Comments

View the comments this notice received through the registry. You can either download them all or search and sort below.

Some comments will not be posted online. Learn more about the comment status and our comment and privacy policies.

Download comments

Search comments

Comment ID

28177

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I agree with the proposal to provide more affordable housing options and infilling cities by adding second units to homes, etc. however, "housing options" is such a vague and useless concept, that it makes me doubt the objectives of the plan. Read more

Comment ID

28561

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I dont agree with the deferral of development charges for commercial developments. Deferrals should only be used for developments that help those in need such as rentals or low income properties.

Comment ID

28562

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
How does the government plan or propose to ensure developers actually pass on the savings onto the end customer when buying a home. The proposal appears to benefit the developer who will benefit from capped development charges and sell or rent at market rates, thereby pocketing increased profit. Read more

Comment ID

28691

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
It is unclear to me how you can calculate a cap on the proposed community benefits charge based on land values at the time of building permit issuance. Who determines the land value at that time? Read more

Comment ID

29759

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Oakville does not need further development. Any additional housing will compromise the local environment and contribute to road congestion. High density housing is not the right solution for this town. Having green space and drivable roads is important to our communities.

Comment ID

29778

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
We do NOT need more development. We NEED more climate action! More environmental protections! The last thing we need is more development! Even considering this is a horrible idea. Please, think of the legacy you want to leave for your children

Comment ID

29871

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
This bill is a total waste of time and money. Both Liberals and Conservatives voted to reform the OMB giving more say to the municipalities. The LPAT hasn't even had a chance but the rich developers have lobbied the PCs to go back to the OMB set up. This bill is totally unnecessary!!!

Comment ID

31028

Commenting on behalf of

The Corporation of the Town of Georgina

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Please be advised that Town Council passed a motion concerning proposed Bill 108 - More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019, to send correspondence to the Province requesting an extension of the June 1st timeline on the Environmental Registry for comments on proposed Bill 108 - More Homes, More Choice Act, Read more

Comment ID

31096

Commenting on behalf of

Canahahns Company Limited

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I would also give consideration to creating a new rate class for purpose built rental housing that can be set at a lower rate than "for-sale" housing. As well, I would also look at the policies of municipalities that increasingly set the benchmark for "small" units smaller and smaller. Read more

Comment ID

31536

Commenting on behalf of

City of Toronto

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Please see attached the City of Toronto's comments regarding Bill 108 - (Schedule 3) – the proposed More Homes, More Choice Act: Amendments to the Development Charges Act, 1997. Read more

Comment ID

31552

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I am a member of ACO Cambridge and North Dumfries and heritage matters to me. I am deeply concerned about Bill 108 - (Schedule 11) - the proposed More Homes, More Choices Act: Amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act: Read more

Comment ID

31556

Commenting on behalf of

Ontario Parks Association

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
May 28, 2019 John Ballantine, Manager Municipal Finance Policy Branch Municipal Affairs and Housing 13th Floor, 777 Bay Street Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 Re: Ontario Parks Association’s Response to Bill 108 Dear Mr. Ballantine, Read more

Comment ID

31575

Commenting on behalf of

Federation of North Toronto Residents Associations

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Preliminary Comments on Bill 108: More Homes, More Choice Act 1. Significantly reduces opportunities for public input in planning - more decision-making at LPAT which ignores Council's decisions where residents had a voice Read more

Comment ID

31581

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
The proposal does not give any conditions to improve affordability, it regresses on ability of local municipalities that have well thought out development plans to maintain them and favours developers over communities.

Comment ID

31589

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I have already mailed a letter to Ford himself in regards to the destruction this change would cost. But as he is for profit and ignorant to what his people need I will comment here in the hopes those in charge will listen. Read more

Comment ID

31599

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I heartily concur with the City of Toronto's nigh-unanimous opposition to Bill 108; and, to the City's issues, concerns, and suggestions regarding Bill 108, particularly as the Bill adversely impacts the Development Charges Act.