HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #781  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2022, 12:55 AM
Nowhere Nowhere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 228
Considering how much the urban boundary is being expanded in Leitrim and Riverside South, I'm afraid the Trillium Line will be running at 100+% of it's capacity very fast with a 12 minutes frequency.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #782  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2022, 10:15 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 27,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhere View Post
Considering how much the urban boundary is being expanded in Leitrim and Riverside South, I'm afraid the Trillium Line will be running at 100+% of it's capacity very fast with a 12 minutes frequency.
I think the Trillium Line (and Bayview) will be over capacity within 10 years due to development along the northern urban stretch. LeBreton Flats and Trinity, Gladstone Village, the Bread Factory, Little Italy, Dow's Lake, the new Civic along with continued growth of Carleton University.

Riverside South ridership will probably be low due to w.f.h. and remain low as I doubt density targets will be met based on proposals we've see so far.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #783  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2022, 12:33 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
Pushback grows at city hall and beyond as provincial 'More Homes' bill moves closer to passage
“We all heard throughout the election campaign that people want healthy, more sustainable communities. And this provincial legislation goes in exactly the opposite direction.”

Taylor Blewett, Ottawa Citizen
Nov 14, 2022 • 13 hours ago • 5 minute read


Municipal politicians in Ottawa and elsewhere in Ontario are adding their voices to a growing chorus of alarm over the provincial government’s “More Homes Built Faster” package, with causes for concern becoming clearer as city staff and experts analyze what the province is proposing to do — and time runs out for those hoping for changes.

Last week, City of Ottawa staff published an analysis of the province’s Bill 23 (the More Homes Built Faster Act) and related proposals.

They broke down the many ways in which the province’s plan would hamstring local-level work to build a more liveable, affordable and sustainable city, from proposals that would compromise new green building standards and halve the parkland the city can demand from developers, to restrictions on development charges that are relied upon to build infrastructure to support growth, without any confirmed plan to make up the shortfall — meaning less money for said infrastructure or more money needing to be drawn from taxpayers.

“The more I read about these provincial changes to housing and land use policy, the worse it gets,” re-elected Stittsville Coun. Glen Gower posted on Twitter over the weekend. The planning committee co-chair has been working to understand and break down for residents the potential impacts of what the province is proposing, and he said Monday that he hopes people are paying attention.

“We all heard throughout the election campaign that people want healthy, more sustainable communities. And this provincial legislation goes in exactly the opposite direction.”

Staff at other cities have arrived at similar conclusions, and mayors and councils, from Markham to St. Catharines, have implored the province to rethink parts of the bill and, in some cases, press pause on its path towards becoming law — which could occur as early as next week.

Ottawa’s outgoing council met last Wednesday for the final time, two days after staff released their Bill 23 analysis and just under a week before the new council’s Nov. 15 swearing-in, but discussion of the bill wasn’t on the agenda in any formal way.

Mayor Jim Watson told this newspaper Monday that he thought it appropriate to leave it to the new council to send any message to the province about concerns with their legislation.

“Staff were very clear, I support what the staff said and I think really … the ball is in the court of the new council because they’re going to have to live with the consequences.”

Staff will be sending a written submission to the province before a Thursday deadline, but some councillors want to go further to voice their concerns.

“We’ve got to say something, we’ve got to speak out,” said re-elected Bay ward Coun. Theresa Kavanagh, who said she’d like to organize a meeting with her MPP and the other councillors in the area, but doesn’t know if there will be enough time to do so before the bill passes. “It’s all give to the developer and no get-back for the community.”

The provincial government, meanwhile, talks about what it’s doing as bold action to address a housing supply crisis in Ontario. On proposed fee reductions for developers, a spokesperson for the ministry of finance described it as a move that would reduce the cost of residential development and incentivize particular types of construction, like rental housing.

“There is consensus that fees are driving up the cost of housing, and without considering the impact fee increases have on tenants and future homeowners, housing prices will rise, and affordability will worsen,” said Scott Blodgett, in an emailed statement on Monday.

As for municipal shortfalls — Toronto’s mayor has told local media the development charge changes could amount to a revenue cut of $200 million annually in the city and prevent many capital projects from going ahead — Blodgett said the province is working with the feds “to ensure municipalities continue to receive support for the critical infrastructure they need to accommodate growth such as new roads, waterworks and transit — including through the new Housing Accelerator Fund.”

But when asked about this at a local announcement on Monday, the federal housing minister wasn’t making any commitments about allowing the $4-billion fund to be used to make up for cuts to development charges.

Ahmed Hussen said the specifics of the Housing Accelerator Fund will be announced when it’s launched in the near future.

Re-elected Rideau-Rockcliffe Coun. Rawlson King accused the province of designing the rollout and consultation on Bill 23 so it was guaranteed to be difficult to provide a comprehensive municipal response. Introduced the day after municipal elections across the province, public consultation on the bill as well as committee hearings will close just two days after Ottawa’s new council will be sworn in.

“That’s not acceptable. Not for changes that are so large and so impactful to the municipality and its finance structure. We needed more time to do this and we needed more public consultation,” said King.

Gower said he’s written to his local MPP and has been encouraging residents to do the same, and also hopes other councillors will speak out about the bill. There’s no date published yet for the first meeting of the new council, but Gower said he’s spoken to mayor-elect Mark Sutcliffe and suggested “we really need to have a clear stance and clear statement as a new council as soon as possible.”

A spokesperson for Sutcliffe said he was not available for an interview ahead of this newspaper’s deadline Monday.

Next Monday, the Progressive Conservative-majority committee of MPPs studying the bill will meet for clause-by-clause consideration, before it returns to the house for third reading and a final vote.

