Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelTown
http://www.sachem.ca/news/article/239894
The earliest date that an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing will be held to determine the future of the airport employment growth district (AEGD) is March 2012.
|
Council duped, public money at risk on airport lands charade
Dave Braden
June 29, 2012
The City of Hamilton is defending a decision at the Ontario Municipal Board to designate 3,000 acres for employment purposes around Hamilton International airport, an area often referred to as the aerotropolis. The purpose is to create an industrial employment zone that will reduce the strain on residential taxpayers. This approach looks responsible — except for glaring contradictions and risks.
The provincial policies on growth and the land-use policies of the City of Hamilton require mixed and efficient land uses and protection of environmental and agricultural lands. Ontario’s Greenbelt legislation has reinforced the latter. The aerotropolis concept is the antithesis of these principles.
The proposal to establish a huge area for employment possibilities was seen as a potential means of creating jobs and tax assessment. This same proposal was seen by the residential development industry as offering a “back door” for including their lands in a development zone.
Originally and during debates, city officials maintained that this project was exclusively for industrial purposes. In the past month the city’s legal representative agreed with many residential investors and put the issue of residential uses back on the table without the knowledge of council. The rationale for this initiative is increasingly clear.
The city acknowledges that the project will require $350 million for servicing costs. It has intentionally avoided including the actual costs of a new water main and trunk sewer, which could easily add $100 million. Additional internal servicing costs have not been included but have been agreed to. This initiative will require a half-billion dollars for new infrastructure at a time when the city has a $2 billion infrastructure deficit.
The bottom line is that servicing costs are more than $200,000 per acre while serviced land values are in the range of $140,000 per acre, if buyers can be found. (For context, the Clappison’s Industrial Park required $300,000 to $400,000 in servicing and financial costs and sold for approximately $65,000 per acre.)
The likelihood of the city making developers pay their own way and following through on this requirement is close to nil if recent experience is taken into account. The city has a consistent record of promoting the servicing of employment lands and then approving their conversion to other uses.
The likelihood that the City will collect industrial development charges as planned is also nil, based on council’s record.
The chance that these lands will remain in an industrial classification is zero because of a combination of reasons: The city is not “business friendly,” the city tax rates are unusually high, there is no rail connection, the airport’s economic importance is diminishing, and predictable increases in energy costs will negatively affect distant, out-of-the-way employment lands.
The city should consider an alternative to the “full-blown” aerotropolis concept. In the early days of amalgamation, an inexpensive approach was put forward that protected a range of employment areas across the municipality, thereby providing a wide choice of servicing levels, locations and costs.
As suggested in 2001, consideration should be given to developing a smaller area, using inexpensive, temporary local servicing (e.g. septics and wells). This should be implemented to promote employment and to gauge serious interest in industrial development. This would be followed by conventional servicing when occupancy reached a designated target (e.g. 50 per cent). This strategy is affordable and practical. It would cost less than 5 per cent of the current plan.
The sad irony of this issue is that the majority of citizens, including most of the city councillors, think this exercise is about employment.
The truth is that the knowledgable developers and the planners involved know full well the employment option is being used as a two-step solution to more residential sprawl. Members of council have been duped and some staff are perpetuating this charade, all at the expense of the taxpayer.
When the developers themselves want the employment concept to fail, they will not work to make it successful. It is high time that we develop and support an honest, practical and affordable employment strategy, not a confusing, subsidized disguise for more residential sprawl.
http://www.thespec.com/opinion/colum...-lands-charade