>Toni Varone, deputy chair of the Senate committee that authored the report, released Tuesday, noted that **some cities have up to 50 agencies weigh in on a housing proposal**, while other cities have less than half that number and are able to approve projects faster.
I’m unsurprised.
>The report found that development fees account for roughly $200,000 of the final price of a single-family home in Toronto, compared with just $10,000 in Moncton. Development charges are generally used to ensure that developers help pay for the infrastructure costs related to building a new neighbourhood or services, but **the report found that those fees are ballooning because they are increasingly being used to fund broader city costs with little transparency.**
This is done instead of increasing municipal property taxes. It effectively shifts *some of* the burden of maintaining municipal services off of existing land owners and on to new residents.
>The [Senate document](https://archive.is/o/viYzT/https://sencanada.ca/en/info-page/parl-45-1/banc-housing-affordability-crisis/) outlines 12 recommendations for co-ordinated action by all levels of the government, including greater transparency in development charges, the use of financial incentives to ensure that municipalities mirror the most efficient cities in their regulatory processes, and removing the GST/HST on multiunit rental buildings.
It’s high time that Canada’s Provincial establishment recognize that the Municipal level is ground zero for our housing affordability crisis, and *can no longer be trusted* to be the authority over development and zoning.
——
I want to take a note of the incoherent position of the UBCM.
> [Point 1..] By removing peer review that is integral to common current process, these deficiencies are more likely to be missed, putting the eventual homeowner at risk of unexpected cost and safety issues.
Ok, but it doesn’t remove peer review; if anything, it forces the municipalities to account for their observed deficiencies in front of a Provincial authority; as noted in their next bullet point:
> [Point 2..] If Bill M216 is brought into law, local governments would have to make an appeal to the Office of the Superintendent for Professional Guidance if they had concerns with a submission.
This doesn’t describe a situation with *no peer review*, it describes a situation where *peer review is required*. What they would prefer is the existing situation, where for the most part Municipalities are not held to account for the deficiencies they observe.
It gets worse:
> [Point 3..] Despite the claim made within the bill that local governments will not be liable for damages, that will not prevent an injured party from naming a local government in its claim.
When you file a civil suit you can name whoever you like; unless legislation exists to prevent doing so. So *of course* they could still be named, because that’s how civil suits function. The complainant could name Santa Claus in their suit; that doesn’t mean we should be concerned for Santa’s culpability, it would likely never go anywhere.
> [Point 4..] What this bill would do is mandate the model to all local governments across the Province, applying it as a one-size fits all approach regardless of local context, while stripping away critical checks and balances, like peer review.
The model it mandates is one where all local Governments must account for the deficiencies they identify; if anything, it’s *more fair* and diminishes the archipelago of municipal by-laws and political influence that has driven housing affordability into a national crisis.
Medea_From_Colchis on
Municipalities that prove incapable of managing housing policy and regulation (i.e., zoning, development fees, permit approval, etc) should have that right taken away from them by the province. Provinces need to take more responsibility on the housing and accommodation portfolios. There should be no excuse that municipalities are holding back housing development in this country when they have no constitutional authority and provinces can take over the role. It is insanity that the federal and municipal government are the levels of government most people are looking towards to fix the housing crisis when provinces have the most levers. The federal government should be funding provincial housing development strategies, not acting as the primary vehicle for public housing development.
Godzilla52 on
This is a case and point as to why Ottawa needs to get the provinces on board. The HAF , CHIF & CCBF have the right idea for the most part, but I think that the problem with the municipal focus is how extraordinarily NIMBY a lot of city councils are. If more transfers were used to get provinces onboard in forcing their municipalities to comply with YIMBY oriented reforms similar to what BC is doing, that would generally be a better way to facilitate nation wide zoning/land use reform as part of a national housing strategy etc.
Leave A Reply
Du musst angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
3 Kommentare
>Toni Varone, deputy chair of the Senate committee that authored the report, released Tuesday, noted that **some cities have up to 50 agencies weigh in on a housing proposal**, while other cities have less than half that number and are able to approve projects faster.