In York Region, two area mayors brought forward a motion to their regional council last week asking the province to halt the legislation to allow for more consultation. Richmond Hill Mayor David West likened the bill to “cutting an onion with a chainsaw,” local media reported. “We’re not going to have much onion left at the end of all this.”

Meanwhile, conservation authorities, affordable housing advocates and other civil society organizations have been mobilizing to air their concerns about what the province has proposed. Locally, a rally in opposition to the bill is planned for Tuesday in front of Ottawa city hall by a coalition of community groups.

The province has listened and made changes to proposals in the past, said Gower, and he’s holding on to a degree of optimism, between the pushback inside city halls and out, that “maybe they’ll listen and be willing to make some tweaks to this.”

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...ser-to-passage
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #784  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2022, 11:14 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
Ontario wants greater grip on regional governance, says it needs to cut red tape to battle housing crisis
Legislation introduced Wednesday would also further strong mayor powers

CBC News
Posted: Nov 16, 2022 11:31 AM ET | Last Updated: 18 minutes ago


The Ford government is proposing new legislation that would give it a tighter grip on regional governance, and allow the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa to pass bylaws on its priorities with the support of just one-third of council — a move the Opposition slammed as "an affront to democracy."

Ontario's Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Steve Clark introduced the legislation, dubbed the Better Municipal Governance Act, at Queen's Park on Wednesday afternoon. The province says the move is part of an effort to cut red tape on "shared provincial-municipal priorities."

The construction of 1.5 million new homes over the next 10 years is one such priority. But pressed by reporters, Clark confirmed the one-third vote share to pass strong mayors' motions is not limited to issues around housing only.

"These bold actions are necessary if our government is to keep its commitment to Ontarians and remove the obstacles standing in the way of much-needed housing," Clark said in a news release.

The legislation would allow the housing minister to appoint regional heads of council in Niagara, Peel and York Regions for the 2022-2026 council term.

It would also further the "strong mayor" powers given to the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa ahead of the recent municipal elections, before which a mayor's vote was worth no more than a city councillor's.

Currently Toronto Mayor John Tory or newly-elected Ottawa Mayor Mark Sutcliffe need to win the support of more than half of their city council to pass motions.

If the bill is passed, Tory and Sutcliffe will only need one in three councillors to vote with them.

Provincially-appointed facilitators would also assess regional governments in Durham, Halton, Niagara, Peel, Waterloo and York to ensure they're ready to "deliver on the government's commitment to tackle the housing supply crisis."

Asked if the province ultimately plans to do away with regional levels of government in those six areas, Clark responded: "I'm not going to presuppose the discussions that take place by the facilitator," adding his goal now is to put forward legislation that expands strong mayor powers.

Premier Doug Ford has said Ontario will expand strong mayor powers to other large municipalities in about a year's time.

Critics of the strong mayor powers say the move will undermine local democracy and the role of city councils.

In Toronto, Coun. Josh Matlow issued a statement calling the province's justification for the proposed legislation, Bill 39, "absurd," saying the mayor should be "the leader of our city, not a servant of Queen's Park."

Matlow says city council already approved moving ahead on increased densities around major transit station areas aligning with the province's direction earlier this year and that the the province has "complete authority" to change zoning in Toronto through the Planning Act.

"If Doug Ford wants to build housing, he can do so without Bill 39."

Toronto Mayor John Tory has said he supports the new powers. Ottawa's new mayor, Mark Sutcliffe, has said he is not in favour of the strong mayor powers, but Clark said Ford is hoping to meet with Sutcliffe soon.

Jessica Bell, the NDP's housing critic, said the move is about "bulldozing local decision making," calling it an "affront to democracy" coming only a few months after voters elected their local representatives.

Bell said the Opposition is also concerned that the proposed legislation repeals the Dufferin-Peel Agricultural Preserve Act, and that key owners of Greenbelt land who donate to the Ford's Progressive Conservatives stand to benefit from the act's repeal.

If the government was truly committed to helping Ontarians find homes, she added, it would focus on ensuring housing is affordable, bringing in stronger rent control protection and clamping down on speculation.

Interim Liberal Leader John Fraser also commented, saying the Ford government is "consolidating power" and that it seems preoccupied with municipal affairs.

"He's the premier of Ontario, not the mayor of Ontario," said Fraser, adding the government would do better to focus on health care right now given the crisis facing pediatric hospitals in particular.

Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said the move is "strong mayors on steroids," saying it brings in "minority rule" when it comes to local decision making.

"The premier and the minister are basically bringing a sledge-hammer to environmental protections and responsible planning in this province," he said.

In a news release from the province just before Clark's announcement, two GTA mayors voiced their support for the changes to regional governance.

Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie called the move "a positive step towards reforming local government," saying in the news release it will contribute to the province's goal of building 120,000 new homes in Mississauga over the next decade.

Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown also applauded the move, saying it will help remove "duplication" and address the challenges of growth in Brampton.

"Redundancy is the enemy of productivity," Brown said in the release.

Earlier this month, the Ontario government announced a 30-day consultation on removing approximately 2,995 hectares across 10 municipalities from the Greenbelt, which was created in 2005 to permanently protect agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands in the Greater Golden Horseshoe area from development.

Put together, the newly approved urban land would be larger in size than Vancouver or Etobicoke.

Peel Region, York, and Halton all recently had their urban boundaries expanded as part of the municipalities official plan updates, which required provincial approval. The province also recently ordered an expansion in Hamilton.

The government has said the move will facilitate the building of at least 50,000 homes, and that the plan is to add more land elsewhere to the Greenbelt than is being taken out.

The lands considered for removal were chosen because they have the potential for homes to be built in the near future and because they are adjacent to existing urban areas, the government of Premier Doug Ford has said.

Clark already has another housing bill before the legislature, which would in part freeze, reduce and exempt fees developers pay in order to spur building, but municipalities have expressed concerns that would leave them without enough funding to construct supporting infrastructure.

