While I generally agree with…

While I generally agree with intensification actions of the proposal within previously existing urban boundaries (before the government recently added farm and other lands to the urban boundaries) I don't agree with the rest.

There are 4 groups whose criticisms I agree with. They are:

1/ I agree with the criticism of 15 architects in an open letter that was published in numerous newspapers. I'm attached their letter below.

Response to Ontario’s proposed Bill 23
World - Boldomatic
November 25, 2022

An open letter to Premier Ford and Minister Clark
Re: Bill 23 – More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022

We are writing to you as leading architects, landscape architects, and urban designers in Ontario.

The More Homes Built Faster Act, introduced on October 25, proposes extensive and significant legislative changes that would, if enacted, radically alter land use planning and city building in Ontario. The stated intention of this proposed legislation is to accelerate the construction of 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years to address our housing crisis.

We firmly believe that this legislation will not achieve its stated intent.

Instead, it will inhibit the construction of affordable housing in our province; dismantle regional planning and urban design considerations; undermine heritage protection, environmental protection, and climate change mitigation; and limit public participation in how we build our communities.

We have summarized our major concerns below:

Bill 23 will reduce the supply of truly affordable housing by reducing the affordable housing requirement in Inclusionary Zoning from 20% to 5%. The required period to maintain affordability is reduced from 99 to 25 years. This will exacerbate generational poverty and extend inequitable access to resources and infrastructure for the people of Ontario.

Bill 23 will encourage urban sprawl and undermine local democracy by effectively dissolving 50 years of regional planning in the Golden Horseshoe. This will certainly lead to a substantial conversion of farmlands, loss of green lands, and suburban sprawl.

Public participation will be limited by removing the requirement for a public meeting for plan of subdivision. The Minister will have new powers to amend Municipal Official Plans at any time, for any reason, without public consultation.

Bill 23 undermines environmental protection by limiting the role of Conservation Agencies to solely that of flooding and erosion hazards. Removed from their oversight will be watershed planning and management, coordinated flood protection, conservation of green lands and biodiversity, which are all core to climate change mitigation.

Bill 23 threatens the Greenbelt. There are 86,500 acres within the GTA currently zoned and ready for development. This is more than enough land available now that can be used to meet government targets. Housing construction needs to start without delay on these lands that are close to transit and urban services, where people already live, work and play.

Yet the government wants to remove 7400 acres of protected green space and farmland in the Greenbelt. Our Greenbelt lands protect the headwaters of the rivers flowing into Lake Ontario, preserve valuable farmland, connect forests and wetland ecosystems that form a continuous arc from the top of the GTA to the Niagara region, and limit suburban sprawl. The Greenbelt belongs to current and future generations of the people of Ontario.

Bill 23 removes design from the municipal approvals process. Exterior design, landscape and streetscape design should be reviewed during Site Plan Control. Design review at the municipal level is considered best practice nationally and internationally.

We must emphasize that design is not a superficial aesthetic overlay. It is fundamental problem-solving, directly related to the quality of the built environment, and to climate change mitigation. The design review process is critical in delivering safe, healthy, affordable, socially and environmentally sustainable communities to the people of Ontario.

We agree that the current system of municipal approvals needs to be streamlined to deliver urgently needed affordable housing. Bill 23 is not the way to do it. It needs to go back to the drawing board.

To effectively address our affordable housing crisis, we strongly urge the Government of Ontario to rethink Bill 23 and invite the Government to a robust and immediate consultation with leaders in our industry. In collaboration with municipal and provincial governments, we can produce the best possible outcomes for the people of Ontario.

