Proposed Planning Act and…

Proposed Planning Act and Development Charges Act, 1997 Changes:
I am deeply opposed to many changes in this Act as follows:
1. Provide greater cost certainty of parkland costs to enable housing developments to proceed more quickly
Developers should have to demonstrate that the overall percent of parkland relative to developed land remains unchanged so that people residing in the new high density communities still have access to green space
2. Build transparency and other measures to support the faster acquisition of more parks
Restricting the percent of a development that can be allocated to park ignores the reality that in some areas large proportions of an area are unsuitable for development and are best utilized as parkland
3. Reduce development costs to enable more housing to be built faster
Any reduction of development costs will cause a direct increase in costs to municipalities that will lead to a transference of costs to the public taxpayer. Those who benefit (developers) should pay not the taxpayer.
4. Increase transparency and accountability in the use of development charges funds
Setting a mandatory expenditure for municipalities ignores the needs of the community. Municipalities, especially rural areas have a much more complicated set of needs and must be able to share costs for infrastructure. There is not the population to accommodate large infrastructure costs.
5. Gentle Density
This actually doesn’t go far enough. Throughout much of the world low rise (3 story) apartment buildings are built within communities in an effective way to increase real density.