With files from Shanifa Nasser and The Canadian Press

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...ment-1.6653382
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #785  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2022, 11:14 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
Queen's Park wants to give Ottawa's mayor the power to pass bylaws with 1/3 council support. Sutcliffe doesn't want it.
The Ontario government is proposing to supercharge the powers of the mayor of Ottawa, in the latest move of provincial actions aimed at bulldozing local opposition to housing development.

Taylor Blewett, Ottawa Citizen
Nov 16, 2022 • 19 minutes ago • 3 minute read


The Ontario government is proposing to supercharge the powers of the mayor of Ottawa and Toronto, in the latest move in a series of provincial actions aimed at bulldozing local opposition to housing development.

With new legislation unveiled Wednesday, Housing Minister Steve Clark announced additional “strong mayor” powers for the province’s two largest cities. If passed, it would allow the mayors of Ottawa and Toronto to propose new and amend existing municipal bylaws related to designated provincial priorities – such as housing supply – and get those passed as long as they had more than one-third of the votes around the council table.

For Ottawa’s 25-member council, that would equate to nine votes. New mayor Mark Sutcliffe said Wednesday he won’t use this proposed authority, releasing a statement after the provincial announcement that reinforced his campaign commitment to lead council without relying on strong mayor powers.

“I’m focused on ensuring that thousands of new homes are being built in Ottawa, including affordable and supportive homes,” Sutcliffe stated. “The new city council is ready to work together to address barriers that prevent the building of more new homes throughout Ottawa.”

Clark suggested Tuesday that this additional minority-rules power to pass bylaws came out of discussions with the city of Toronto, though he didn’t specify who.

Toronto Mayor John Tory has embraced the strong mayor powers already available to him and announced plans last month to use them to create a new division at city hall focused on speeding up housing development.

When asked about Sutcliffe’s unwillingness to use the strong powers, Clark said he thinks Premier Doug Ford is trying to have a meeting with Ottawa’s new mayor.

“These proposals are bold. I’m not going to walk away from that,” said Clark at a press conference at Queen’s Park. “But they reflect the severity of the housing crisis that’s facing our province today, and we need to cut through this NIMBYism and BANANA attitudes.”

These acronyms stand for “not in my backyard” and “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone.”

As for the nature of the yet-to-be-designated “provincial priorities” the new strong-mayor bylaw power could be used to support, the governing PCs plan to outline them in regulations, but Clark gave some examples that included the building of 1.5 million homes over the coming decade, as his government has committed to, as well as infrastructure to support them.

These match provincial priorities put forward for existing strong-mayor powers, which include a mayoral veto over bylaws that conflict with the priorities, as well as the authority to hire and fire senior city staff and reorganize municipal departments.

However, Clark confirmed it’s possible for these priorities to shift if the provincial government decides. “If something emerges as a provincial priority that we want to include, we’ll have to have that conversation with our municipal partners.”

The legislation Clark tabled Wednesday, titled the “Better Municipal Governance Act,” also targets regional governance in southern Ontario, as the PCs look at extending strong-mayor powers to municipalities in that part of the province.

The announcement comes three weeks into consideration of – and mounting controversy around – a massive housing supply package dropped by the provincial government the day after municipal elections across Ontario.

Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, is currently being studied by a PC-majority committee of MPPs, with public hearings playing out at Queen’s Park Wednesday and Thursday.

As the bill’s sweeping contents have been unpacked by professional city staff and civil society groups, initial optimism about the bill’s focus on creating more housing has devolved into alarm at the costs of pursuing this supply under the province’s More Homes plan –– for taxpayers, the environment and those in need of more deeply affordable housing.

Clark said that Wednesday’s announcement complements the “More Homes” package.

“We took a plan to the public on (June 2) that … a re-elected government under the leadership of Premier Ford was going to put a plan in place to build one-and-a-half million homes over the next ten years,” he said. “This bill today, the bill that’s before committee across the hall, the strong mayors bill that was passed earlier in our mandate – all of it is towards the same goal.”

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...doesnt-want-it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #786  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2022, 10:10 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
Q&A with Ontario's associate minister of housing on the province's controversial Better Governance Act
"We're in a housing crisis and we made a commitment to the people of Ontario to do whatever it takes and to look at bold solutions."

Blair Crawford, Ottawa Citizen
Nov 22, 2022 • 44 minutes ago • 3 minute read


Last week, the provincial government introduced legislation — the Better Municipal Governance Act — that allows the mayors of Ottawa and Toronto to pass motions with just one-third of council support if they further Queen’s Park’s priorities. Critics have called Premier Doug Ford’s Better Governance Act undemocratic, saying it strips power from municipal councils — and voters — and fundamentally undercuts the principle of majority rule.

The government says the legislation is needed to deal with Ontario’s housing crisis and to meet its goal of building 1.5 million homes in the next decade. Ottawa Mayor Mark Sutcliffe says he won’t use the new powers. Toronto Mayor John Tory says he will use them in a “limited” way.

On Tuesday, Ontario’s associate minister of housing, Michael Parsa, was in Ottawa to take part in an announcement of new affordable housing in the city that involved federal, provincial and municipal governments. Parsa is the Conservative MPP for the riding of Aurora-Oak Ridges-Richmond Hill.

Q: Last week, your government brought forward the Better Municipal Governance Act about speeding the process for approval of housing. Given the successful project here, which is co-operation with three levels of government, can you explain why the Ford government felt that was necessary?

A: We’re in a housing crisis and we made a commitment to the people of Ontario to do whatever it takes and to look at bold solutions to be able to solve the problems we’re facing

In a housing crisis it’s the most vulnerable that are impacted the most and that needs to be addressed and we said we were going to work with the federal government, municipal governments …. private non-profit housing to make sure we have all variety of homes available to Ontarians.

