.ca website under the heading, “Learn about how we support heritage conservation.” It says “The Government of Ontario recognizes that the province’s heritage tells us who we are, where we have come from and what we have accomplished. This knowledge is a source of strength and confidence.” The concept put forward in this proposal to update the Ontario Heritage Act is that we only “continue to commemorate key heritage properties that matter most to local communities.” This is a severe new restriction of the purposes of the Heritage Act which protects all heritage identified, evaluated and designated by local municipalities.
Our sad state of affairs regarding the lack of available housing has many sources, not the least of which was the cancellation of Federal funding for social housing during the mid-1990s by the Liberal government and the subsequent downloading of social housing funding to local municipalities by the Ontario government. Heritage planning is not a barrier to increasing housing, lack of funding is.
The proposed changes to the section of the OHA dealing with municipal heritage registers is ignoring the primary purpose of these registers which is to facilitate the planning process to renovate or develop properties with suspected heritage value in an efficient manner while still protecting what is of potential public value in them. Registers are meant to provide an early warning system to owners and prospective owners that a property has possible heritage value that may have to be taken into consideration when planning for alteration or demolition. A register is not supposed to be a list of properties of known value and worthy of designation but just a list of properties that should be considered for designation if necessary.
The government is now proposing to weaken the purpose of registers while making them so onerous for municipalities to maintain that they would basically no longer be worth retaining.
The proposals are the following;
o Non-designated properties currently included on a municipal register would have to be removed if council does not issue a notice of intention to designate (NOID) within two years of the amendments coming into force. Non-designated properties included on the register after the proposed amendment comes into force would have to be removed if council does not issue a NOID within two years of the property being included.
o If removed from the register under any of the above three circumstances, the property cannot be relisted for a period of five years.

The expectation here that cash strapped municipalities will suddenly move to research report and designate 100s of properties in a few years is ludicrous and financially impossible. What it will do is wipe out all the work (and expense) that went in to making the listings in the first place. Some municipalities have hundreds, if not thousands of listings, this effectively removes the usefulness of the early warning value and would effectively end the process of maintaining heritage registers.

The further proposal not to allow municipalities to designate in the face of a proposal to demolish or alter unless the property is already on a register is the final nail in the coffin of the Ontario Heritage Act. It would soon make it impossible for municipalities to protect their heritage character. The proposals destroy the ability of municipalities to avoid “”designation decisions being made late in the land use planning process” and they penalize them again by making it impossible to designate unless the property is already listed, The term “Catch 22” comes to mind…

Is all this really necessary to assist the addition of new housing? Or rather is it intended to lower costs and increase profits for a small number of individuals who are building any developments, housing related or not, at the expense of the wishes of local communities?
The government also proposes, “An increase in the threshold for designation of individual properties and new limitations on designation for properties subject to proposed development.”
“MCM is proposing to provide further rigour in the designation process by increasing the threshold by requiring that a property meet two or more of the criteria prescribed in regulation.’’
While I suspect that most designated property will easily meet two criteria there are examples of important heritage properties that only meet one criterion. What about a little chapel moved to a new location that was built by black settlers who followed the freedom trail to Ontario? What about the childhood home of Wayne Gretsky that is in a modest subdivision of Brantford? Are these not of sufficient importance to deserve recognition and protection? The OHA enables municipalities to identify and protect their heritage properties and to defend them in an appeal process, why restrict their decision making further?