May 31, 2019 RE: Citizen…

May 31, 2019

RE: Citizen Submission on Bill 108, ERO 019-0017 and 019-0016

Thank you for considering my citizen submission on Bill 108. My comments are made from the perspective of a farm & forest owner, greenbelt resident, retired executive manager and community volunteer with over 50 years of experience in agriculture, land protection, nature and water management. However, there are only three days between the June 1st submission deadline and the proposed June 4th final vote on the Bill the government will not have enough time to fully consider its informed options. Amendments are needed to ensure this bill can deliver on its stated goals to provide more affordable housing, as well as protect municipal government autonomy, save a healthy environment and allow citizen involvement in community planning. Hence, I request the Ford government to defer the June 4th vote on Bill 108.

The More Homes, More Choice Act amends 13 pieces of legislation with the stated intention of making it easier to bring affordable housing to market. Unfortunately, as written, the Province’s Housing Supply Action Plan and Bill 108 will do very little to increase the supply of affordable housing (i.e. housing for the 20th-60th household income percentiles). In addition, certain policy changes contained within the Bill are actually contrary to the governments stated intentions, for example, restricting the use of inclusionary zoning near the vicinity of transit stations only.

As a community-minded and responsible citizen, I am supportive of encouraging a diversity of housing types to provide housing for seniors and low-income Ontarians to create more complete communities. Rather than moving forward to support this type of housing, many of the changes in Bill 108 are aimed at increasing the supply of single-family houses built on green-fields (farm land and natural areas). Detached single family homes are the most expensive type of housing for new home buyers and they are also far more expensive for municipalities to service.

Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of Bill 108 is its very narrow bias toward the recommendations made exclusively by the development industry. The proposed Bill really does nothing to satisfy other community interests including farmers, business owners or communities who will suffer from increased sprawl, its associated gridlock and impact on employee commute times, health or productivity. Bill 108 reduces developer costs but increases the burden on municipal taxpayers from lower phased in development charges. Deferring the development charges on commercial and industrial development projects requires taxpayers to subsidize developers and municipalities to take on debt. Collectively, the changes increase municipal debt, reduce citizen input and municipal input and reduce appeal rights.

Increasingly Ontario has been moving to a funding model for new development that requires growth to pay most of its share of capital costs. This model has enabled our municipalities to develop parks amenities and community facilities ready for new residents without burdening existing residents with increased capital costs. Moving away from this model, capping fees that support sustainable growth and reducing parkland in cities will reduce the livability & prosperity of new communities and cause citizens & municipal councils to strongly resist new developments.
Other provisions in Bill 108 reduce long held key protections that support the health and prosperity of our communities and natural areas. These include restricting the Conservation Authorities oversight, changes to Environmental Assessment, gutting Endangered Species Act and weakening the Ontario Heritage Act.

The proposed amendments to the Planning Act regarding the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT) favours developer interests, diminishes the important role of our elected officials in managing growth and development and limits the ability of citizens to participate in a meaningful way. Returning to the old unsatisfactory OMB rules will result in housing delays and higher prices, the exact opposite of the government’s stated intention to speed up and lower the cost of new housing.
As a result, many municipalities oppose or are requesting deferral of Bill 108. I also support the evidential wisdom of submissions on good planning and environmental concerns with Bill 108 made to the Ford government by Conservation Ontario, Environmental Defence, Greenbelt Alliance and Ontario Nature.

I strongly urge the government to provide time for municipalities and stakeholders to comment on Bill 108 and to carefully consider the specific recommendations below on Bill 108 and in particular, Schedules 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 12.

All of us must show a very careful diligence in community and provincial stewardship to ensure a wise legacy for the next generation and ourselves.

Respectfully submitted,

An Ontario citizen, who is a retired public executive manager, greenbelt resident, heritage farm and forest owner, long time community volunteer and proud Canadian

Schedule 2, Conservation Authorities Act
The changes in Bill 108 constrain the ability of CAs to achieve their core mandate of conserving, restoring and managing the natural resources of Ontario’s watersheds and protecting our communities from flooding and this is of substantial concern. Urbanization and climate change threaten the ecological integrity of natural areas. It is vital that our government shows leadership to restore healthy watersheds, enhance the connectivity of natural features, support green infrastructure and protect clean water resources. I also support the well informed advice, input, submissions and recommendations made by Conservation Ontario, the Canadian Environmental Law Association and Environmental Defence.

Schedule 3, Development Charges Act
Developers are thriving and housing supply is increasing with over 79,000 new housing units built in Ontario in 2017. Higher taxes and more debt will result from the implementation of Schedule 3 as it currently stands. Bill 108 reduces the ability of municipalities to collect development charges that fund their growth related infrastructure. By delaying the payment of these development charges for new development, municipal debt will be incurred shifting the cost of new development to taxpayers. The proposed deferral of development charges for rental apartments is of questionable benefit given virtually all new rental units (apart from government subsidized units) are luxury units. New development needs to provide an overall benefit for the public. It is not in the interest of municipalities or taxpayers to both be footing the bill for new development and receiving reduced benefits.
Bill 108 replaces Section 37 of the Planning Act with a new Community Benefits Charge By-law. The changes proposed allow the Minister to set a cap and does not allow for parkland dedication and a Community Benefits by-law to be applied to the same development project. Further changes remove “soft services” as eligible charges such as libraries or recreational facilities. The result of these changes will be less parkland and funding for community services. This outcome is illustrated very effectively in a City of Toronto Planning report presentation on Bill 108 (pg 9-12). As noted in the Parks People submission, under the new reduced parkland rate, a three-story development would provide the same amount of parkland as a 60-storey tower, if the land area being developed is the same size. People living vertical developments need more parkland than people with backyards, not less.
Requiring municipalities to spend 60% of parkland and community benefit funds to be spent annually means it will be difficult to assemble funds over several years for providing larger, needed community projects or facilities.
Collectively, these changes significantly restrict the ability of municipalities to plan ahead effectively for needed value added infrastructure.
Economic development is supported by providing places where people want to live. As communities intensify, recreation facilities and parkland are integral to creating healthy and economically successful communities.
Overall, Schedule 3 will not help increase housing supply or affordability. There is no requirement for developers to pass along cost savings to new homebuyers. As such, Schedule 3 as being proposed should be removed.