Q: In Ottawa, Mayor Sutcliffe says he won’t use the additional powers. Will he be allowed to do that?

A: We have one-third of all the growth in the province happening in its two largest cities. We wanted to make sure that the tools are there for our municipals partners to be able to do their part. It started with Ottawa and Toronto and with the large population growth in the next 10 years we need to make sure that’s available.

We need to look at every option. We need to look at how we can increase the supply. Whether you’re in Ottawa or Toronto or northern Ontario, everywhere you look there’s an issue of a shortage of supply. This is just another tool — and we’ll continue to do more to ensure that every tool is available to our municipal partners and to us in order to make sure we don’t leave any stone unturned to get rid of the crisis

Q: If something comes to Ottawa council, it receives 1/3 but not majority rule, Sutcliffe says he’s not going to use those additional powers, would the province say, ‘Well, you can’t do that. This is what we want. We’re going to put that legislation through’?

A: Again, this was to help the municipalities. This tool is provided to municipalities for them to be able get through some of the provincial priorities — housing, infrastructure, roads, economy, etc. It is within the municipality. These tools were made available to them. We need to continue working together and say, ‘What else can we do to work with one another to be able to increase the supply.

Q: So the tool is there, but it’s not mandatory for the mayor to take advantage of it?

A: Again, we look at the tools that were made available to both mayors. These tools are there for them to use for provincial priorities and I really hope that people do take advantage of them. And again, I’m really looking forward to working further on collaboration, to coming back here to Ottawa and making more and more housing announcements.

We made a very ambitious goal of 1.5 million homes and it’s more imperative now that we get to that target with the growth of two million people in the next 10 years.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...governance-act
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #787  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2022, 12:46 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
Some developers are big winners after province expands urban boundary
Farm outside Orléans was purchased for $12.7 million before most recent expansion

Kate Porter · CBC News
Posted: Nov 24, 2022 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 4 hours ago




Of all the land around Ottawa's suburban edges that Ontario's housing minister unilaterally designated for development earlier this month, one 37-hectare farm arguably came as the biggest surprise.

The east-end farm is a small part of the 654-hectare urban expansion Steve Clark imposed on Nov. 4 when he overrode a hotly debated 2020 city council decision and signed off on a revised official plan for Ottawa — one of many recent controversial steps the Progressive Conservative government has taken to boost housing supply.

Unlike other lands the province tapped for future suburbs, beyond the 1,281 hectares council itself had approved, the farm on Watters Road wasn't even contemplated for development during lengthy debates in 2021 because Ontario's own planning policies call for good farmland to be protected.

The rural scene on that dead-end dirt road is peaceful, with snowy corn stalks standing rigid in a field near an old barn. The pine trees that line nearby Cardinal Creek disguise the rows of suburban homes just half a kilometre up the hill in Orléans.

The property's foreseeable lack of development potential seemed plain enough when city council took an official stance to not allow houses on farmland and marked out the urban expansion line in February 2021, leaving out that particular parcel.

Yet records show that in August 2021, the newly incorporated 1177 Watters Developments Ltd. bought it for $12.7 million — which equates to $139,382 an acre — from the family that had long owned it.

According to corporate records, all five directors are with the Verdi Alliance group of concrete companies. The five men donated a combined $12,315 to the Progressive Conservatives in 2021 and 2022.

CBC News tried to reach the directors but got no response.

Questions to Clark's office about the farm, any perception of a conflict of interest, and lobbying by developers connected to other parcels he added to the urban boundary also went unanswered.

Meanwhile in the Greater Toronto Area, the province is facing criticism for proposing to open up its Greenbelt for housing, including repealing a law that protects some 2,000 hectares of agricultural land near Pickering, Ont.

The government is "taking steps backward" and choosing new housing over future food security when it should be able to have both, according to Emily Sousa, a farm policy analyst at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA).



The current policy guiding land use orders cities and towns to build efficiently near transit and infrastructure and avoid urbanizing farmland. But the province doesn't seem to be following its own rules or listening to the OFA or municipalities, said Sousa.

Sousa points out that Ontario is losing 129 hectares of farmland each day, according to Statistics Canada's latest census of agriculture. Not only is it disappearing at an increasing rate, but farming itself becomes harder as urban sprawl edges outward and farm equipment mixes with traffic on country roads, she said.

"It's worrisome on so many different levels," said Sousa.

"What is scary about the rate of farmland loss, and these seemingly small decisions to bring [in] a small bit of land here and a little bit of land there, is the cumulative impact that has over time."

Land speculation is nothing new.

Buyers have always snapped up rural land on city peripheries years or decades in advance, expecting that some day neighbourhoods will stretch out and once-rural lands will spike in value.

Nor is it unexpected that landowners will argue to get their properties inside the urban boundary. At public committee meetings in 2020 and 2021, owners made their pitches to Ottawa city councillors and — as a provincial registry shows — hired lobbying firms to talk to the minister himself.

To find some of the biggest winners of Clark's decision, one has to follow Bank Street south until it hits the countryside and the booming suburban neighbourhood of Findlay Creek.

Well-known local developers like Claridge Homes, Urbandale, Richcraft, and Multivesco, along with local golf club owner Patterson Group, asked a joint committee in January 2021 to let them "complete" the Findlay Creek area all the way west to Hawthorne Road.

Property records show that while Claridge purchased some parcels as far back as 2006, those four developers bought more than half the land in 2019 alone. Together they've paid more than $40 million.

But that land initially failed to make it inside the boundary. City staff scored those parcels poorly, saying transit and water infrastructure would be costly. Plus, the southern-most Claridge parcel was too close to an active quarry.

