A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
From the Post:
We need to campaign on a dull issue
Karen Stintz Commentary, National Post
Published: Thursday, May 04, 2006
At this time in the 2003 municipal campaign, Toronto had four highly credible candidates for Mayor and debates were happening seemingly every week. In early May of that year, few voters would have guessed that David Miller's rallying cry of ''no island airport bridge'' would carry the day.
Now we find ourselves facing a smaller field for the office of Mayor and one wonders what the next ''wedge'' issue may be. Again, few voters would say city planning is the issue to watch, but it would certainly be an interesting mayoralty race to watch if it was.
If we are so fortunate, the challenge to the mayoralty candidates will not just be to articulate their position, but also to do so in a way that lays out a compelling vision for our great city. Planning is not the most exciting topic for a campaign, but it is arguably one of the most critical functions that a city government can tackle.
Unfortunately, the only thing that city planners, developers and residents would agree on is that the current planning process is so dysfunctional it threatens the growth of our city and the implementation of the Official Plan.
We find ourselves with a process that actually requires developers to submit applications to the city that are well in excess of the heights and densities permitted by the zoning bylaws. If a developer submitted an application that conformed to every zoning bylaw we have on the books, the city planners would reject it outright because the application would not be high enough or dense enough.
Following the trumped-up submission is a public consultation process whereby the neighbourhood is asked what they think of the proposal. The neighbourhood usually responds that the application stinks. The neighbourhood is then informed that the Ontario Municipal Board will decide in favour of the developers anyway so the community should just be grateful there were a few benefits thrown in.
What comes next is predictable: Developers are wrongly vilified, neighbourhood associations form to fight the proposal, charges of NIMBYism fly, politicians who agree with the development are branded as dealmakers and the ones that agree with their constituents are called panderers. Cynicism continues to grow. Inevitably the neighbourhood loses and, in a way, the city as a whole loses.
This scenario replays itself constantly throughout the city.
The residents correctly ask why zoning bylaws are guidelines for height and density and not actual limits on what can be built where. Speed limits aren't guidelines, parking bylaws aren't guidelines and the smoking bylaws are certainly not guidelines. They ask themselves: ''Why are zoning bylaws any different?''
The answer is politicians have historically preferred it this way. By keeping the zoning bylaws artificially low, politicians can insert themselves into the planning process. Developers are forced to apply for a zoning change, and all zoning changes are approved by city council. When a zoning change is approved, there is a requirement for a cash dispensation in the form of a community benefit. Using developer money, politicians are able to finance initiatives such as public art, community centres and transit passes.
While there may have been a point in our city's history that this process worked, that time has most certainly passed.
The process is too unpredictable for developers and too antagonistic to residents and neighbourhoods. The rules of the game are unclear with little or no transparency.
So, a question for whoever hopes to be Mayor is just that: What will you do to help bring transparency and openness to the planning process?
The only thing standing in the way of this change is political will. Politicians would have to approve new rules and then delegate authority to planning staff. Councillors would give up their ability to influence individual applications, but we would bring a great deal of integrity to the planning process that it currently lacks.
I know neighbourhood groups and associations would be in favour of rules-based planning. I can also imagine that developers would jump for joy if the politicians were no longer involved in individual applications.
Finding the balance for flexibility within a framework will be the challenge for whoever wears the Chain of Office in 2008 and beyond.
_________________________________________________
Hmm, I wonder what Karen Stintz's position on changing the zoning by-laws in the Y+E area is, with respect to the present plan and densities?
Those who live in glass houses...
AoD
We need to campaign on a dull issue
Karen Stintz Commentary, National Post
Published: Thursday, May 04, 2006
At this time in the 2003 municipal campaign, Toronto had four highly credible candidates for Mayor and debates were happening seemingly every week. In early May of that year, few voters would have guessed that David Miller's rallying cry of ''no island airport bridge'' would carry the day.
Now we find ourselves facing a smaller field for the office of Mayor and one wonders what the next ''wedge'' issue may be. Again, few voters would say city planning is the issue to watch, but it would certainly be an interesting mayoralty race to watch if it was.
If we are so fortunate, the challenge to the mayoralty candidates will not just be to articulate their position, but also to do so in a way that lays out a compelling vision for our great city. Planning is not the most exciting topic for a campaign, but it is arguably one of the most critical functions that a city government can tackle.
Unfortunately, the only thing that city planners, developers and residents would agree on is that the current planning process is so dysfunctional it threatens the growth of our city and the implementation of the Official Plan.
We find ourselves with a process that actually requires developers to submit applications to the city that are well in excess of the heights and densities permitted by the zoning bylaws. If a developer submitted an application that conformed to every zoning bylaw we have on the books, the city planners would reject it outright because the application would not be high enough or dense enough.
Following the trumped-up submission is a public consultation process whereby the neighbourhood is asked what they think of the proposal. The neighbourhood usually responds that the application stinks. The neighbourhood is then informed that the Ontario Municipal Board will decide in favour of the developers anyway so the community should just be grateful there were a few benefits thrown in.
What comes next is predictable: Developers are wrongly vilified, neighbourhood associations form to fight the proposal, charges of NIMBYism fly, politicians who agree with the development are branded as dealmakers and the ones that agree with their constituents are called panderers. Cynicism continues to grow. Inevitably the neighbourhood loses and, in a way, the city as a whole loses.
This scenario replays itself constantly throughout the city.
The residents correctly ask why zoning bylaws are guidelines for height and density and not actual limits on what can be built where. Speed limits aren't guidelines, parking bylaws aren't guidelines and the smoking bylaws are certainly not guidelines. They ask themselves: ''Why are zoning bylaws any different?''
The answer is politicians have historically preferred it this way. By keeping the zoning bylaws artificially low, politicians can insert themselves into the planning process. Developers are forced to apply for a zoning change, and all zoning changes are approved by city council. When a zoning change is approved, there is a requirement for a cash dispensation in the form of a community benefit. Using developer money, politicians are able to finance initiatives such as public art, community centres and transit passes.
While there may have been a point in our city's history that this process worked, that time has most certainly passed.
The process is too unpredictable for developers and too antagonistic to residents and neighbourhoods. The rules of the game are unclear with little or no transparency.
So, a question for whoever hopes to be Mayor is just that: What will you do to help bring transparency and openness to the planning process?
The only thing standing in the way of this change is political will. Politicians would have to approve new rules and then delegate authority to planning staff. Councillors would give up their ability to influence individual applications, but we would bring a great deal of integrity to the planning process that it currently lacks.
I know neighbourhood groups and associations would be in favour of rules-based planning. I can also imagine that developers would jump for joy if the politicians were no longer involved in individual applications.
Finding the balance for flexibility within a framework will be the challenge for whoever wears the Chain of Office in 2008 and beyond.
_________________________________________________
Hmm, I wonder what Karen Stintz's position on changing the zoning by-laws in the Y+E area is, with respect to the present plan and densities?
Those who live in glass houses...
AoD