[Silence&Motion]

As someone in the industry, I can say that the shift you mentioned has not yet taken place. The Greenbelt and Place to Grow are very much needed, as developers are very capable of continuing greenfield development despite progressive policies from suburban municipalities who've "seen the light".
An example is Waterloo Region. They've seen the light with progressive land use policies, light rail transit and a number of initiatives used for attracting development in their urban cores (which has been working!). In come the traditional home buildings, who appeal the Region's OP and win! The Region has now taken the OMB to court.

I think this proves that the Greenbelt and Places to Grow should remain in place, and must be strengthened. Without it, we can really say goodbye to greenfields in this province.

This!!! Axing the Places to Grow policy would be an absolute disaster and has always been my greatest fear with regard to the PCs taking back power.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I can see Greater Toronto at 10 or 11 million people if places to grow disappears. We don't have the infrastructure for that.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Places to grow doesn't restrict population growth.. Toronto will get to 10 or 11 million people eventually regardless. What it does do is prevent sprawl, allowing for transit infrastructure to become more viable.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Places to grow doesn't restrict population growth.. Toronto will get to 10 or 11 million people eventually regardless. What it does do is prevent sprawl, allowing for transit infrastructure to become more viable.

A couple of years ago Peel and York were complaining that Simcoe was getting to build more new houses and they couldn't because of places to grow.

 

[Hipster Duck]

As someone in the industry, I can say that the shift you mentioned has not yet taken place. The Greenbelt and Place to Grow are very much needed, as developers are very capable of continuing greenfield development despite progressive policies from suburban municipalities who've "seen the light".
An example is Waterloo Region. They've seen the light with progressive land use policies, light rail transit and a number of initiatives used for attracting development in their urban cores (which has been working!). In come the traditional home buildings, who appeal the Region's OP and win! The Region has now taken the OMB to court.

I think this proves that the Greenbelt and Places to Grow should remain in place, and must be strengthened. Without it, we can really say goodbye to greenfields in this province.

I trust your judgement on this, especially in KW (I'm sure developers are still oriented toward low density sprawl growth there). However, I think there's too much momentum toward condo infill in Toronto and the inner 905 to ever have development turn overwhelmingly toward sprawl-based construction. Changes in preferences, demographics, gas prices and, yes, even some transit expansion here and there are really eating into the viability of far-out suburbia.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Thats not to say that suburbia wouldn't see a major increase in development, The demand for SFH in Toronto right now is incredible, if you drop the restrictions creating those prices you will see a huge flow of development to meet that demand. you won't see a return to 1990's style sprawl only, but I would expect to see a large shift back to SFHs.

 

[MisterF]

A couple of years ago Peel and York were complaining that Simcoe was getting to build more new houses and they couldn't because of places to grow.

This is interesting because growth in Barrie and Simcoe slowed dramatically after 2006. That's not to say that the Greenbelt and Places to Grow are responsible for that, but it shows that they didn't accelerate growth beyond the Greenbelt, at least not to the extent predicted.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

This is interesting because growth in Barrie and Simcoe slowed dramatically after 2006. That's not to say that the Greenbelt and Places to Grow are responsible for that, but it shows that they didn't accelerate growth beyond the Greenbelt, at least not to the extent predicted.

I agree. I think they were just talking to talk, but I have to say the suburbs would love to get rid of places to grow. I don't though. Building and sustaining is more important then anything.

 

[TFC]

I trust your judgement on this, especially in KW (I'm sure developers are still oriented toward low density sprawl growth there). However, I think there's too much momentum toward condo infill in Toronto and the inner 905 to ever have development turn overwhelmingly toward sprawl-based construction. Changes in preferences, demographics, gas prices and, yes, even some transit expansion here and there are really eating into the viability of far-out suburbia.

That's true. I think Places to Grow and the Greenbelt were put in place largely to address municipalities that are still capable of greenfield development (Toronto is a different beast with little to no greenfields left, and Mississauga is almost fully built out, if not fully built out already).

I agree. I think they were just talking to talk, but I have to say the suburbs would love to get rid of places to grow. I don't though. Building and sustaining is more important then anything.

I think this should be changed to "developers would love to get rid of places to grow". Based on my experience, municipal officials already know the long term costs of sprawl (having to essentially rebuild all of the infrastructure that's being built right now, in 20-30 years from now). I think the officials know that roads/sewers etc. that are currently being built by developers, will have to be rebuilt by the municipality. Often times it's the politicians who approve suburban greenfield development because they see it as municipal revenue being brought in during their term as councillor/mayor. Some/most fail to think of the long-term financial implications for their decisions.

