News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

Yegger said:
  • Section 37 and parkland dedication funds are being eliminated
Click to expand...

Wrong. They are being combined into one consolidated charge along with DCs. Please don't post inaccurate information.

Here is a link to the actual plan. https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-housing-supply-action-plan-en-2019-05-02.pdf

Here is a link to Bill 108: More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 which was Carried on First Reading today. https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-1/bill-108
 
Last edited:
Probably is. But we're talking about an effort to streamline the process, which hopefully entails less back and forth between parties.
 
WislaHD said:
Man, in one fell swoop, DoFo's government has actually done more for affordable housing than the Liberal government ever did. I'll be damned.
Click to expand...

Secondary Suites are only required to be policy in every Ontario municipality because of the Libs and, though uptake has been slow, they also legalized Inclusionary Zoning, which today's changes geographically limit. We also need to see how the 'rent control reforms' shake out. So, you might wanna put that particular horse back in the barn for now.

Don't get me wrong, some of the changes actually cross the line from merely Not-Stupid to Actually Positive but we haven't even seen the legislation yet.
 
heatscore said:
Just saw this. Im guessing this is old news, and this appeal will go to the omb instead?
Click to expand...

I haven’t read anything about the transitional provisions of the new OMB legislation, but I’d assume they’ll be given retrospective effect, given the Minister’s comments about wanting to avoid two systems.

I’d certainly hope so. While retrospective legislation is generally antithetical to the rule of law, it makes little sense in this case to invest the efforts necessary to develop a new LPAT jurisprudence, with all the uncertainty and legal expense that entails, for a small class of cases falling in narrow legislative window.
 
Oh for goodness sake is this government for real? The OMB is exactly how we ended up with situations like Liberty Village, Humber Bay Park, and to a larger extent Milton which are all bursting their seams due to rushed development without adequate infrastructure put in place. Now this government wants to put this trend back into place probably to a more severe extent.

This is the last government that I would trust with making any kind of planning reforms and i'm sure as more details come out, the new legislation will clearly end up favoring developers and cities will be at their mercy.

The only thing i'm waiting for is the inevitable fire sale of provincial property/land that will be on it's way, which will be another disaster on its own.
 
Agreed that the nature of this provincial government is that they will capitalize on vote-buying optics but ignore the finer details in their rush to remake Ontario. Classic bull in a china shop story. But then again, this premier loves to wreck things. The reforms will likely be worse than the horrible status quo they are intended to remedy.
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
Secondary Suites are only required to be policy in every Ontario municipality because of the Libs and, though uptake has been slow, they also legalized Inclusionary Zoning, which today's changes geographically limit. We also need to see how the 'rent control reforms' shake out. So, you might wanna put that particular horse back in the barn for now.

Don't get me wrong, some of the changes actually cross the line from merely Not-Stupid to Actually Positive but we haven't even seen the legislation yet.
Click to expand...
Many municipalities were slow with Secondary Suites, or in cases like Toronto, flat-out refused to allow things such as coach houses in their zoning.

My comment was perhaps tinted by my own ideological lens as I am way more in favour of finding supply-side solutions to the affordability crisis. I am of course weary that changes to other legislation such as inclusionary zoning may reduce potential housing access for peoples are the lower rungs of the income ladder, but simultaneously, all the interventionist policies of the previous government failed to do anything for the lower-middle income percentiles where I think the greatest interventions needed to take place.

The lower-middle or working class is the one being squeezed out to the suburbs by the rising cost of housing in Toronto, and they cannot qualify for the units built under the inclusionary zoning policy tools, or the affordable units provided by non-profits or government agencies. Development charges being dropped for rental units and the legalization of all secondary unit tenures under municipal zoning can lead towards a greater supply of both, and greater access to housing for those classes.
 
WislaHD said:
Many municipalities were slow with Secondary Suites, or in cases like Toronto, flat-out refused to allow things such as coach houses in their zoning.

My comment was perhaps tinted by my own ideological lens as I am way more in favour of finding supply-side solutions to the affordability crisis. I am of course weary that changes to other legislation such as inclusionary zoning may reduce potential housing access for peoples are the lower rungs of the income ladder, but simultaneously, all the interventionist policies of the previous government failed to do anything for the lower-middle income percentiles where I think the greatest interventions needed to take place.

The lower-middle or working class is the one being squeezed out to the suburbs by the rising cost of housing in Toronto, and they cannot qualify for the units built under the inclusionary zoning policy tools, or the affordable units provided by non-profits or government agencies. Development charges being dropped for rental units and the legalization of all secondary unit tenures under municipal zoning can lead towards a greater supply of both, and greater access to housing for those classes.
Click to expand...
These people can't afford the GTA suburbs anymore either. They are leaving the Toronto CMA entirely. The downtown condo boom is masking this fact.
 
WislaHD said:
Many municipalities were slow with Secondary Suites, or in cases like Toronto, flat-out refused to allow things such as coach houses in their zoning.

My comment was perhaps tinted by my own ideological lens as I am way more in favour of finding supply-side solutions to the affordability crisis. I am of course weary that changes to other legislation such as inclusionary zoning may reduce potential housing access for peoples are the lower rungs of the income ladder, but simultaneously, all the interventionist policies of the previous government failed to do anything for the lower-middle income percentiles where I think the greatest interventions needed to take place.

The lower-middle or working class is the one being squeezed out to the suburbs by the rising cost of housing in Toronto, and they cannot qualify for the units built under the inclusionary zoning policy tools, or the affordable units provided by non-profits or government agencies. Development charges being dropped for rental units and the legalization of all secondary unit tenures under municipal zoning can lead towards a greater supply of both, and greater access to housing for those classes.
Click to expand...

Agree.

Inclusionary zoning should be paired with fair compensation for the units built. Income mixing is extremely positive, but the added costs to already out-of-control market unit prices is exactly the wrong way to go.

More work needed, this plan is in no way a total solution for the shortage, but it's many, many steps in the right direction.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top