I am writing to express my…

I am writing to express my opposition to the "Open for business" planning by-law provision of Bill 66. While this provision purports to support economic competitiveness, it will not do so. It's bad economics, even viewed through a mainstream economics lens. In short, planning provisions are needed to achieve both the right proportions and arrangements of land uses. The free market, left to its own devices, will not achieve this, due to the fact that the developer purchasing and developing the land does not pay the costs to other land uses (or the public) associated with the land development. In an unregulated free market (what this bill will allow), conflicting land uses are too close together, and irreversible future costs of development (such as destruction of groundwater resources and productive farmland) are passed on to future generations, who have no ability to participate in current land markets.

Free markets are also characterized by frequent oversupply and contraction cycles, as most market participants respond to profit motives without considering that others will have the same supply response. The result is oversupply-too much student housing, too many 1 bedroom condos, and too many strip malls. "Open for Business" will only exacerbate this problem.

This bill will allow planning provisions, which are carefully designed through years of public and professional consultation, to be circumvented. This may benefit individual developers--but the communities that result will not be attractive to the kind of high-valued industries, such as major tech firms, that Ontario seeks to attract. Consider that Google headquarters is in high regulated, but amenity-rich California, and their next nodes will NOT be in Texas, but in areas with a high degree of coordination and regulation--including a new node in Toronto.

This bill disenfranchises the many highly educated and informed citizens who participate in collaborative planning. Within a clear policy environment, such as we now have in place, negotiations between these citizen groups, developers, and municipalities can result in development solutions that are better for all. A command-and-control, few minds at the table approach is not likely to gain the same success.

Passing Bill 66 and related measures would be short-sighted politically for the current administration. Efforts to disenfranchise citizens may work not, but come the next election, the current government will not survive. Unfortunately, damages to groundwater, farmland, and the economic vitality of our cities could be permanent. I don't think that is the legacy sought by the current government.