I am an ordinary citizen,…

I am an ordinary citizen, not employed by the City of Ottawa, without any pecuniary interest in any heritage property, but keenly concerned about heritage conservation in my neighbourhood (Centretown) and my city.

I object in the strongest possible terms to all of the proposed amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act and its Regulations. I detail some of most egregious changes I object to.

The City of Ottawa recently completed an overhaul (with results available online) of its Heritage Register, which now lists about 4,000 properties. Listing properties in a transparent way was seen as an improvement over having to respond hastily when demolition of a potentially valuable property is proposed, by requiring a 60-day advance notice. The proposed changes will bring us back to the inefficient status quo ante.

While several of the proposals would not be retroactive (i.e., apply only to listings or designations going forward), the obligation to remove a property from the Register (and inability to bring it back for 5 years) if a NOID under Part IV is not issued within two years would ensure that a large number of heritage properties will be lost. Even in a large city like Ottawa there simply is not the capacity to evaluate and process so many properties in the next two years. Ottawa currently brings forward 3 to 5 designations per year.

Increasing the threshold for designation under Part IV or V of the Act may be detrimental to equitable heritage conservation. In practice, the City of Ottawa staff currently recommends designation only when two criteria are met, but there should be room for exceptions. The proposal would take away that flexibility.

Ability to issue a NOID following an application for a zoning or official plan amendment or plan of subdivision only if the property was already on the Register may lead to loss of heritage property.

I object to the LGIC having the ability to disrespect Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Heritage Properties if that could "potentially advance" certain provincial priorities. The Standards and Guidelines should apply to all parties everywhere. The wording is extremely vague.

Like the rest of Bill 23, the proposals amount to a gift to developers and show an appalling lack of respect for heritage values. They pretend to introduce efficiencies but in fact will have the opposite effect.

Schedule 6 should be withdrawn.