Commentaire
In my opinion, the proposal to make the community benefits charge a system where municipalities can choose only one thing to fund is very unfair to communities and too developer-friendly. Clearly, this change is proposed to let developers "give back" less to communities. Of course we need to solve our housing crisis, but this shouldn't be done by limiting the infrastructure that can be built due to development.
I believe that municipalities should have the flexibility to fund multiple types of infrastructure and to (maybe) collect funds (in order to use later on an even larger infrastructure project). In addition, parkland dedication should not diminish in size (as it contradicts the Growth Plan & PPS on the subject of liveable and complete communities).
Developers should be able to build their projects with less confusion, but I believe that the community benefits charge should be designed to give municipalities even more resources to built great infrastructure and parks. Please make this policy work for communities, not just developers.
Soumis le 24 mars 2020 12:09 PM
Commentaire sur
Proposition de questions réglementaires relatives au pouvoir d’imposer des redevances pour avantages communautaires en vertu de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire, la Loi de 1997 sur les redevances d’aménagement et la Loi de1992sur le code du bâtiment
Numéro du REO
019-1406
Identifiant (ID) du commentaire
45380
Commentaire fait au nom
Statut du commentaire