Despite that, the Ontario housing minister this month allowed an extra 257 hectares inside the urban boundary.

Some of those same developers also spent tens of millions buying the 175 hectares north of Kanata in the South March area, which were also let inside the boundary.

Companies Claridge, Multivesco, eQ Homes, Uniform Developments, and Minto released a statement when the city committee swapped their land out in favour of Tewin in 2021, despite their lands scoring well with staff, but declined to comment for this story.

Now, all are back in.



The divide between city and country can be stark.

Where Bank Street meets the countryside in Findlay Creek, for instance, townhomes still clad in white house wrap sit mid-construction as a barn falls into disrepair behind them.

The area has exploded, said Mariam Zeitoun, who's lived there for a dozen years — and she's not wrong.

The City of Ottawa's annual report on development shows the population in the Findlay Creek area grew by 6,754 over five years to 16,038 people in 2021 — more than double the size of Perth, Ont.

Residents say the community is family-friendly, but they also note the elementary school's yard is filled with portable classrooms and that traffic on both Bank Street and Albion Road is getting worse. The area doesn't have its own community centre, library, or recreation centre.

The newly added Findlay Creek lands are nearly five kilometres from the future Leitrim LRT station. Zeitoun says the area needs more transit — she has to drive her oldest children to jobs and university.

"How many more people are we going to add? It's insane. It makes no sense how it's going to ... help the community that's already here," said Zeitoun.

"It seems it's more about profit than anything else."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...sion-1.6660490
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #788  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2022, 10:21 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
Ontario passes housing bill amid criticism from cities, conservation authorities
Bill ensures province can build 1.5 million homes in 10 years, housing minister says

Allison Jones · The Canadian Press
Posted: Nov 28, 2022 12:29 PM ET | Last Updated: 2 hours ago


Ontario passed a housing bill Monday intended to spur development. Critics, however, say it will lead to higher property taxes, weaken conservation authority powers and not actually make homes more affordable.

The new law is just one move among many in a flurry of recent housing changes from the Progressive Conservative government, including plans to open some areas of the protected Greenbelt land to development and allowing the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa to pass bylaws with just one-third of council support.

Premier Doug Ford's housing push comes as the government attempts to get 1.5 million homes built in 10 years, while high inflation and interest rates have already forced the province to revise projections for housing starts downward. Ontario expects to build fewer than 80,000 new homes a year in the next couple of years.

Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Steve Clark said Ontario is facing a "severe" housing crisis and it requires bold solutions.

"If we are truly going to build affordable housing in this province, if all the mayors and councillors who said during their municipal election they want to [incentivize] more housing opportunity in their communities, this is a way that the government has very clearly said we wanted to investigate," Clark said Monday after the bill's passage.

One of the most controversial aspects of the bill is freezing, reducing and exempting fees developers pay to build affordable housing, non-profit housing and inclusionary zoning units — meaning affordable housing in new developments — as well as some rental units.

Those fees go to municipalities and are then used to pay for services to support new homes, such as road and sewer infrastructure and community centres.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario says the changes could leave municipalities short $5 billion and see taxpayers footing the bill — either in the form of higher property taxes or service cuts — and there is nothing in the bill that would guarantee improved housing affordability.

The bill also limits the areas conservation authorities can consider in development permissions, removing factors such as pollution and conservation of the land.

Meanwhile, the government is still accepting public feedback on its proposed amendments to the Greenbelt Act that, if approved, would remove 7,400 acres from the protected land but also add 9,400 acres to the Greenbelt elsewhere, in a bid to build at least 50,000 homes in the GTHA.

The Greenbelt Act was created in 2005 to permanently protect agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands in the Greater Golden Horseshoe area from development.

Clark had previously said he would not cut the protected area or do a land swap.

Ontario NDP housing critic Jessica Bell says the vast majority of Ontarians won't benefit from the bill.

"Bill 23 will make Ford's developer buddies even richer, while hurting Ontarians by making the housing crisis even worse," said Bell in a statement.

"Ford's legislation jeopardizes environmentally sensitive land; it puts renters at greater risk of being evicted or having their rent jacked up; and it will see purpose-built affordable rental buildings torn down and replaced with luxury condos the average person cannot afford."

The party is calling on the government to increase rental housing supply, bring back rent control and spend more on non-market rate housing. It also wants to see more affordable and missing middle homes in existing neighbourhoods.

The Ontario Green Party, meanwhile, condemned the lack of consultation on the bill, citing a lack of approval from anti-poverty activists, municipal representatives, healthcare workers and Indigenous people.

"Pushing this destructive piece of legislation through, despite widespread public opposition, and without meaningful consultation from the public, including Indigenous groups, is a dereliction of duty and inexcusable," Mike Schreiner, the Green party's leader, said in a statement.

"I call on the Premier to repeal Bill 23, halt their destructive pro-sprawl agenda and plans to pave over the Greenbelt and to implement real solutions to the housing crisis."

With files from CBC News

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...l-23-1.6666657
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #789  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2022, 5:18 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 27,633
I'm deeply concerned about these changes. It doesn't seem the Province took any feedback into consideration. I'm deeply concerned how these new regulations will impact the environment, heritage and City budgets.

The affordability part of it depends entirely on developers passing on the savings. Trickle down economics don't work; developers, private corporations, businesses will continue to charge whatever they can. in any case, cities will need to raise property taxes, so any savings to the buyer will be lost on higher taxes anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #790  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2022, 6:15 PM
Williamoforange's Avatar
Williamoforange Williamoforange is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
I'm deeply concerned about these changes. It doesn't seem the Province took any feedback into consideration. I'm deeply concerned how these new regulations will impact the environment, heritage and City budgets.

