I have several observations…

I have several observations that relate to current amendments to the community benefits charge provisions under the Planning Act, as set out under Schedule 31 of the Act, new transition provisions for alternative parkland dedication … AND a mechanism to appeal a municipality’s community benefits charge by- law to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

It is time to maximize COMMUNITY BENEFIT, not developers' profits.

Residents of communities may become very actively involved in the planning processes related to development in their communities, but all their efforts (and tax dollars spent on that process) are MOOTED when the government deliberately sets up a ‘mechanism’, such as the iron-fisted undemocratic UNELECTED politically-appointed LPAT, which serves as nothing more than a developers’ lever of control over municipal planning. This must stop. Developers may want to ram their duplicative unimaginative repetitive subdivisions down residents’ throats, but most of us do NOT want our tax dollars wasted on the LPAT process, which parachutes an ‘unknown entity’ into our communities – an unelected entity that has the undemocratic power to take its direction from developers and their lawyers.

Furthermore, in September 2019, this government developed a new rule 8.3 as part of the LPAT process, and this new rule was definitely written to hand control over the LPAT process to developers. This rule creates a favoured class of party for developers before the Tribunal, while municipalities receive second class status, and residents are treated as a third lower (insignificant) class. This rule prevents anyone, except the Appellant (developer), from introducing new issues to an Issues List. A non-Appellant party MAY be conferred party status by the LPAT, but is not permitted to introduce new issues. Non-Appellant parties are only permitted to ‘shelter’ under an issue raised by the Appellant. In other words, residents and conservation authorities, who are likely to be consigned non-Appellant status, are only permitted to be Non-Appellant parties at a hearing if they support the developer. This rule should be rescinded, and the LPAT ought to be disbanded since it is designed to overstep local democracy.

I think this government seems so BLINDED by either poorly-assessed run-away development, OR political campaign donations from developers, that it is nearly incapable of good planning.

This government needs citizen panels to direct community planning, and I am not referring to groups of developers who band together as “Land Owner” lobby groups, pretending to be citizen groups, who use their political clout to pressure government to get their way.

We can readily see the problems with development “group think” at ALL levels of government in Ontario. Whether we are talking about the federal, provincial, regional/district, or municipal level, not a SINGLE politician among those thousands of politicians seem capable of seeing the landscape for all the proposed new burgeoning pavement and duplicative subdivisions that harm the land, waterways, and atmosphere.

We know for certain that EXISTING DEVELOPMENT charges do NOT cover the costs of development-related growth. Across Ontario, developers might pay a maximum of 80% of development costs, but that might range as low as 50% in some areas. As a result, every single level of government continues to force the extra growth-related development costs on to existing taxpayers. We can see this happening because every level of government carries increasing levels of debts and deficits. None are facing a reduction in those costs; absolutely none show any type of overall surplus – not even a tiny surplus. We are throwing away today’s dollars on tomorrow’s growth. That sets us up for ever-growing debts and deficits, AND a depleted landscape.

Now, this government wants to ‘pause’ or ‘freeze’ development fees. This is sheer nonsense. In my municipality, which once had a solid agricultural base and a debt-free balance sheet, the local, regional, and provincial governments have been squandering the landscape. Now, we see enormous retail, commercial and residential subdivisions mushrooming out of the ground everywhere. New government offices are also multiplying as governments "expand their empires". Residents are almost choking on emissions from new widened, quickly CONGESTED roadways. Our property taxes now spiral ever upwards, and municipal (local) debt ramps ever upwards into the millions of dollars. That’s where ‘development’ gets us.

Worse yet, there is no real reprieve planned from this assault. My own township’s recent Official Plan is written to allow a paltry amount of township parkland at one hectare per thousand residents, while neighbourhood parkland is also mentioned at 0.5 hectares per thousand people. From the sounds of it, housing density will be increased, so these people will need relief from their cluttered restrictive over-crowded home environs and congested roadways, so the minimal parkland is totally inadequate. There are NO requirements to set aside adequate swaths of the landscape for self-regenerating natural forest lands, OR agriculture. Humans are incapable of producing the oxygen they need to breathe. That is one of the primary functions of forest, not to mention shade, water retention, and homes for native species.

The current COVID-19 pandemic is a perfect opportunity to see how wrong government plans can be. When people were told to stay home in their over-crowded look-alike subdivisions (which conform to developers’ unimaginative plans to cram in as many people as possible), many wanted to take some exercise outdoors. Where could they go? They went to their local parks where they found thousands of other residents trying to get some fresh air and exercise. If these parks were adequate to the task of recreation, they would have remained open to the public. Instead, governments and conservation authorities found these inadequate facilities to be over-whelmed by human numbers, so the parks were closed. Barriers were erected at entrances and parking areas. Clearly, these areas require FAR MORE PARKS, not measured in terms of the measly 0.5 to 1 hectare per THOUSAND residents. The current situation shows how governments jump to serve developers, NOT residents. This situation is absolutely disgraceful.

DON’T you dare freeze, or reduce in any way, development charges to the continued benefit of developers. They need to pay their own costs.

It is time to recognize the benefits of establishing recreational corridors within a continuous system of forests. It is also long past time for Ontario to set aside good agricultural lands for food production. Ontario could follow the example of Switzerland, which values its natural landscape, while continuing to retain its best agricultural lands in the Jura Valley. Switzerland also uses a planning process that requires the input of local residents in the form of regular politically-binding public referenda. Imagine a government that actually serves its own citizens?! At the same time, Switzerland also holds the same type of politically-binding public referenda when it introduces new legislation, or revises existing legislation. The citizenry is completely involved in the democratic process. Switzerland is also an advanced nation with a successful economy. Why not follow the Swiss model, instead of becoming enslaved to the private agendas of developers?