Schedule 5, Endangered Species Act
I encourage the government to support a science-based approach to protecting species at risk. This section of the Bill represents a draconian and regressive rollback of protections that has shocked those who work to protect and conserve species at risk . To date, over 50,000 people have voiced their opposition and at least 96 organizations signed a joint submission. The amendments gut protections for species at risk making it easier for industry and developers to proceed with activities that harm these species and their habitats such as pits, quarries and housing. Accordingly, I sincerely ask the government to fully support the informed policy submission written by Ontario Nature on behalf of Environmental Defence and David Suzuki Foundation that calls on the government to remove Schedule 5.

Schedule 6, Environmental Assessment Act
The Environmental Assessment Act may be perceived as a burden for some regressive developers but it provides important safeguards to assess how projects or activities affect the health of our communities and the environment. Caught early in the process, the EAA reduces the cost of environmental problems. At a time of unprecedented environmental threats removing the requirement to mitigate is in our view the wrong course of action. Overall these changes affect the ability of citizens to have a say in potentially environmentally harmful activities, reduce the number of issues that are scrutinized under the EAA process and empower government regulations rather than a public process. Due to the short timeline for commenting on changes to the EAA our many of our members were unable to comment on the proposals. Based on my professional experience, I endorse the submission made by the Canadian Environmental Law Association on Schedule 6 of Bill 108.

Schedule 9, Local Planning Appeals Tribunal
After an extensive public consultation process on OMB reform in 2017, it is unconscionable that the government is proposing to rollback changes that created the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal without extensive public consultation. The changes effectively revert back to Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) rules, a recommendation put forward by the Ontario Home Builders Association in their housing submission. OMB hearings are time consuming and expensive. With the costs of hearing passed along to home buyers. Government data indicates developer appeals delayed the adoption of municipal plans and housing starts by over three years on average. It is unlikely a return to the OMB will accomplish the goals of the government to increase the speed or lower the cost of housing. Finally, the government has not released details on how these changes will be implemented to improve the decision making process through regulation.
Obviously, I am still concerned that many of the amendments in Schedule 9 limit public participation and diminish the important role of municipal councils in shaping their communities, protecting green-fields, curbing sprawl and managing growth. As such, I encourage the government to remove Schedule 9 or defer adoption of the Bill until a full and robust public consultation is conducted.

Schedule 11- Ontario Heritage Act
It is unclear how weakening the OHA will increase the supply of housing in Ontario. Heritage properties provide a tremendous economic benefit to Ontario supporting tourism and economic development. The Province should not transfer the authority to make final decisions with respect to heritage-related matters to the LPAT. Hence, I must encourage the government to remove this Schedule 11 as it will substantially weaken a municipality’s ability to protect historic buildings or properties, so essential to the vibrancy of small towns and big cities in Ontario.

Schedule 12, Planning Act
Inclusionary Zoning
There are some good amendments under Schedule 12 with regards to the Planning Act that encourage development around transit stations and support more rental housing. However, as the Bill currently reads any municipality without a major transit station area is precluded from considering the use of inclusionary zoning while also severely restricting the placement of inclusionary zoning within municipalities which have MTSAs. We need our governments to enable more affordable housing where it is needed most in a community, not just within major transit station areas. In the U.S. over 500 municipalities obligate private developers to include a percent of affordable units in their projects. The need for inclusionary zoning is due to the failure of the development industry to provide units affordable to many households, including rental. The government must amend Schedule 12 to allow municipalities more decision-making power when implementing inclusionary zoning.
Bill 139 Comments
It is most puzzling and unclear why the government is making changes to the Planning Act related to land use planning disputes. Only the Ontario Home Builders Association asked that Bill 139 be repealed. I would strongly encourage the government to defer Schedule 12 until the concerns of citizens and municipal stakeholders have been heard. Many municipal governments have raised concerns about returning to the old OMB as it gives an unelected body the ability to overturn municipal decisions and reduces the effectiveness of municipal planning.

It is likely that going back to the OMB will delay housing starts and result in higher prices for new homebuyers. Under the old OMB developer led appeals delayed plans by 3 years on average. Returning to hearings de novo results in longer hearings which benefits high priced lawyers. Going back to the old rules again, threatens to undermine municipal decision making, increase the cost of housing (through delays and hearings), delay actual construction and limit public participation.

The current timelines for application processing provides sufficient opportunity for the planning system to get decisions made. Shortening timelines may result in actually slowing housing starts and increase housing costs by increasing the number of appeals of non-decisions and prompting more appeals. If the government wants to speed up new housing starts, then Planning Act changes must find suitable ways to reduce the costly time-consuming appeals of municipal decisions.

Land use planning encourages public participation in our decision-making processes. Citizens that may be directly impacted by a local municipality’s decision should be encouraged and permitted to meaningfully participate in appeals.

There is a lack of transparency in Bill 108 as it includes significant new authorities to impose future restrictions by ministerial driven regulations that are unknown and unsubstantiated at this time. Further time is needed to understand and comment on the impact of these proposed changes on healthy communities.

--- 30 ---