Commentaire
I cannot say it any more eloquently than John Filion.
The Yonge/Sheppard development is used as an example of what would happen under the new rules
"Under the new rules, someone with an identical development on an identical site with a land value of $59.6 million would pay $8.9 million towards a new fund that replaces the combined $16.5 million parkland and Section 37 payments. It’s also worth noting that the smaller payment would not be earmarked for local use"
It is bad enough that the pendulum is springing back in favour of the developers just when the general public thought they might have a say in what goes on in their communities but there now seems to be a possibility that the community involved may not even get the benefit of the combined money. It is my humble opinion that developers should be footing all, or a major part of, the bill for new schools.
Soumis le 19 avril 2020 4:15 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
45574
Commentaire fait au nom
Statut du commentaire