Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Z
Except I think after reading the decision the middle-ground conclusion is a bit of a coincidence. Council's lower number was thrown out on a procedural and non-PPS compliance basis.
|
That's just the OMB's opinion, not fact. The OMB wants the City to set land supplies to equal its planning horizon (of 2031) but there is nothing in the PPS that actually requires that - it just chose to interpret the PPS that way. The minimums that the PPS does require would have been maintained with Council's plan.
The Board also made no note of where Council's number came from... I guess that's hardly surprising since the OMB in its infinite wisdom left behind some rural pockets in a previous decision. Council was just fixing an OMB-made mess, but that's something that the OMB is not going to own up to.
Threaded Mode