It is because of what I mentioned above, that I am worried about Mississauga and their long-term financial situation. Hopefully development charges and other revenues from condos and apartments will keep the city's finances in check, and lessen the blow when a lot of low-density infrastructure is due to be replaced. Same goes for most of the municipalities in Ontario.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

That's true. I think Places to Grow and the Greenbelt were put in place largely to address municipalities that are still capable of greenfield development (Toronto is a different beast with little to no greenfields left, and Mississauga is almost fully built out, if not fully built out already).




I think this should be changed to "developers would love to get rid of places to grow". Based on my experience, municipal officials already know the long term costs of sprawl (having to essentially rebuild all of the infrastructure that's being built right now, in 20-30 years from now). I think the officials know that roads/sewers etc. that are currently being built by developers, will have to be rebuilt by the municipality. Often times it's the politicians who approve suburban greenfield development because they see it as municipal revenue being brought in during their term as councillor/mayor. Some/most fail to think of the long-term financial implications for their decisions.

It is because of what I mentioned above, that I am worried about Mississauga and their long-term financial situation. Hopefully development charges and other revenues from condos and apartments will keep the city's finances in check, and lessen the blow when a lot of low-density infrastructure is due to be replaced. Same goes for most of the municipalities in Ontario.

Yes, I should have said great gulf and them. But go into detail on Mississauga? What's going on?

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Yes, I should have said great gulf and them. But go into detail on Mississauga? What's going on?

Missisauga coasted for a long, long time on development charges and took great pride in not going into debt. As they approached build-out, they finally hit the wall maybe 2 or 3 years ago. Now they are going deeper into debt each year. Someone out that way can clarify but while Toronto is bitching about a 1.75% tax increase vs. 2.5%, I believe Mississauga is looking at something like 6.7%. And they're paying more than the 416 is already. And it's going to keep going that way for the foreseeable future.

We may be getting off-thread but, yeah, I think it went under the radar for some people that Hudak, between the lines, suggested ditching regional planning almost entirely. saying that local municipalities should get to direct growth while also suggesting that the province should upload the TTC strike me as counter-productive. What's the philosophy behind this? If you're trying to create a more REGIONAL plan for transit, why would you erode the REGIONAL growth plan?

I don't think they were put in place just for places that have greenfields. Richmond Hill, Aurora, Mississauga and Newmarket are all pretty much built out and they're all still undertaking (to varying degrees) intensification efforts. I don't think "The suburbs" would love to get rid of Places to Grow. Markham was doing "Places to Grow" before it even existed and Mississauga has realized it's a necessity. Vaughan or Barrie and others may be more hit and miss but we shouldn't generalize about "the suburbs."

Places to Grow isn't perfect but it was a MASSIVE step forward after the laissez faire stuff that went on during the Harris era. And let's not forget, FWIW, it was Harris who actually got the ball rolling with the Oak Ridges Moraine legislation and then the smart growth panels that lead to Places to Grow. To go back to something before that is scary. As someone said above, it doesn't restrict growth, i merely directs it.

I guess my point is that Hudak doesn't really know what he's doing and while he may be great if you think you're paying too much in taxes, or if you think the Liberals are corrupt or whatever, I see no evidence he has a better plan than they do when it comes to planning and building transit for this region.

 

[TFC]

Yes, I should have said great gulf and them. But go into detail on Mississauga? What's going on?

TJ O'Pootertoot's post sums it up well. Municipalities coasting on development charges, while keeping tax increases unrealistically low over the last couple of decades has been unsustainable IMO. Mississauga, without the constant revenue flow from traditional greenfield developments, will have to resort to higher than average tax increases, as they hadn't done so while the greenfield revenues were still pouring in.

Missisauga coasted for a long, long time on development charges and took great pride in not going into debt. As they approached build-out, they finally hit the wall maybe 2 or 3 years ago. Now they are going deeper into debt each year. Someone out that way can clarify but while Toronto is bitching about a 1.75% tax increase vs. 2.5%, I believe Mississauga is looking at something like 6.7%. And they're paying more than the 416 is already. And it's going to keep going that way for the foreseeable future.

I think that percentage also incorporates the tax increase from the Region of Peel, as well as the City.

In an attempt to get back on topic, I believe that Hudak's plan is poorly thought out, particularly about scraping the Greenbelt plan and Places to Grow Act because those two documents keep sprawl in check. It will ensure that we don't continue adding unsustainable amounts of subdivisions to our cities, which will have long term financial consequences for our municipalities. What does Hudak seek to achieve by scraping the Greenbelt and Places to Grow? Elimination of red tape? Loosening investment rules so that developers can do as they please, at the peril of municipalities' long term fiscal health? If I were Hudak,

If anything, you'd think Conservatives would want to keep the Greenbelt and Places to Grow, as they allow for greater intensification of land, greater maximization of infrastructure, and prevention of long-term economically unsustainable sprawl. We should be learning from our planning past of suburban sprawl. The Greenbelt and Places to Grow were two pieces of legislation that were implemented to prevent the past from repeating itself, despite their flaws.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Missisauga coasted for a long, long time on development charges and took great pride in not going into debt. As they approached build-out, they finally hit the wall maybe 2 or 3 years ago. Now they are going deeper into debt each year. Someone out that way can clarify but while Toronto is bitching about a 1.75% tax increase vs. 2.5%, I believe Mississauga is looking at something like 6.7%. And they're paying more than the 416 is already. And it's going to keep going that way for the foreseeable future.

