I am writing to express my…

I am writing to express my concerns regarding Bill 23. Not only does it make wide-sweeping changes to Ontario's planning system, it may have unintended consequences and I feel it does not help to address the issues relating to housing that we are facing as a Province.

Before I address specific aspects of the Bill, I would like to comment on the timing of this legislation. I am dismayed and disappointed at the short timeline that were provided to gather input. Additionally, the timing of the posting of this large omnibus Bill fell immediately after municipal elections occurred and comments are required to be submitted before most new councils have been sworn in. CELA in their October 2022 News Bulletin described the omnibus bill as the "biggest (they have) seen in decades"; if professional are finding it difficult to digest and interpret the impacts of this legislation in such a short timeline, how does the government expect Ontarians to digest the impacts? The impacts of this Bill are wide-reaching and the true impacts won't be felt for years. As a concerned citizen, who sees the value of robust and comprehensive land use planning, I urge the government to rethink these proposed changes. The timing of the release of this Bill sends a signal that collaboration and consultation is not the aim of this legislation, which is unfortunate given these are two tenants of good community planning.

This Bill is long and complicated. For simplicity, I have focused my comments on 5 main themes:

Key concerns and questions:
1. Do these changes result in removing Conservation Authorities from the planning process?
2. Why are certain upper-tier governments proposed to be removed from the planning process, when they provide a vital service in implementing good, holistic, community planning?
3. How will development be financed in light of the gutting of Development Charges?
4. How do we account for "the public interest" when public participation is removed from the planning process?
5. Is this the death of Inclusionary Zoning?

1. There is a lack of clarity on what the impact of the proposed changes to Conservation Authority's truly means in practice (this has been discussed in the media). The proposed changes could be interpreted to mean that Conservation Authorities cannot comment on matters under the Planning Act, as well as preventing municipalities from entering into agreements with CAs to review planning applications on their behalf, essentially removing CAs from the planning process. CAs have been unfairly targeted over the last few years, made out as obstacles to progress rather than bodies that protect Ontarians from present and future natural hazards. Conservation Authorities, which were created as a result of the devastating Hurricane Hazel -- which result in dozens of deaths -- need to remain a key part of the planning process in order to safeguard our communities, particularly in the face of a climate change. Over time, CAs have acquired lands (for example, hazard lands in floodplains as seen in the aftermath of Hurricane Hazels) as part of their land holdings to help prevent the development of land that is ill-suited for human habitation. With this backdrop, the proposition to force CAs to identify lands to be offered up to support development is outlandish. Additionally, Conservation Areas, managed by CAs, provide Ontarians with phenomenal ecosystem and recreational benefits; once these lands are developed, we cannot get them back. A draconian return to the "core mandate" of CAs means we risk losing the wonderful community assets that CAs often provide (programming such as the Rural Water Quality Program or other educational endeavors).

Lastly, reducing the area of influence that CAs have from 120 metres to 30 and restricting the fees that CAs can levy severely reduce the ability for CAs to ensure development can proceed without adverse impacts to both the environment and the future residents of lands adjacent to hazards and natural features. This must be reconsidered.

2. I am concerned about the elimination of upper-tier planning structures, in a seemingly targeted fashion. Upper-tier municipalities provide invaluable services such as coordinating infrastructure, transit, and other necessities for functioning communities. Creating unnecessary bureaucratic chaos will have deep implications and it is uncertain how this will lead to an expedited planning process. Through implementing planning policies, such as A Place to Grow, upper-tier municipalities have been playing key roles in coordinating the lower-tier municipalities and ensuring growth targets are met in a way that makes sense given the divergent needs of a municipality. For example, the County of Simcoe has 16 lower-tier municipalities; the County of Simcoe has undertaken work through their Land Needs Assessment to ensure growth is equitable across the County, while considered available services. Leaving all 16 to individually undertake this work on their own is not efficient. Upper-tier governments provide essential functions in ensuring growth is occurring where it's needed and where it is most financially prudent.

3. Municipalities already have limited revenue-generating mechanisms at their disposal and, unlike higher levels of government, are legally required to have balanced budgets. Development charges are a way of ensuring that the costs associated with development is financed partially by the benefiting developer. The proposed changes to the municipality's ability to collect development charges will put increased pressure on existing tax payers and may result in the eroding of community services to finance development. Considering the cost of sprawl is greater than that of building in existing communities, we can expect the costs associated with increased greenfield development to impact municipal coffers.

4. The proposed changes that result in the near elimination of public involvement in the planning process is shameful. Planning is about people and community -- if they are removed from the process, how are we expected to move forward in a way that brings everyone along with us? In tandem with the elimination of upper-tier planning, the proposed Bill would see the approval authority of lower-tier plans be shifted to the Minister. As we have seen with recent decisions (e.g., the approval of the City of Hamilton Official Plan, which completely ignored the wishes of the community and council) we can expect an increased politicization of the planning process. As Minister's decisions cannot be appealed, the risk is that the public and local desires will be eliminated from the process. In recent years, upper-tier municipalities have been "empowered" to fill the approval role for their lower-tiers as mature governments -- why are we so keen to take away that function?

5. Lastly, I am concerned that affordable housing is completely left out of the equation through Bill 23. Affordable construction is not being adequately incentivized through this Bill, especially in connection with previous changes made through Bill 109 (which limited the use of the tool to Major Transit Station Areas). The inclusion of caps on both the number of units and the number of years the limited affordable units can be classified as such will further squeeze supply and create unstable housing for folks who need it the most.

Lastly, a more robust, good-faith, consultation is required to ensure any changes to the planning system are done in a way that actually gets us to the goal of complete communities and housing where people want to live, in a way that does not leave the vulnerable behind. A reliance on a system which continues to financialize housing, with no changes to rent control or affordable housing is shameful, short-sighted, and will have clear winners (developers) and losers (Ontarians who just want a safe, affordable place to live in a community that want to live in). Please rethink these short-sighted policies.