Thank you,

Adamson Associates Architects
Diamond Schmitt Architects
DTAH
ERA Architects
FORREC
GBCA Architects
Greenberg Consultants
Janet Rosenberg & Studio
KPMB Architects
LGA Architectural Partners
MJMA Architecture & Design
Moriyama & Teshima Architects
Perkins&Will
PMA Landscape Architects Ltd.
PUBLIC WORK

Copyright © 2022 KPMB Architects
AccessibilityDark Mode

2/ News reporter Derek Baldwin, for Kingston This Week, on Dec. 2, 2022 wrote a story about Bill 23 and the severe impacts it would have on the Quinte Conservation Authority. He quoted the Quinte Conservation Chief Administration Officer, Brad McNiven, as saying at a meeting with Belleville City Council:

“The Quinte Watershed contains many wetlands, of which one hundred are Provincially Significant, and they all play a vital role in storing atmospheric carbon and support groundwater recharge which helps to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Bill 23 has reduced that Provincially Significant Wetland number to one. That means wetlands, which also contribute to offsetting water and reducing flooding, improving overall ground and surface water quality, and providing a home to Ontario’s important species (many of which are at risk) could now be targeted for development.”

This would be the result of the Ford government's causing Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) Complexes to be broken down into each individual wetland which make up a complex and evaluating and scoring them separately. Going from 100 PSW Complexes down to just 1 PSW. This must not be allowed to happen! PSW Complexes should be left as they were previous to Bill 23 and scored as such!

The wetland evaluation scoring system should be left as it was previous to Bill 23. Endangered and Threatened Species At Risk should each score 250 points as was previous to Bill 23, rather than the mere 50 points each under Bill 23.

A loss of 99 PSW Complexes in the Quinte Conservation jurisdiction, just one of 36 Conservation Authorities across Ontario, raises the question as to how many other PSW Complexes across Ontario would be lost if this despicable disastrous Act is brought into force.

See attached "MNRF map of wetlands in the Belleville area." The polygons filled with bright blue colour are PSW Complexes. The polygons filled with bright green colours are "Non-Provincially Significant Wetlands" (wetlands that haven't scored enough points in their evaluation to be determined to be PSW) and the polygons filled with light green colour and blue swamp symbols are "Unevaluated Wetland" (the boundaries have been mapped but they haven't been evaluated to determine a score).

See attached "Close up of part of MNRF map of wetlands." Look at the area directly above the hamlet of Chatterton where there are several "Unevaluated Wetlands" directly adjacent to the PSW Complex. These areas should be included within the PSW Complex. Why aren't they?

See attached "geoOttawa map of Carp Hills and South March Highlands Complexes." These two wetland complexes will be lost if Bill 23 comes into force.

See attached "geoOttawa map showing unevaluated wetlands in blue in just part of the east end of Ottawa." See attached "geoOttawa map showing unevaluated wetlands in blue in part of the west end of Ottawa." These "Unevaluated Wetlands" were identified in 2011. Some of them have been lost to development and others are in the process of being lost to development. These wetlands were identified in 2011, so why haven't they been evaluated? The MNRF should be given the resources and tasked with evaluating unevaluated wetlands.

“Bill 23 directly undermines the core mandate by allowing development on lands which have been identified as significant protected areas because of the risk they pose to the safety of communities. In addition, after success in establishing memorandums of understanding, they are now preventing Conservation Authorities from partnering with municipalities for the delivery of programs and services that benefit watershed residents,” McNevin said.

Conservation Authorities have entered into agreements with municipalities to review and comment on certain applications. Bill 23 does away with those agreements. They should be left as is before Bill 23!

Damaging wetlands would wreak havoc with water quality, public safety, increased property taxes, and a higher demand for new infrastructure (sewer and water, and roads and maintenance thereof, etc.).

McNevin thanked Belleville councillors who echoed concerns in a meeting last Monday that Quinte’s wetlands are threatened by Bill 23.

3/ I agree with the opposition from the First Nations Chiefs of Ontario. In the news publication Kenora Online, Ryan Forbes wrote on Nov. 30, 2022:

"On November 23, the Chiefs of Ontario – who represents every First Nation community in the province – expressed their full opposition against the bill. They say the act will have detrimental impacts on nine different development and environment related-acts, under the guise of addressing our housing crisis."

“The Government of Ontario’s tabling of Bill 23 is a blatant violation of First Nations’ inherent, domestic, and international rights over their ancestral and traditional territories,” says Ontario Regional Chief Glen Hare. “Bill 23 will inevitably harm Ontario’s environmental heritage and weaken land and water environmental protection.”