The affordability part of it depends entirely on developers passing on the savings. Trickle down economics don't work; developers, private corporations, businesses will continue to charge whatever they can. in any case, cities will need to raise property taxes, so any savings to the buyer will be lost on higher taxes anyway.
If your referring to the feedback around the two things you're complaining about, I'd say that's a good thing. Unfortunately they listened to other and removed the change that would stop 3rd party appeals. I also find it funny that these are yours and other so called progressive biggest complaints.... Instead of I don't know actually problems with the bill like those to CA or rental replacement....

The heritage changes just stop the city and it's residents from abusing heritage protections something both Ottawa and Toronto have done.

As for the DC changes for the most part the only way to get them is to meet affordable definitions which means that yes at a minimum some of the savings are passed on. It's essentially an enforced bonus that puts the cost of affordable housing on society instead of new residents, and to me that's a good thing.

Third, are you aware how much that DC equal out to? It will take years for a new resident to pay the difference in taxes equal to the DC. Nvm the fact that higher property taxes lower home values.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #791  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2022, 6:29 PM
Davis137's Avatar
Davis137 Davis137 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,357
I think eyes and ears will fall on our new Mayor and City Council. While these bills and their associated powers are going to be in effect, I have not read anywhere that Municipalities MUST be in compliance. I am pretty sure that while the province has set a new (higher) ceiling, I think they have unloaded the bulk of responsibility of what is done underneath said ceilings, to the municipalities.

if it were up to me, I would utilize new approval powers to speed up development when/where needed, but in a regulated manner, with proper oversight. Also, that makes me think about how I have never understood why developers keep sprawling further and further out, vs working with municipalities like Ottawa, to redevelop lands in the interiors of the cities more vigorously. For example, look at how many major urban centers (including Ottawa-Gatineau) that have hectares upon hectares of vacant/dormant warehouses and industrial parks within their boundaries, that eventually turn into brownfields. Why is it that the businesses that used to occupy them, end up being relocated to the outskirts of the cities in newly built industrial parks/campuses (the ones that haven't moved overseas or gone bankrupt anyways), that will likely end up with the same outcome in 20 or so years?

I understand that the Province wants to reduce the amount of steps to make things happen and/or be approved when it comes to development. Yes, the removal of some layers of approval/red tape is a good idea, but only when it's done without total abandon. If developers and/or landlords want to do something with large parcels of new land, they should at least be challenged as to why they want to do that, vs rehabilitate lands they already own or could develop in the city proper (yes, I know...at the end of the day it's about the money and often housing projects are on a path with less resistance).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #792  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2022, 8:11 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davis137 View Post

Also, that makes me think about how I have never understood why developers keep sprawling further and further out, vs working with municipalities like Ottawa, to redevelop lands in the interiors of the cities more vigorously. For example, look at how many major urban centers (including Ottawa-Gatineau) that have hectares upon hectares of vacant/dormant warehouses and industrial parks within their boundaries, that eventually turn into brownfields. Why is it that the businesses that used to occupy them, end up being relocated to the outskirts of the cities in newly built industrial parks/campuses (the ones that haven't moved overseas or gone bankrupt anyways), that will likely end up with the same outcome in 20 or so years?
I don't think Ottawa has hectares and hectares of vacant/dormant warehouses and industrial parks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #793  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2022, 8:29 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
I don't think Ottawa has hectares and hectares of vacant/dormant warehouses and industrial parks.
Vacant? No. Substantially under-utilized? Definitely.

I look at all the used car dealerships and wreckers on Cyrville, down the street from a transit stop and it looks to me like they are ripe to be redeveloped. Likewise, I look at the secondary malls like Gloucester Centre and they could absolutely be redeveloped into substantially more mixed use. Doesn't make sense to have a multi-billion dollar transit system and then have stores with gigantic surface parking lots beside it. Heck, look at Place d'Orléans. So dead, they needed to host a federal work centre just to get done traffic. If there ever was a sign from the market that a property is ripe for development, I would say drop in daycare for public servants should be one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #794  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2022, 8:54 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Vacant? No. Substantially under-utilized? Definitely.

I look at all the used car dealerships and wreckers on Cyrville, down the street from a transit stop and it looks to me like they are ripe to be redeveloped. Likewise, I look at the secondary malls like Gloucester Centre and they could absolutely be redeveloped into substantially more mixed use. Doesn't make sense to have a multi-billion dollar transit system and then have stores with gigantic surface parking lots beside it. Heck, look at Place d'Orléans. So dead, they needed to host a federal work centre just to get done traffic. If there ever was a sign from the market that a property is ripe for development, I would say drop in daycare for public servants should be one.
The massing of car dealerships in the TOD areas on the East side is a problem for sure. I think it is a sign property taxes are not high enough.

The secondary malls are a tricky balance. If you get rid of too much parking you lose a lot of the businesses that are useful to transit riders and local residents. Gloucester Centre is in the midst of adding some residential towers without disturbing the core parking for Walmart or Loblaws.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #795  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2022, 5:56 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,836
Every "Business Park".

https://goo.gl/maps/esmuMGJZotCttnNa9
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #796  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2022, 3:48 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
Ottawa council passes motion challenging housing-supply Bill 23; province promises to keep cities 'whole'
For some city councillors, a letter from housing minister Steve Clark isn't nearly enough to put to rest their concerns about the legislation passed on Monday.

Taylor Blewett, Ottawa Citizen
Dec 02, 2022 • 4 hours ago • 4 minute read


Ontario housing minister Steve Clark probably wasn’t watching the livestream of first regular meeting of Ottawa city council’s new term.

But he did send a letter the same day responding to one of the major concerns voiced by councils, Ottawa’s included, in response to his government’s housing supply Bill 23.

Writing to the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario on Wednesday, Clark said his government was “committing to ensuring municipalities are kept whole” in the face of impacts to their ability to fund infrastructure that supports housing.

