Choice and Consequence. Once…

Choice and Consequence.
Once again, I must state my deep disagreement with the proposed policy direction and associated legislation put forward since the introduction of Bill 23 in the fall of 2022. I do not see evidence that these policies are good for Ontario nor capable of accomplishing the outcomes the supporting politicians broadcast.

The Government of Ontario, along with most Ontarians, is correct that Ontario requires more housing. The fact that there is a crisis now is a demonstration of political short-sightedness over many years.

Policies often focus on one goal (e.g. 1.5 million homes) without considering the systems affected by that goal. Housing is part of a much larger system of interactions, dependencies, and influences.

To concentrate only on the number of houses and providing “choice” at the expense of how “choice” skews the system of shelter, affordability, food production, transportation, water (waste and fresh), etc. is not good for Ontario’s future. Whose choice? What resources are used to provide the choice? All these are part of an interdependent system, such that when one part is changed the whole system must adjust.

Recent extreme weather events have shown that humans have depended on the rest of the system to adjust to human interventions, especially over the past 200 years. This policy continues that assumption.
The proposed changes to planning and housing will have consequences because humans guiding these policy changes are expecting the natural world to be resilient. Climate scientists are warning that we can no longer assume that there will be ongoing resilience to our actions.

Choice must be limited. What is “affordable” housing? Certainly 80% of the market value is not affordable to those working for minimum wage. Governments cannot back away from building affordable housing. Truly affordable housing is a benefit to all Ontarians in reduced health care and policing expenses.

Planners have learned from the 1970’s experiments that building affordable housing in communities must be done differently. Housing policy-makers need to consult widely with those in the systems that will be affected if housing built is to be truly affordable for the most vulnerable.
Indeed, the poorest and most vulnerable are not provided with any choice in the proposed plans, while the wealthy will have choice to use three times (or more) the materials, labour and resources to house 2 to six people on land taken out of the Greenbelt or land encroaching on fertile food-producing flood-mitigating(wetland) areas.
If truly affordable housing were to receive the same investment as each of those large, detached houses Ontario could be housing many of the most vulnerable in 15 minute walkable communities. But nothing in these policies addresses housing for the most vulnerable.

Indeed, plans to reduce the green space required where intensification of housing is projected will create strains on the criminal justice system, the health-care system, etc. Green spaces are required for human health. Science is clear and the studies are numerous.

We are hosting a family who has fled from Ukraine. As we drive them to their various appointments, they are amazed at the size of the houses. “Why do people build such big places?” They never expected to live anywhere other than in their apartment. Most of the people immigrating to Ontario will be people who are very accustomed to living in smaller housing units and more densely populated areas. Where are the plans to provide this kind of choice?
The Ukrainian family we are hosting had no need for a driver’s license. They used the bus and train. Our Ukrainian family cannot afford any housing, rental or otherwise until they have well-paying jobs for a few years. The current housing policy will make transportation more expensive because unless transit is in the area where houses are being built before occupants arrive, those occupants will be forced (no choice) into obtaining personal transportation for work and necessities of home life. Once having invested in personal transportation, studies show a reduced use of public transit. That would be okay in a 15-minute walkable community, but not in the newly added areas for development in the Greenbelt and other locations outside of the long-standing urban boundaries. Choice? Yes, but only for the wealthy in the policy as it currently stands.

Ontario needs to invest much more in public transit, before expanding urban boundaries, and require, by updates to the building code, that all housing built will be at least net zero, if not net negative in carbon emissions including the building and ongoing operation of the units. So far, no policy since the fall of 2022 has shown a plan for long-term housing supply sustainability. Again, the wealthy will be okay, but the vulnerable and less wealthy will have no choice, and current property owners through property tax assessments will end up paying more.

This proposal is not a plan nor direction for Ontario’s future that I can endorse.