Ottawa's Official Plan Update

[Williamoforange]

This city is a disaster, I hope the liberals bring in that capital gain tax on primary residency that they have studied just so boomers get screwed over.

Even taking the article as slightly misleading, in general city staff have admitted they are under zoning the city for what the Official plan allows.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

This city is a disaster, I hope the liberals bring in that capital gain tax on primary residency that they have studied just so boomers get screwed over.

Even taking the article as slightly misleading, in general city staff have admitted they are under zoning the city for what the Official plan allows.

What an outrageous comment. In many cases, a person's home is what will fund their care in old age. If you tax their main investment, are you prepared to pay for their care?

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What an outrageous comment. In many cases, a person's home is what will fund their care in old age. If you tax their main investment, are you prepared to pay for their care?

For starters if your treating your house like an investment then it should be taxed like one. If you want untaxed investment that's what an RRSP or TFSA are for.

Secondly, society already does pay for senior care in multitude of ways, from nursing homes, to GIS, to OAS, and etc.

Three the elderly are the highest networth individuals in Canada , even with taking account length of investment. Mostly due to the high value of the homes

Four, I also think it would be a dumb idea to do this, but no matter what the value of your home needs to come down significantly so that the young can afford to live. So either way that nest egg will shrink significantly.

I'd prefer that it shrinks due to more homes existing but the 55+ crowd, "urban" planners, and etc seems to take issue with that. idea.

[J.OT13]

I personally don't have a vendetta against who worked all their lives and were able to build equity through home ownership. If they sell their ridiculously expensive home, they'll have to buy another ridiculously expensive home, or a ridiculously expensive condo, or rent a ridiculously expensive apartment or a ridiculously expensive place in an old age home.

The high costs of homes don't really benefit anyone, not even the retirees who own their own place.

[NOWINYOW]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

For starters if your treating your house like an investment then it should be taxed like one. If you want untaxed investment that's what an RRSP or TFSA are for.

Secondly, society already does pay for senior care in multitude of ways, from nursing homes, to GIS, to OAS, and etc.

Three the elderly are the highest networth individuals in Canada , even with taking account length of investment. Mostly due to the high value of the homes

Four, I also think it would be a dumb idea to do this, but no matter what the value of your home needs to come down significantly so that the young can afford to live. So either way that nest egg will shrink significantly.

I'd prefer that it shrinks due to more homes existing but the 55+ crowd, "urban" planners, and etc seems to take issue with that. idea.

Per CRA website and capital gains on residential homes.
"When you sell your home or when you are considered to have sold it, you may realize a capital gain. If the property was solely your principal residence for every year you owned it, you do not have to pay tax on the gain."

So, yes, people can and do treat their homes as investments, with explicit tax laws allowing this.

[lrt's friend]

Can you imagine if principle residences are taxed for capital gains, who would want to move? Imagine if you are 35 and sold your house with a $100,000 capital gain , and you had a $500,000 mortgage. How much extra tax you would have to pay when you were already deeply in debt? This is not just seniors being impacted. It just taxes the middle class more heavily.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Can you imagine if principle residences are taxed for capital gains, who would want to move? Imagine if you are 35 and sold your house with a $100,000 capital gain , and you had a $500,000 mortgage. How much extra tax you would have to pay when you were already deeply in debt? This is not just seniors being impacted. It just taxes the middle class more heavily.

Most countries have some kind of limit on capital gains. In the US, it's $250k lifetime limit. So that $100k would be free. So would the next $150k. But after that your gains start getting taxed. The US has substantially more mobility between states and cities than Canada. And they have a much smaller bubble (Lower Price-rent and Price-earnings ratios). They also have much more capital available for investment because most people aren't plowing everything into the housing market.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I personally don't have a vendetta against who worked all their lives and were able to build equity through home ownership. If they sell their ridiculously expensive home, they'll have to buy another ridiculously expensive home, or a ridiculously expensive condo, or rent a ridiculously expensive apartment or a ridiculously expensive place in an old age home.

The high costs of homes don't really benefit anyone, not even the retirees who own their own place.

Lol, anyways, as it stands housing costs are going to need to shrink significantly...or there going to have to stall for 20 years for wages to catch up.

https://x.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1911457585053524181?t=grHfOIZsmgYxm1oyexoElA&s=19

My preference is we let housing get built to meet demand and collapse housing value, as the young that those retirees need to pay for there retirement and provide for them can't wait 20 years for housing.

