Housing market

[durandy]

Originally Posted by HamiltonForward

from Jennifer Pagliaro of The Star

I really really really hope they include bringing back the OMB tomorrow.

They already got rid of the LPAT advice centre, and repealed the rent control expansion by the liberals, so you might be close to the mark. All that will do though, in my opinion, is send us back to the idiotic regime where councillors get behind every nimby cause knowing the OMB will legislate the more reasonable option. I'm a lot more worried it will be a reduction in the greenbelt. Supporting rental housing in PC speak just means loosening regulations. Guaranteed we won't see any traction on much more effective measures like removing higher taxes on MURBs, removing the vacant property rebate, or forcing inclusionary zoning.

[King&James]

Perhaps density bonuses beyond current zoning allowances for those that include some percent of "affordable" housing

[thistleclub]

Fill your boots: More Homes, More Choice: Ontario’s Housing Supply Action Plan

And for those interested in policy nuts & bolts, here is the legislative document behind the government brochure:

Bill 108: More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019

Caveats: This bill was only tabled today, and may be revised before it clears the Legislature (likely Fall, since there are only 16 sitting days before summer recess).

[durandy]

OMB by the name of LPAT. Isn't that great. 100 planning lawyers just got their jobs back.

[Jon Dalton]

I don't see them bringing the OMB back because PC's are generally for less regulation. The OMB held up a lot of housing projects and made the crisis worse, so we're better off without it.

I see the Ford government removing regulations and making developer friendly policies that will increase the supply of housing but do nothing for affordability.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

I don't see them bringing the OMB back because PC's are generally for less regulation. The OMB held up a lot of housing projects and made the crisis worse, so we're better off without it.

I see the Ford government removing regulations and making developer friendly policies that will increase the supply of housing but do nothing for affordability.

I would have expected to but it's coming back.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...-disputes.html

[Jon Dalton]

I don't see them bringing the OMB back because PC's are generally for less regulation. The OMB held up a lot of housing projects and made the crisis worse, so we're better off without it.

I see the Ford government removing regulations and making developer friendly policies that will increase the supply of housing but do nothing for affordability.

[King&James]

Lots of interesting tidbits, including provincial control of sites around mass transit stations. Love to see those details!

[Jon Dalton]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

I would have expected to but it's coming back.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...-disputes.html

On the other hand, the LPAT gave more control to municipalities which Ford hates. I guess he's ok with heavy-handed government oversight after all as long as it helps his developer buds.

[lachlanholmes]

There's a lot to like in today's announcement.

Bringing back the OMB rules was needed. Councillors weren't willing to move on from "getting behind every NIMBY cause" under the new regime as evidenced by Harbour Condos by the Bay and others.

Is the OMB perfect? No. But it's necessary. Sound planning principles must win over political ideals, and at the OMB, the best evidence wins the case. And the OMB is definitely not the hold up of supply. Very very few cases are filed to stop a development. Most are to allow one.

I haven't read the whole bill yet but the changes to development charges on rentals are very very very positive. Allowing them to be paid over 6 years will hopefully make more rental development feasible compared to condos, where you have pre-sales and can thus pay DC charges ahead of occupancy without any issue.

The changes made to parkland and section 37 fees is very positive too. No longer will we see different developments getting different deals, and the fees will be clear to developers ahead of time, making projects easier to pencil out. Inclusionary zoning requirements have been reduced to areas with a certain degree of transit, which in my view, is positive since if you're not going to provide funding for the units that you require, you are simply increasing the cost of the market units and creating long-term negative effects on housing affordability.

Rent control's gone on new units, but I haven't heard of any other changes to the residential tenancies act - but don't quote me on that because I haven't completed a review of the bill - except for the hiring of more Landlord and Tenant Board members which will speed up those hearings.

So, I think it's a pretty positive plan. More work and changes are needed but this is a solid step in the right direction.

[LRTfan]

awesome news!!