Ontario Regional Chief Glen Hare wrote on the Chiefs of Ontario website "Unilateral legislative and administrative changes within Bill 23 without consultation or engagement with First Nations are unacceptable and an abuse of power. The unprecedented steps taken by the Government of Ontario violate existing Treaties, and their will to systemically sell off resources will have dire consequences for First Nations and future generations.

First Nations are not stakeholders; we are sovereign Nations and are entitled to proper consultation based on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and mutual respect.

The Government of Ontario can no longer avoid its duty to consult with First Nations by delegating responsibilities and obligations to municipalities, developers, and project proponents. The government’s requests for after-the-fact commentary from First Nations regarding the conception of Bill 23 do not discharge the Crown’s duty to consult. To move forward, First Nations require a clear commitment from the Government of Ontario to honour its duty to consult and to honour, respect, and uphold First Nations’ inherent rights and jurisdiction.

The Chiefs of Ontario support First Nations Leadership and echo their opposition to Bill 23. I look forward to meeting with Premier Doug Ford, Greg Rickford, Minister of Indigenous Affairs, and other relevant ministers to discuss the impacts of Bill 23 and the value of protecting Ontario’s natural ecosystems, lands, and waters from irreversible losses and damage for our future generations.”

4/ Municipalities have also opposed Bill 23. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) on its website wrote a "Policy Update" on Nov. 2, 2022 "Bill 23 is proceeding quickly through the legislature, which means it is likely to pass before many municipal Councils have been sworn in, and before the AMO Board can prepare a response." Councils have been sworn in now, but still have to determine which members are on which committees. With the holidays quickly approaching this means that the Ontario government should allow until the end of February for consultation.

The AMO had many other comments in its "Policy Update" such as:
"Many of the proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act and the Planning Act in Bill 23 are concerning, as they signal a move away from environmental protection at a time when climate change impacts are being felt more at the local level.

Bill 23 proposes sweeping changes to the regulatory responsibilities of Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities that, if passed, will undermine the collaborative and productive changes put forward by the Ministry led Conservation Authority Working Group over the past two years.

The proposals under Schedule 2 have raised confusion around how these changes will impact the Conservation Authorities Act regulations that recently came into effect. AMO is seeking further clarification to understand how these amendments will impact municipal budgets and environmental outcomes. At first glance, they seem to result in negative consequences (i.e., increased flooding, liability), at a time when the impacts of climate change are increasingly prevalent.

Another emerging area of concern is the proposal to allow pits and quarries to request official plan amendments within two years of a new official plan or secondary plan coming into effect. Finally, there are numerous environmental implications associated with the use of more land and the proposed reduction in revenues to build parkland."

The City of Mississauga also has many comments concerning Bill 23 on its website. They say "Mississauga is ready to work with the Province and developers to get housing built, but not at the expense of parks, affordable housing, the environment, heritage, and you, the taxpayer."

Mississauga goes on to divide their comments into many categories such as:

"Bill 23 could result in the loss of almost $1 billion in City revenue.

Bill 23 doesn't guarantee that new or more affordable homes will be built.

Bill 23 means less funding to build affordable housing.

Bill 23 means less parkland and developers choose where parks go.

Bill 23 sacrifices environment, heritage, and greenbelt lands."

Mississauga also wrote on its website:

"There has been some claims by the Province that municipalities are sitting on piles of cash and that we don’t need development fees. We disagree. Learn more about these fees, why they are collected, and how they are used.

Development Charges and Parkland Cash-in-Lieu have been critical tools to offset the cost of growth.

The Province sets strict rules for Growth Charges and cities must follow them.

Developers still earn a profit with or without Growth Charges.

Reserves are important when planning for city infrastructure and are permitted by the Planning Act.

Capping parkland fees will see about 80% less parkland in Mississauga over 10 years."

Only members of the government and developers and a unknown number of their employees are in favour of Bill 23. Everybody else is against it. The government didn't run on Bill 23 in the last election. They were too chicken to spell out Bill 23's consequences beforehand. If they had they would have lost the election. The Conservation Authorities parts of this bill need to be scrapped.

With Fortitude,
Ken