I’m unsurprised.
>The report found that development fees account for roughly $200,000 of the final price of a single-family home in Toronto, compared with just $10,000 in Moncton. Development charges are generally used to ensure that developers help pay for the infrastructure costs related to building a new neighbourhood or services, but **the report found that those fees are ballooning because they are increasingly being used to fund broader city costs with little transparency.**
This is done instead of increasing municipal property taxes. It effectively shifts *some of* the burden of maintaining municipal services off of existing land owners and on to new residents.
>The [Senate document](https://archive.is/o/viYzT/https://sencanada.ca/en/info-page/parl-45-1/banc-housing-affordability-crisis/) outlines 12 recommendations for co-ordinated action by all levels of the government, including greater transparency in development charges, the use of financial incentives to ensure that municipalities mirror the most efficient cities in their regulatory processes, and removing the GST/HST on multiunit rental buildings.
Here’s a radical proposal, [that is currently tabled as legislation in BC](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/bills/billscurrent/1st43rd:m216-1): *don’t allow municipalities to have a monopoly on development approvals.* You can tell it would be effective in curtailing the anti-development practices of municipalities because[ it has municipalities openly concerned about its possibility to accomplish that](https://www.ubcm.ca/about-ubcm/latest-news/ubcm-encourages-local-government-response-bill-m216)!
It’s high time that Canada’s Provincial establishment recognize that the Municipal level is ground zero for our housing affordability crisis, and *can no longer be trusted* to be the authority over development and zoning.
——
I want to take a note of the incoherent position of the UBCM.
> [Point 1..] By removing peer review that is integral to common current process, these deficiencies are more likely to be missed, putting the eventual homeowner at risk of unexpected cost and safety issues.
Ok, but it doesn’t remove peer review; if anything, it forces the municipalities to account for their observed deficiencies in front of a Provincial authority; as noted in their next bullet point:
> [Point 2..] If Bill M216 is brought into law, local governments would have to make an appeal to the Office of the Superintendent for Professional Guidance if they had concerns with a submission.
This doesn’t describe a situation with *no peer review*, it describes a situation where *peer review is required*. What they would prefer is the existing situation, where for the most part Municipalities are not held to account for the deficiencies they observe.
It gets worse:
> [Point 3..] Despite the claim made within the bill that local governments will not be liable for damages, that will not prevent an injured party from naming a local government in its claim.
When you file a civil suit you can name whoever you like; unless legislation exists to prevent doing so. So *of course* they could still be named, because that’s how civil suits function. The complainant could name Santa Claus in their suit; that doesn’t mean we should be concerned for Santa’s culpability, it would likely never go anywhere.
> [Point 4..] What this bill would do is mandate the model to all local governments across the Province, applying it as a one-size fits all approach regardless of local context, while stripping away critical checks and balances, like peer review.
The model it mandates is one where all local Governments must account for the deficiencies they identify; if anything, it’s *more fair* and diminishes the archipelago of municipal by-laws and political influence that has driven housing affordability into a national crisis.
Municipalities that prove incapable of managing housing policy and regulation (i.e., zoning, development fees, permit approval, etc) should have that right taken away from them by the province. Provinces need to take more responsibility on the housing and accommodation portfolios. There should be no excuse that municipalities are holding back housing development in this country when they have no constitutional authority and provinces can take over the role. It is insanity that the federal and municipal government are the levels of government most people are looking towards to fix the housing crisis when provinces have the most levers. The federal government should be funding provincial housing development strategies, not acting as the primary vehicle for public housing development.
This is a case and point as to why Ottawa needs to get the provinces on board. The HAF , CHIF & CCBF have the right idea for the most part, but I think that the problem with the municipal focus is how extraordinarily NIMBY a lot of city councils are. If more transfers were used to get provinces onboard in forcing their municipalities to comply with YIMBY oriented reforms similar to what BC is doing, that would generally be a better way to facilitate nation wide zoning/land use reform as part of a national housing strategy etc.