[thistleclub]

Schedule 5: Endangered Species Act takes up 20 pages, the largest footprint in the 90-page omnibus, of which only 80 pages are legislation. (For comparison's sake, Schedule 1:5 Ontario Heritage Act takes up 15 pages, Schedule 12: Planning takes up 14 pages.)

Some notable Schedule 5 detail:

• Whether a species is classified as endangered/threatened/special concern includes the species' range inside and outside Ontario, which appears to allow for the mooting the consideration of species that exist anywhere else on the planet in higher quantities.
• The Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks can pause the addition of any given species to the Species at Risk in Ontario List for the first time for up to three years based solely on anecdotal evidence, if adding the species to the register would have "significant social or economic implications for all or parts of Ontario." They just have to feel that the move won't jeopardize the survival of said species in Ontario.
• The Minister is afforded a broad range of powers to make policy that potentially impacts species on the Species at Risk in Ontario List based upon their opinion alone.

Built heritage fans may want to have a closer look at the bill.

[thistleclub]

The Globe & Mail, May 2, 2019:

The government also says it is finalizing the changes it floated earlier this year that will see the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe loosened to require less density in new suburban housing developments…

Asked about sprawl, Mr. Clark pointed to provisions that will allow the government to impose greater density around public-transit stations. And he made a point of repeating assurances that his government would not touch the protected greenbelt that surrounds the Greater Toronto Area, something on which Mr. Ford has flip-flopped in the past.

The proposed legislation also includes previously announced rewrites of environmental rules, including the Endangered Species Act that would allow developers facing delays seeking necessary permits the option of paying a fee instead of performing mitigation measures to help a species at risk. The government says the money would fund larger-scale programs for endangered species, but environmentalists have decried the plan as a “pay-to-kill” program and a gutting of the legislation.

[thistleclub]

Sweeping changes buried in housing bill called ‘doomsday scenario’ for Ontario’s endangered species
(Toronto Star, Kate Allen, May 4 2019)

The Ford government buried 20 pages of sweeping changes to Ontario’s Endangered Species Act in Thursday’s omnibus housing bill, amendments that wildlife experts say would gut protections for the province’s at-risk animals and plants.

Bill 108, the “More Homes, More Choice Act,” would weaken classification criteria, allow the environment minister to delay protections for up to three years, and provide developers, industry and others who impact the habitat of endangered species with a suite of options to continue their activities, including a fee-in-lieu fund derided by critics as “pay to slay.”

“It really is a doomsday scenario for endangered species in this province,” said Kelsey Scarfone, program manager at Environmental Defence Canada.

“It’s basically been whittled down to nothing. They might as well have just cancelled it,” she said.…

“It really is very deferential to exactly those threats that are affecting species at risk today,” said Justina Ray, president and senior scientist of Wildlife Conservation Society Canada. “I’m very concerned that at the end of the day, we kind of have an empty shell of an act.”…

Wildlife biologists and conservation policy experts were most alarmed by a provision that requires the committee of scientists that recommends species-at-risk listings to the ministry to look beyond Ontario’s borders at how the species is faring elsewhere. If considering the condition of the species outside Ontario would result in a lower level of concern — for example, a “special concern” designation rather than “endangered” — the committee must use the lower classification.

Critics called the change “scary” and “irresponsible” and warned that if passed into law, the amendment could result in the delisting of many of Ontario’s endangered species.


Read it in full here.

[realcity]

what's this have to do with housing market. Who cares about Ford. I want to hear hamilton23 's excuses for not building rc3. Housing market woos again.

[realcity]

by the time rc3 is started and finished the housing market will have gone through several cycles.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by realcity

what's this have to do with housing market.

You might ask that of Minister Clark or the authors of Bill 108. Offhand, I would say Bill 108's Schedule 5 (and the related Schedule 6: Environmental Assessment Act and Schedule 7: Environmental Protection Act, which together make up a third of this omnibus) is a roundabout way of undermining the meaning and legal standing of the Greenbelt, in order to increase the options available to sprawl developers (or municipal councillors). A guess based reading this through the lens of precedent (proposed opening Greenbelt to developers in Apr 2018, reversed course in May 2018, proposed opening Greenbelt to developers in Dec 2018, reversed course in Jan 2019) and the PCs' elimination of the office of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.

