The good news in this…

The good news in this document is the note that municipal planners can go above and beyond this new policy, as it sets minimum standards.

Thus, for example, since municipalities are now in charge of watershed management, they can freely use 500 year storms as a determination of the flood risk, and plan accordingly.

Since the definition of 'affordable housing' is now eliminated, municipalities can define 'affordable' at the old standard of 30% of income. The Bill 23 definitions are not yet implemented, and even if the 80% of market definition is ultimately decided upon, municipalities can and should go above that minimum and set a better (i.e. more affordable) definition. The suggestion in the proposal that municipalities must allow for the 'full range' of housing affordability needs clearly states that municipalities will not be hamstrung by Bill 23's redefinition of 'Affordable' to be 80% of market, nor the removal of the 30% of income definition in the proposal. Indeed a full range of affordability may mean that new builds can and should include housing that is deeply affordable to the lowest income, most marginalized communities.

Through the encouragement in the PPS to protect the environment and reduce GHG emissions, municipalities can demand developers do better than the 'minimum' standards in the building code, and for example, build energy efficiency, stormwater management and electric vehicle charging station capacity in new buildings. They can demand an end to sprawl, and through the PPS encouragement of density, can demand that developers build denser forms of housing as infill rather than sprawl.

Though the proposed PPS gives permission to more easily urbanize farmland, municipalities are not forced to by this document. So long as they maintain the new build required in the PPS, they are free to do that by intensification and dense infill, rather than expanding into farmland. As the attached opinion suggests, paving over more farmland is not a wise use of limited resources, and threatens our limited food self-sufficiency.

Much of what the province has done more recently appears to provide restrictions on the abilities of municipal planners to do their jobs. If there is widespread use of the 'attainable' and 'affordable' provisions of bill 23, this will certainly cause significant tax increases on existing property owners in Ontario, as developers will no longer have to pay for infrastructure. This may be a blessing in disguise, as municipalities, faced with the inability to create new infrastructure, will have to find clever ways to utilize existing infrastructure, which lends itself to intensification, or building where there is already significant infrastructure in place. This in turn fulfils other policy statements, particularly those requiring intensification and mitigating climate change related harms.