This proposal refers to …

This proposal refers to ‘affordable housing’ without addressing the incredibly high costs of housing in this province. Ontario should review the (attached) Transparency International Canada’s Report, 'OPACITY: Why Criminals Love Canadian Real Estate (And How to Fix It)' on this subject where the housing situation in Ontario is discussed. Two C.D. Howe reports on this same topic are also linked, and they reach similar conclusions to those of the previous Transparency International report.

Even if so-called 'affordable housing’ is built, the original buyer can sell at market value to the next buyer. Even Ontario cannot impose price restrictions on future sales of such homes to keep them 'affordable'. Besides, a constantly growing population on a finite landscape translates into more competition for housing, as well as scarcity of housing and resources. We can anticipate that prices will only go up.

This posting also states: “Allow the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal to make decisions based on the best planning outcome as part of a return to de novo hearings in all cases.”

De novo hearings were a part of the previous Ontario Municipal Board setting, which repeatedly FAILED municipalities, citizens, and their elected municipal officials. Municipalities are mandated to carry out Official Plan reviews at regular intervals, and file those plans with the region and province. Despite spending MILLIONS of dollars on their Official Plans, developers could apply for an Official Plan Amendment to do whatever they wanted with their land inventory. It is BIZARRE for the province to revert to “de novo hearings’ again, as if Official Plans do not exist! Municipalities hold public consultations on these plans, and the concerns of the residents are usually accommodated. If Ontario is "FOR THE PEOPLE", then it ought to listen to those people who were consulted within their municipalities, regarding how they want their OWN communities to develop. It is ridiculous to say that developers can hire their stable of planners and lawyers to ride rough shod over these plans again and again. One of the few things the previous Liberal government did right was to change the rules when it introduced the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal to hear cases, recognizing the legitimacy of Official Plans, and associated limits placed on developments.

In this rush to build houses, the Province seems to forget the costs for building roads, building or extending water system, the need for schools, libraries and medical clinics to serve the rapidly-growing population, and the continuing associated loss of more natural areas.

Currently, development charges pay for an average of perhaps 55% (up to a possible 80% in some cases) of development costs. When the houses are sold, the developer reaps all the benefits and profits. Ontario appears to be ‘socializing’ the costs of development (by pushing those costs on to taxpayers), while ensuring the associated profits are ‘privatized’, accruing only to the developers. The result will be tax increases again and again.

The Mayor of Milton once said that “Growth does not pay for growth”, and we know it doesn’t. We know this because every level of government in Canada is saddled with rising debts and deficits. None are debt-free. In this atmosphere, WHY would Ontario reduce development fees to developers? That is a cost of doing business. If developers do not pay those fees, then the government is saying that taxes must rise for everyone else to pursue more development. Governments at all levels in Ontario have been advocating for more growth since the 1980s. What did we get in return? More congestion and ever-rising taxes. Governments are NOT good at picking economic winners. If we judge governments on the quality and costs for development, too often we find governments are ‘losing’ or squandering our tax dollars just for the sake of more development. How will the on-going costs of operating, maintaining, repairing, upgrading and eventually replacing associated infrastructure be paid while the government is intent on pursuing more of the same?

According to the linked 2019 study from The Institute in Municipal Finance and Governance, development charges do not adequately cover the costs of development in Ontario.

Recently, York Region said it will move to a full-cost recovery system for water, so households will pay for what they use. If households have to pay their full costs, why is Ontario tinkering with reduced development fees to give developers a break? We all need to understand the full costs of what we are doing.

If development is occurring within the free market system, then it should be able to raise investment dollars in the marketplace to meet the costs of doing business. There is no need for Ontario to continue subsidizing development costs, or giving developers more ‘breaks’ on those costs.
For instance, this proposal states: “A cornerstone of the new authority is that community benefit charges would be capped based on a portion of the appraised value of the land.” This suggests that community benefits only accrue to the piece of land under review for development. Libraries, schools, parks and medical clinics accrue to an entire area of development, so ‘capping charges’ based upon ‘the portion of the appraised value of the land” would result in under-charging for these essential services. Ontario doesn’t need to add to its public services’ ‘deficit’, when we know residents are already grappling with congestion and reduced services.

Perhaps, Ontario should consider its current shortage of medical clinics and how difficult it can be to find a family doctor. It is one thing to build a new hospital, but it is a whole other matter to staff it and equip it appropriately. New super-agencies are unlikely to change this situation, especially if the Boards are not led by competent, trained, experienced and qualified medical representatives.

For healthy development, people NEED parks for recreation and exercise away from congested development. At the same time, libraries nourish minds, and they are particularly important for children who do not have access to programs and up-to-date computers at home.

Dear Ontario, PLEASE reconsider these changes. Think of the beleaguered taxpayers of this province. Also, think of those taxpayers as residents and citizens, who want to be heard by the various levels of government. Always remember there are FOUR levels of government and associated agencies, but there is only ONE level of taxpayer. Why do we not have "FOR THE PEOPLE" politically-binding regular referenda on issues related to new and revised policies in this province? That's the only real way to gauge the public sentiment on these matters.