But alas as Ottawa has shown, they care more about appeasing nimbys through under zoning then getting results for the housing emergency. Got to keep those 5 sorry buildings away from the main streets lol.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Lol, anyways, as it stands housing costs are going to need to shrink significantly...or there going to have to stall for 20 years for wages to catch up.

https://x.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1911457585053524181?t=grHfOIZsmgYxm1oyexoElA&s=19

My preference is we let housing get built to meet demand and collapse housing value, as the young that those retirees need to pay for there retirement and provide for them can't wait 20 years for housing.

Unfortunately a collapse in housing values would have all sorts of negative implications for the economy that affect everybody young and old, so that’s not a great solution. It also means that a whole lot less new housing will be built. Much better to increase supply and aim to moderate costs.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by phil235

Unfortunately a collapse in housing values would have all sorts of negative implications for the economy that affect everybody young and old, so that’s not a great solution. It also means that a whole lot less new housing will be built. Much better to increase supply and aim to moderate costs.

Yup. Lower housing values won't do anything for labour material costs, especially with a trade war going on.

[rocketphish]

Councillors spar over parking and density as zoning debate flares up
City councillors divided on parking, united on building heights

Arthur White-Crummey · CBC News
Posted: Apr 16, 2025 5:25 PM EDT | Last Updated: April 16

City councillors split down the middle over minimum parking rules but united behind a move that could further raise building heights, as Ottawa's new zoning bylaw came up for debate Wednesday.

The zoning bylaw, now in its second draft, would revolutionize what can be built in the city. It is expected to come up for a final vote around the end of the year.

One of its most momentous proposals would end parking minimums, which currently force developers to provide a set amount of parking for each unit in new buildings.

Ottawa's expansive rural areas were an exception. City staff gave several options, including some that would preserve a requirement for one parking spot per housing unit in rural villages. But that wasn't enough for Rideau-Jock Coun. David Brown, who asked them to look at requiring even more.

He said that residents in his expansive rural ward have no other option than to drive cars and trucks — and need somewhere to park them. He faced opposition but said he wasn't surprised.

"The war on cars is alive and well down here at city hall," he said.

Several urban and suburban councillors called Brown's proposal a step backward. They argued that developers will provide parking where it's needed and offer cheaper housing where it isn't.

"I am very worried about the erosion of what I think could be a revolutionary policy when it comes to increasing housing supply in our city, and that is abolishing parking minimums," Somerset Coun. Ariel Troster said.

<snip>

The new zoning bylaw aims to allow significantly denser housing across the city, including at least four units on every residential lot as well as higher buildings on major streets.

City staff slightly pared back some of those moves in the second draft of the bylaw. But on Wednesday, Barrhaven West Coun. David Hill made a series of motions that could push permissions for higher density even further.

The first related to the lowest-density zones in single-family neighbourhoods. The draft recommends allowing buildings up to 11 metres — about three storeys — in newer suburbs outside the Greenbelt, but limiting them to 8.5 metres in older suburbs within the Greenbelt.

Hill asked staff to come back with an option that would set an 11-metre limit virtually across the board.

"We're in a housing crisis. We need to allow for missing middle housing ... the gradual gentle intensification in older neighbourhoods to allow for a single detached wartime house to turn into a duplex or a triplex or a quadplex," he said.

His second motion would affect the highest density zones. The draft would allow up to 27 storeys as of right, meaning developers could build towers that high without asking council for special permission. Hill's motion would allow 30.

Staff were also planning to come back with an option that retains restrictive height limits where they currently exist, even in some relatively high density zones. Hill's third motion asked staff not to do that.

All of Hill's motions passed unanimously.

<more>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/co...ity-as-zoning-debate-flares-up-1.7512045

[ponyboycurtis]

Automatic right to build 27 floors would be peak Ottawa.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Yup. Lower housing values won't do anything for labour material costs, especially with a trade war going on.

So were all on board on actually allowing enough housing to be built to meet demand, "Community Character" be damned?

or are we still going to get riled up if 6+ stories gets proposed for a main st, or more then 9 stories gets proposed south of sommerset in the literal core of the city.....

because the new zoning bylaw as proposed by the city & its staff underzones the city on purpose, with large parts of the core still restricted to 4-5 stories.

