I have several major…

I have several major concerns around the proposed updates and believe that the Analysis of Regulatory Impact is flawed or incomplete. My primary concerns are that the proposed amendments (1) dramatically increase financial risk to homeowners, renters, municipalities, and the Ontario government by compromising transportation, drainage, and waste services, (2) increases human morbidity with costs to residents’ wellbeing and increased health care costs both to the individual and Ontario, and (3) undermines the public trust by allowing a single, appointed person to make unilateral decisions. I summarize my problems with Bill 23 below and propose solutions to these problems.

Proposed City of Toronto Act Amendments (Bill 23, Schedule 1)

#1 The City of Toronto Act is founded on the principle that “The City of Toronto exists for the purpose of providing good government with respect to matters within its jurisdiction, and the city council is a democratically elected government which is responsible and accountable.” S 1(1). Allowing the Minister to impose limits associated with City powers is contrary to the Act’s principles and fundamentally undermines the public trust by placing the final decision in a single person that is appointed to the role. The Minister should not have the sole power to impose regulations on the City.

Proposed City of Toronto Act Amendments (Bill 23, Schedule 1) and the Proposed Planning Act Amendments (Bill 23, Schedule 9)

#2 Site plans enable municipalities to control development’s impacts on traffic, waste, drainage, and other factors. Omitting residential buildings with less than 10 units and land lease community homes from the definition of a development increases risk to Ontarians by removing a tool that can help municipalities / the City of Toronto management traffic, waste, and drainage. These three elements have direct impacts on the health and wellbeing of homeowners, renters, and others. Omitting medium sized residential buildings could very well increase financial costs to individual Ontarians, municipalities / Toronto, and the Ontario government through downstream costs associated with transportation, drainage, and waste infrastructure. Residential buildings and land lease community homes must not be exempt from the definition of development.

Proposed Planning Act Amendments (Bill 23, Schedule 9)

#3 Land use planning and development cannot be separated from flooding due to the inherent connection between natural areas, impermeable surfaces, water infiltration, ground water recharge, and flooding. As a result, it is dangerous to limit the role of Conservation Authorities as proposed in S1 (4.1). CAs must have the ability to review and comment on proposals associated with the Acts to protect Ontarians from financial risk associated with flooding.

#5 The original text in Section 23 of the Act allows the Minister to request municipalities amend a plan to align with provincial interests and – if required – request the Ontario Land Tribunal to assess whether the amendment should be made. The proposed amendment is not procedural but rather increases the authority of the Minister without any check. Repealing section 23 fundamentally undermines the public trust by allowing a single person that is appointed to the role of Minister to amend an official plan. The Minister should not have the unilateral power to amend a city plan.

#6 Regional planning benefits homeowners, renters, municipalities, and Ontario by ensuring communities can be serviced with effective transportation, water, and other infrastructure. Upper-tier municipalities are in the best position to develop strategic development plans that provide residents with long-term benefits and services. Shifting those responsibilities to lower-tier municipalities increases risks to residents and governments by creating a larger patchwork of responsibilities and more difficulty in effectively linking communities and community infrastructure. Planning policy responsibilities should remain with upper-tier municipalities to economize

#7 Discussion and appeals are a central part of living in any community. Restricting appeals to utility companies (i.e., “specific person” under the proposed amendment) disenfranchises citizens that live within the community and is counter to democratic principles. Given planning decisions impact all community members it is important to maintain the right to appeal for individuals and the public body. Appeals must be available to individuals and the public body throughout the Planning Act.

#8 Urban green areas are vital to communities and their residents. A review of 68 studies indicates that urban green space has positive impacts on human health with observed decreases in mortality, heart rate, and violence, and increases in attention, mood, and physical activity (Kondo et al. 2018). Scientific consensus is that exposure to nature improves cognitive functioning, emotional well-being, and other dimensions of mental health (Bratman et al. 2019). The proposed amendments reduce parkland requirements by 50% (s 42(3) and (6.0.1). Reducing parkland requirements will increase human morbidity with costs to residents’ wellbeing and increased health care costs both to the individual and Ontario. Furthermore, reducing parkland requirements will indirectly increase costs by reducing water infiltration and thus increasing flood risk at a time when climate change is increasing the frequency of severe weather precipitation events. Parkland requirements must be maintained at the current level or increased to maintain or improve residents’ health, wellbeing, and financial security.

Proposed Development Charges Act Amendments (Bill 23, Schedule 3)

#9 I support increasing affordable residential units and attainable residential units, for non-profit housing developments, but exempting them from development charges is unsustainable. Municipalities need funds to support appropriate planning and implementation of affordable housing. I recommend subsidizing affordable residential units by increasing the charges associated with low-density housing and other space-intensive developments to simultaneously promote affordable housing while maintaining the funds to appropriately manage developments.

#10 Reducing development costs is unsustainable and increases financial risk to residents, municipalities, and Ontario by reducing funds used to recover costs associate with water supply, wastewater, storm water, electric power, transportation, transit, police, fire, ambulance, and numerous other critical services. These costs would either need to be recovered through increased property taxes (i.e., benefiting development companies at the cost of residents) or run the risk of infrastructure failure thereby increasing costs to the government. Development charges should be structured to promote affordable residential units and reduce low-density housing while maintaining municipalities’ ability to deliver critical services.

Resources

Bratman et al. 2019. Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Science Advances 5: p.eaax0903.

Kondo et al. 2018. Urban green space and its impact on human health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15: 445.