It’s an answer that cities like Ottawa didn’t have as recently as that morning, when planning general manager Don Herweyer told councillors he had no indication the province had a concrete plan for addressing municipal revenue losses resulting from Bill 23. The legislation, which passed Monday, proposed breaks on charges that cities levy on developments to fund infrastructure that new residents will use, from sewers to community centres.

Ottawa’s chief financial officer told council in a memo last week that existing taxpayers were “the only readily identifiable source to make up the significant funding shortfall,” which could amount to “well over” $60 million annually within the next few years.

The motion a majority of council backed Wednesday included asking the Ontario government to delay the implementation of its bill, to preserve charges that Ottawa and other cities levy on new development to fund supporting infrastructure and to cover the lost revenue if the province goes ahead with breaks on these charges.

In his letter, Clark argued that municipal fees on development, and by extension home buyers, were “unsustainable and out-of-control,” and said reining them in was “the right thing to do and that is why our position on Bill 23 will not waver.”

He also argued, “there should be no funding shortfall for housing enabling infrastructure as a result of Bill 23, provided municipalities achieve and exceed their housing pledge levels and growth targets,” and, in line with this conclusion, said his government was launching third-party audits of “select municipalities” to get a factual understanding of their finances, including reserve funds and development charge administration.

In responses to concerns about infrastructure dollars that Bill 23 would take away from municipalities — potentially as much as $1 billion annually for Ontario’s 29 largest cities, AMO calculated — the provincial government has repeatedly pointed to the amount of money cities have accumulated from these charges and have yet to spend.

In one response to questions from this newspaper about Bill 23, the housing ministry noted Ottawa’s development charge reserve balances were $724 million at the end of 2021, and it estimated cities across the province had $9 billion in unspent development-charge reserves.

To Kitchissippi Ward Coun. Jeff Leiper, it’s part of a continued suggestion by the province that cities are “somehow treating development charges as slush funds,” and it reflects either “a factual misunderstanding about what development charges are or an obtuse political point that is not useful.”

The province has yet to confirm whether Ottawa will be among those cities audited, but it says the results of the exercise will allow municipalities and the province to “get the facts, make improvements and better serve taxpayers by exploring alternative tools for growth to appropriately pay for growth rather than continuing to raise development fees on new homebuyers.”

It’s an open question what such tools could look like and how exactly the province will make sure cities are kept whole.

For some city councillors who’ve been highly engaged on Bill 23, Clark’s letter isn’t nearly enough to put their concerns to rest.

“It can’t be just a handout from the province,” Stittsville Coun. Glen Gower said. “There are some aggressive targets that the province is looking for on housing growth. We need certainty around how the infrastructure is going to be paid for.”

Gower also objects to Ottawa being lumped in with other municipalities when it comes to development charges. While Ottawa is the second-largest city in the province, Herweyer has said it ranks 45th when it comes to development charge rates. The city charges $43,706 for a single-detached unit outside the Greenbelt and $36,882 inside.

Whatever alternative to development charges is arrived at for funding infrastructure to support growth, Leiper fears it will be subject to political budget considerations, which can change with governments and economic circumstances, in a way that development charges are far less open to influence by.

“So even though it’s encouraging that Queen’s Park has heard the message, I think loud and clear from municipalities, this is potentially a devastating revenue loss,” Leiper said. “The mechanism that they are proposing, as far as I can make out, would rely on the largesse of Queen’s Park to continue for the foreseeable future.”

Part of Wednesday’s motion, moved by Leiper and seconded by Orléans West-Innes Coun. Laura Dudas, directed city staff to “publicize the financial impacts of Bill 23 and outline the impact on specific capital projects that will need to be deferred or delayed in each ward.”

Herweyer told council that frequently asked questions and answers about Bill 23 would be posted on the city’s public engagement website, Engage.Ottawa.ca.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...p-cities-whole
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #797  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2023, 2:53 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
We're starting to see the fallout for the GTA. Will Ottawa taxpayers get hammered as well?

Quote:
Property tax hikes loom in wake of provincial housing rule changes, GTA municipalities warn
A third of GTA municipalities say they plan to raise property taxes to cope with development charge loss

Michael Smee · CBC News
Posted: Jan 09, 2023 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 1 hour ago


New cuts to the fees that local councils can levy against home builders could have a major impact on property taxes in parts of the GTA, a new survey by CBC News has found, with one municipality saying property taxes could more than double.

Late last year, the provincial government passed Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, which eliminates some fees that municipalities charge to developers in exchange for the right to build certain types of homes — money that municipalities say they rely on to provide things like roads and sewers, public transit, parks and libraries.

CBC News polled all 25 municipal governments in the Greater Toronto Area Dec. 15 and 16, asking how much money they'll lose by not collecting the development charges and how much they believe they'll have to hike property taxes in the years ahead to make ends meet.

The bulk of those municipalities say it's still unclear how they'll contend with the dramatic loss of revenue.

"Obviously we're in a bit of a bind," Aurora Mayor Tom Mrakas said. "That's what I'm hearing from other municipalities too."

He said he's looking at a potential six per cent property tax hike in the year ahead, or cuts to services to help make up for a predicted revenue shortfall of $29 million over the next 10 years.

Of the GTA municipalities polled, seven either didn't respond, or sent auto-replies promising follow-up that hasn't yet arrived. Another 10 told CBC News they are still crunching the numbers and haven't yet arrived at a potential tax hike.

But the remaining eight — Aurora, Brampton, East Gwillimbury, Mississauga, Newmarket, Toronto, Vaughan and Whitchurch-Stoufville — all reported detailed estimates of the losses they face, and the tax hikes they're considering to make up the difference.

Those tax hikes ranged more than 100 per cent in East Gwillimbury to as low of five to 15 per cent in Newmarket.