[Williamoforange]

"Staff were also planning to come back with an option that retains restrictive height limits where they currently exist, even in some relatively high density zones. Hill's third motion asked staff not to do that."

Well that's good news, I think, anyone know if this means that all the old secondary plans are being thrown out?

[TransitZilla]

A thoughtful, detailed critique of some aspects of the new zoning by-law.

The City of Ottawa Needs More Family-Friendly Housing. Instead They're Contemplating Downzoning.

Two-storey maximums in urban areas and three in the suburbs is nonsensical.
Missing Middle Initiative
May 06, 2025

Highlights

Annual housing starts in the City of Ottawa are less than half of the provincial target.

Over the last decade, the City has experienced substantial and increased outmigration of young families to surrounding communities due to the housing shortage.

The City has been rewriting its zoning bylaw, which is a prime opportunity to make the substantive changes needed to facilitate the building of more housing suitable for families with children, reverse the outmigration, and help hit the provincial target.

The proposed bylaw does contain a number of positive reforms around parking minimums and streamlining zoning.

The best places to allow more family-friendly density should be in neighbourhoods close to transit and other amenities.

Instead, the City is doing the opposite, limiting building height to two storeys in N1 and N2 urban neighbourhoods, while imposing a higher, three-storey limit in those neighbourhoods in the suburbs outside of the greenbelt.

Ottawa’s failure to enhance density in existing urban neighbourhoods is a case study in the power of local opposition and the Impossible Trinity of Housing.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-162874976

[rocketphish]

Ontario unveils plans it says will speed up housing, transit construction

Jeff Gray, The Globe and Mail
Published 2 hours ago | Updated 1 hour ago

The Ontario government is proposing to expand its ability to impose dense “transit-oriented communities” along public-transit lines and restrict the ability of municipalities to demand certain studies before approving development – measures it says would speed up construction.

Housing Minister Rob Flack unveiled a long list of proposed changes on Monday in a bill that he says would allow housing, transit and other infrastructure, to get built faster. He also said this week’s provincial budget will include $400-million in new funding for municipalities to build water systems and other infrastructure needed for new housing.

Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government has faced harsh criticism as housing starts sank far below the levels it needed to hit its goal of building 1.5 million new homes by 2031 – a goal not mentioned in Mr. Flack’s press release on Monday. Many of its previous moves to speed up housing ended up mired in controversy, including its reversed move to open up parts of the protected Greenbelt to developers, which is under criminal investigation by the RCMP.

In the past, the Progressive Conservative government ended up at loggerheads with municipalities with previous changes it imposed, and partially withdrew, meant to rein in the skyrocketing development charges municipalities impose on builders to cover the cost of the infrastructure needed to build housing. But the government says it consulted municipalities on the latest proposals, which were welcomed by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

The government proposed a number of changes on Monday that could see builders pay less in development charges - but the measures fall well short of an overhaul that would slash them across the board.

Among the proposed changes, many of which require the drafting of regulations to sort out the details, is a provision that would allow all residential developers, not just those building rental housing as is now the case, to defer the payment of development charges until their units are actually occupied, instead of forking out up front. The new rules would also allow municipalities to cut development charges more quickly, without holding public consultations. Municipalities would also be restricted in the studies they could order before approving a development to those specified in their official plans.

A handful of municipalities, including Vaughan, north of Toronto, where Mr. Flack unveiled his plans on Monday, have moved to dramatically reduce their development charges. The building industry has long asked for big reductions to development charges, which can add in some jurisdictions more than $100,000 to the cost of a home.
Open this photo in gallery:

Other proposed changes include giving the Infrastructure Minister, Kinga Surma - who oversees the government’s “transit-oriented communities” program that imposes dense developing at new transit stations - the power to issue minister’s zoning orders to override local municipal planning processes. That power is currently held only by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and the government says this change will streamline its efforts as it expands the transit-oriented communities concept to more GO Transit lines and light-rail projects.

These deals with large developers have provoked opposition for overriding local plans and imposing taller buildings against the wishes of neighbours, most recently in Oakville.

If passed, the bill would include all transit projects, and not just a list of key projects, under existing transit legislation meant to slash red tape, ease expropriation and speed up construction.

The government also announced a plan, which it said comes at the request of the road construction industry, to consult municipalities and industry on a “framework for greater harmonization and clarified governance of municipal standards.”