This is how 21st century omnibus legislation tends to function: There's usually one or more components that have little or nothing to do with the legislation, but are smuggled in Trojan Horse style. They usually undercut worthwhile ideas and initiatives set forward elsewhere in the legislation and would mortally wound the bill if it wasn't repped by a majority government, who have the numbers to time-limit debate in the legislature, stickhandle committees, and ultimately make whatever laws they want.

[thistleclub]

Who are the winners — and losers — in the Ford government's new housing supply plan?
(CBC, Lauren Pelley, May 4 2019)

While speaking to reporters after the province announced a new plan to boost housing supply, Tim Hudak could barely contain his glee.

Wide-eyed and grinning, the CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association — and a former leader of the Ontario PC party — said the current Ford government clearly listened to his organization's recommendations, which came during a round of stakeholder consultations last winter.

"[We] put 10 ideas on the table on how we can make home ownership more affordable for average families," Hudak said. "And we're really excited because the government took up eight of those ideas."

Ideas like speeding up housing approvals, reducing red tape and controlling development charges funnelled to municipalities — it's all in the legislation. So are recommendations on building above and around transit stations, building more secondary suites, and building on surplus government land.

With that, one thing is clear: there are winners and losers through the province's housing plan, and there's no doubt the real estate and development industries are coming out on top.

So who's not?

While Hudak had reason to smile, city officials from Toronto — and likely other municipalities — aren't so cheery.

"Municipal cost-recovery tools such as development charges must be left alone," reads the Association of Municipalities of Ontario submission to the winter consultations.

No dice. Instead, the province is overhauling those fees, which are collected by roughly 200 municipalities to fund infrastructure ranging from transit to community centres to roads.

The changes include lumping together several avenues to collect that revenue into one new "community benefits" fee — coupled with the creation of an overall, yet-to-be-determined upper limit on what can be charged.


Read it in full here.

[king10]

These changes are going to shift a lot of fees that were paid for by development charges (developers) to property tax payers(average joe residents). This coupled with downloading of other costs will mean significant property tax increases.

[thistleclub]

John Lorinc in Spacing:

To my eye, the Ford government’s housing “action plan”... is a legislative strategy long on positioning and thin on detail. It foregrounds the rhetoric of the housing crisis and affordability, but the plan itself reads more like an inventory of measures meant to address the development industry’s pain points....

The Tories’ action plan contains what seems almost like a throw-away line about government-owned real estate:

“We will sell the hundreds of unused properties across the province that the government owns, and wastes millions of taxpayer dollars every year to maintain, to build more homes, long-term care facilities and affordable housing.”

It’s difficult to imagine a more muddle-headed idea. My first thought is that a government eager to please its supporters in the development sector has a huge incentive to sell all that real estate at suspect prices, thereby potentially transferring valuable public assets into private hands. Those with long memories will remember that the Mike Harris government also off-loaded extremely valuable real estate to private developers for a song (Exhibit A: the Minto towers at Yonge and Eglinton).

If the Tories were actually interested in creating more affordable housing, and in particular purpose-built multi-unit residential, they absolutely shouldn’t privatize those lands.

There’s no reason why Queen’s Park couldn’t instead embark on a concerted strategy of inviting multi-unit residential builders, property managers and non-profit housing groups to bid on long-term lease deals designed to promote the development of affordable apartment buildings on those sites.

Such an arrangement allows the government to generate income over the long haul (more on that in a moment). What’s more, by removing upfront (and therefore speculative) land prices from the cost structure of these projects, the province has a choice mechanism for pushing the private sector to build affordable rental, as is the practice in many other big cities where local and regional governments have leveraged their land holdings for precisely the same purpose....

The arrangement is a classic triple-win: more affordable housing (with all the associated social benefits), steady financial returns on public lands for the taxpayer, and planning/urban-design-driven (as opposed to speculative) development.

The tragedy is that Ford Nation will forego all those gains in favour of a fire sale for its friends.

Read it in full here.