When it introduced the bill last month, the Conservative government said its aim was to help reach its target of seeing 1.5 million new homes built in the next 10 years. By eliminating the development fees municipalities can charge for affordable homes — those that are 80 per cent of the market average or less — the province believes it can spur developers to build more homes at a cheaper cost to buyers.

Municipal Affairs Minister Steven Clark has accused municipalities like Toronto of storing the development charges in reserve funds, rather than spending them on community improvements, and by jacking up development fees to exorbitant levels.

"In parts of the GTA, for instance, development charges rose by more than 600 per cent in the last 13 years," Clark wrote in a November op-ed in the Toronto Star.

"Toronto alone has proposed another 46 per cent increase over the next two years — even as the city sits on a development charge reserve fund of more than $2.3 billion. In fact, the province estimates that municipalities across Ontario have about $9 billion in unspent development charge reserves."

But some GTA politicians dispute that.

"What we don't do is treat the development charges we take in as some sort of a piggy bank, where you can just go and take the college education fund of your children and spend it on a trip," Toronto Mayor John Tory told CBC News.

"We set aside the money that in some cases we're legally required to set aside by provincial legislation ... and the rest of it is set aside because there are projects that we collected that money for, to build a sewer here or a park there. To spend it before you've even built the project on something else would be not responsible."

Tory also said he's holding the province to its word, when it says the city will be made "whole" should development charges drop so low that it cannot maintain basic infrastructure, as Clark has told the city.

CBC asked Clark for his response to GTA politicians who maintain they'll have to raise taxes and/or cut services in order to make ends meet once the development charges on affordable units are eliminated.

"To be clear, this doesn't mean that municipalities won't get revenue from a new home build," Clark spokesperson Victoria Podbielski said in an email. "It means that home ownership won't keep moving further out of reach for Ontarians because of increased fees that add thousands to the price of a home."

However, some municipalities argue it won't necessarily make home ownership any easier, because residents can expect to face higher property taxes as local councils struggle to make up for the lost fees.

Mayor Virginia Hackson of East Gwillimbury, a town that's seen rapid population growth in recent years and estimates property taxes will jump more than 100 per cent, called the move by the province "egregious and insulting" in a press release and said rather than push down house prices it will only "transfer the cost of growth from developers to residents."

"We urge the province to repeal all provisions of the Act pertaining to development charges," the mayor said in the release.

In Burlington, whose staff have not yet calculated the necessary tax hike, Mayor Marianne Meed Ward said there's no guarantee that developers' savings will be passed on to home buyers.

The province's move "will devastate municipal finances and our ability to fund things such as parks, community centres, transit — all the amenities a growing community needs. Those costs will be shifted from for-profit developers to taxpayers," the mayor said.

"We'll show that as a line item on your next tax bill."

The survey responses indicated that while residents in East Gwillimbury could be hardest hit, other municipalities are also predicting steep hikes:

The City of Vaughan is predicting annual losses of between $169 million and $174 million, and a property tax increase of between 77 and 88 per cent.

Whitchurch-Stouffville is predicting losses of $19.6 million over five years, and tax hikes totalling 52.3 per cent over four years, starting with a 20.3 per cent jump in 2024.

Newmarket residents can expect to see their property taxes go up between five and 15 per cent, according to staff.

MIssissauga expects to lose about $1 billion in revenues forcing an eight to 10 percent jump in property taxes. Staff there say that will add about $500 to the average tax bill on a house worth about $730,000, plus an additional $180 on residents' water bills.

Brampton staff say Bill 23 will cost the city about $440 million in lost development charges and a property tax increase of at least nine per cent.

Both Aurora and Toronto may be facing property tax increases of about six per cent, according to staff in those two municipalities.

Provincewide, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has said the changes to development charges will leave communities short $5 billion and see taxpayers footing the bill, either in the form of higher property taxes or service cuts.

Aurora's Mrakas says it will likely be a bit of both.

"It's probably going to be more of a slight [increase] in taxes and a slight cut in services.... Ultimately we would have to look at something like sidewalk clearing when it comes to snow removal."

Clark insists that the changes are necessary. In a November letter to the Association of Ontario Municipalities, he wrote "municipal fees and taxes currently add an average of $116,900 to the cost of a single-family home in the Greater Toronto Area before a single shovel is in the ground. That's the size of a down payment for many families, and puts the dream of homeownership out of reach for thousands of Ontarians."

Dave Wilkes, CEO of the Building Industry and Land Development Association of the GTA, or BILD, agreed that developers add development charges into the price of a home.

But he cautioned prospective home buyers should not expect miracles when those charges are reduced or capped.

"It took years to get us into this situation. I don't think we're going to see overnight change in the cost of housing or the stabilization of the cost of housing, he said. "But when any input cost is reduced, that will work its way through the system."

It's not yet clear when any tax changes would take effect; that would depend on the budgets approved by each municipal council. Some municipalities are suggesting 2023, and others the following year.

With files from Ryan Jones

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...rvey-1.6706263
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #798  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2023, 3:26 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 27,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
We're starting to see the fallout for the GTA. Will Ottawa taxpayers get hammered as well?
Sutcliffe seems like more of a cuts kind of guy. Raising taxes would be unpopular with his suburban base.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #799  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2023, 5:04 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Sutcliffe seems like more of a cuts kind of guy. Raising taxes would be unpopular with his suburban base.
He is absolutely a cuts kind of guy, and the cuts are coming.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #800  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2023, 11:03 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,836
Oh dear.

The same people who are very concerned about the WEF using 5G George Soros Dominion Voting Machines to activate the Chinese Communist Bill Gates-approved mind-control technology in the COVID vaccines in order to make us all eat insects, have decided to become very concerned about "fifteen-minute cities".
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:09 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.