The bill would also give the Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister the power to impose conditions when handing out what are known as ministerial zoning orders (MZOs) to fast-track development, a practice for which the government has faced criticism from opposition leaders, environmentalists and the Auditor-General. Plus, it would exempt certain decisions made by the minister from having to comply with the province’s own planning policies, as is the case already with MZOs.

Municipalities would also be stripped of the ability to impose their own construction standards, such as the city of Toronto’s own green building rules.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ontario-housing-transit-infrastructure-bill/

[rocketphish]

News Release

Ontario Getting Homes and Infrastructure Built Faster and Smarter
Province introducing legislation and new funding to cut red tape and speed up home construction in partnership with municipalities

May 12, 2025

https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/10059...-infrastructure-built-faster-and-smarter

[Williamoforange]

Bill looks like it's just kinda tweaking the edges, though I'm happy that cities can't make up there own building codes (what a mess) and that DC can be deferred until occupancy (provides ability to directly show newcomers how much tax the city is charging them). Though, I would have preferred IZ have just been banned.

The municipal water companies might work out well.

https://www.tvo.org/article/want-to-boost-housing-affordability-then-start-thinking-about-sewers

[rocketphish]

Developers seek to expand Ottawa suburbs after Ontario rules rewritten
City faces challenges to its $1.8 million fee at the Ottawa Land Tribunal

Kate Porter · CBC News
Posted: May 28, 2025 4:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: 5 hours ago

Several Ottawa housing developers have already taken advantage of a significant change to Ontario planning rules and made individual requests to the City of Ottawa aimed at having their large rural properties earmarked for future subdivisions.

But they haven't necessarily agreed with the hefty $1.8 million fee council decided to charge or the list of technical studies it required, so developers have filed at least four or five appeals and put the city on the defensive at the Ontario Land Tribunal in recent months.

The Ontario government's new provincial planning statement took effect last October. Within days, paperwork was submitted to city planners to expand the urban boundary by hundreds of hectares north of Kanata, in the Cedarview area of Barrhaven, and on the edge of Stittsville.

Others are seeking a big possible expansion east of the Findlay Creek neighbourhood.

The chief financial officer of Claridge Homes, Neil Malhotra, says developers need to get those tracts of land in the pipeline because it can take many years before any construction starts.

Plus, Malhotra argues the City of Ottawa hasn't calculated setting aside enough land to meet the growing market need. That's greatly driven up the price of land, which in turn has made housing more expensive for buyers, he says.

"I think everybody in the industry would tell you that there's been a shortage of land supply in the city ... based on demand, for a long time," said Malhotra. Buyers are looking for single-detached homes in the suburbs, especially since the pandemic created work-from-home arrangements, he says.

It didn't used to be that expansions of the city's urban boundary or the size of a rural village could happen at any time. They could only take place after a detailed city-wide review of what land was required for future homes and where it made most sense to grow.

The last such process in 2020 and 2021 was high stakes because developers had a rare window to get their lands on the developable side of the urban-rural divide. Ottawa city council decided to expand by 1,281 hectares and to greenlight the future Tewin community in the rural southeast.

The Ford government has since struck the words "comprehensive review" from its policy, however, and now developers whose lands were left out in the past have this new method to get in.

The lands owned by Claridge Homes have been on the verge of being developable a few times.

The company has several properties on March Road north of the Kanata tech park, other lands in the Leitrim area east of Findlay Creek, and yet more land on Flewellyn and Fernbank roads on the edge of Stittsville.

In recent years, they have been left out of the urban boundary by city council or city staff, then put in unilaterally by former housing minister Steve Clark, only to be taken out again by the Progressive Conservatives after the scandal over the Ontario Greenbelt.

Now, a sign is erected along March Road for the South March lands where Claridge, Minto Communities, Mattamy Homes, Regional Group and Uniform Urban Developments have plans to build more than 4,000 homes.

The city is accepting the public's comments until May 28 about the companies' bid to add 233.5 hectares inside the urban boundary. The lands had previously received high scores in 2021 from city staff for being close to transit and water infrastructure.


<more>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/urban-expansion-under-2024-pps-ottawa-1.7544063

[J.OT13]

Yup, love how the Ford Government backed out of the imposed (fairly reasonable) extra expansions just to instead give developers the powers to ask for any expansion. We're stuck with these clowns for another 4 years.