There’s a lot to unpack in Ontario’s housing announcement.
There are elements to like, such as proposals to streamline approvals and crack down on unscrupulous developer sales practices. There are elements that need fixing, like who pays for the financial incentives dangled to developers.
And there are elements that need clarification, like the protection of rental units when a building is demolished, along with worrisome changes that appear to undermine the role of conservation authorities.
The sweeping legislative package, titled the “More Homes Built Faster Act,” leaves no doubt the provincial government is intent on making progress to its somewhat arbitrary goal of getting 1.5 million homes built over the next decade. It leaves no doubt either that Queen’s Park is less interested in cajoling or persuading stakeholders like municipalities on this mission. It’s simply dictating the new rules of the game.
For example, the proposed legislation would override municipal zoning rules to permit denser housing “as of right” for certain residential areas no matter what local politicians had decided for their town and city. It’s a blunt instrument that erodes municipal authority. But it holds the promise of cutting through the sometimes intractable neighbourhood opposition that can stall change.
And it’s hard to argue against the type of housing this change is intended to facilitate. The legislation would override local zoning laws to permit up to three residential units on land now zoned for one home. The new units could be a basement suite or a laneway or garden home, the province says. The legislation would also establish minimum densities for housing around transit hubs.
The province also intends to eliminate fees and charges to provide an incentive to get certain types of housing built. That can be a useful tool. Yet the municipalities will lose these funds, which are collected specifically to pay for the urban infrastructure that supports this growth.
Development charges (DCs) are fees cities apply to most new construction. That money is put into a big pot, and is all earmarked by law for different types of infrastructure.
It didn’t have to be this way. The province could have chosen instead to use its considerable powers, such as tax incentives, to encourage more affordable housing development, which the province describes as 80 per cent of average market rents, and attainable as no more than 30 per cent of an individual’s gross income.
Instead Queen’s Park has chosen to penalize municipalities, suggesting that federal dollars can be used to refund cities for lost development charges. The federal government has not yet said whether or not that is allowable.
Bottom line, cash-strapped municipalities can’t be left on the hook for this costly promise.
The legislation also proposes what, on the face of it, are potentially worrisome changes to the role of conservation authorities in the planning process. These agencies — there 36 in Ontario — manage watersheds and have an important role in the management and protection of these natural habitats.
Under the proposal, authorities would no longer consider pollution or the conservation of land as factors when considering a development. As well, authorities have been told to identify land in their holdings that could support housing development. That seems at odds with their conservation mission. These changes need to be clarified and the impact better understood.
Another concerning aspect is the vow to review municipal regulations that protect rental stock when apartment buildings are demolished for redevelopment. Those rules ensure that rental housing is preserved for existing tenants at the same rent.
Also, one of the strategies appears to be to make homes more affordable by putting less aside for parkland. Cities typically require that developers set aside one hectare of land for every 300 units built. The new legislation is calling for one hectare per 600 units. In other words, the province will halve the land being required for parks. That is not a step forward.
Queen’s Park is on an urgent mission to build new housing. But this headlong rush can’t come at the expense of environmental protections or leave municipal taxpayers stuck with the bill.