We may be getting off-thread but, yeah, I think it went under the radar for some people that Hudak, between the lines, suggested ditching regional planning almost entirely. saying that local municipalities should get to direct growth while also suggesting that the province should upload the TTC strike me as counter-productive. What's the philosophy behind this? If you're trying to create a more REGIONAL plan for transit, why would you erode the REGIONAL growth plan?

I don't think they were put in place just for places that have greenfields. Richmond Hill, Aurora, Mississauga and Newmarket are all pretty much built out and they're all still undertaking (to varying degrees) intensification efforts. I don't think "The suburbs" would love to get rid of Places to Grow. Markham was doing "Places to Grow" before it even existed and Mississauga has realized it's a necessity. Vaughan or Barrie and others may be more hit and miss but we shouldn't generalize about "the suburbs."

Places to Grow isn't perfect but it was a MASSIVE step forward after the laissez faire stuff that went on during the Harris era. And let's not forget, FWIW, it was Harris who actually got the ball rolling with the Oak Ridges Moraine legislation and then the smart growth panels that lead to Places to Grow. To go back to something before that is scary. As someone said above, it doesn't restrict growth, i merely directs it.

I guess my point is that Hudak doesn't really know what he's doing and while he may be great if you think you're paying too much in taxes, or if you think the Liberals are corrupt or whatever, I see no evidence he has a better plan than they do when it comes to planning and building transit for this region.

TJ O'Pootertoot's post sums it up well. Municipalities coasting on development charges, while keeping tax increases unrealistically low over the last couple of decades has been unsustainable IMO. Mississauga, without the constant revenue flow from traditional greenfield developments, will have to resort to higher than average tax increases, as they hadn't done so while the greenfield revenues were still pouring in.



I think that percentage also incorporates the tax increase from the Region of Peel, as well as the City.

In an attempt to get back on topic, I believe that Hudak's plan is poorly thought out, particularly about scraping the Greenbelt plan and Places to Grow Act because those two documents keep sprawl in check. It will ensure that we don't continue adding unsustainable amounts of subdivisions to our cities, which will have long term financial consequences for our municipalities. What does Hudak seek to achieve by scraping the Greenbelt and Places to Grow? Elimination of red tape? Loosening investment rules so that developers can do as they please, at the peril of municipalities' long term fiscal health? If I were Hudak,

If anything, you'd think Conservatives would want to keep the Greenbelt and Places to Grow, as they allow for greater intensification of land, greater maximization of infrastructure, and prevention of long-term economically unsustainable sprawl. We should be learning from our planning past of suburban sprawl. The Greenbelt and Places to Grow were two pieces of legislation that were implemented to prevent the past from repeating itself, despite their flaws.

Thanks for the info. I see we have some bad city planning here once again. To wrap this up, I will say instead of scrapping places to grow, why not offer tax breaks for condos, etc.


For this plan. It's not all bad. But it does not do anything for people living north of Yonge Sheppard. Or east of STC.

 

[Rainforest]

We may be getting off-thread but, yeah, I think it went under the radar for some people that Hudak, between the lines, suggested ditching regional planning almost entirely. saying that local municipalities should get to direct growth while also suggesting that the province should upload the TTC strike me as counter-productive. What's the philosophy behind this? If you're trying to create a more REGIONAL plan for transit, why would you erode the REGIONAL growth plan?

Very good observation! Such combination in Hudak's plan does not make any sense.

Maybe the two sections were written by two groups of planners, and they do not talk to each other ...

 

[TFC]

Thanks for the info. I see we have some bad city planning here once again. To wrap this up, I will say instead of scrapping places to grow, why not offer tax breaks for condos, etc.


For this plan. It's not all bad. But it does not do anything for people living north of Yonge Sheppard. Or east of STC.

This may not necessarily be the case. The structure of the Planning Act and OMB does not allow for enough time for planners to fully review development applications (try reviewing a full subdivision and all of its components in 180 days, on top of your other workload), which then opens up the option for the developer to appeal to the OMB. To put it in layman's terms, a lot of communities have been planned at the OMB due to their application not being approved within 180 days of its submission. As a result, the lawyers for the municipality and the lawyers for the developer essentially hash out details and make compromises regarding the development. The city planners don't actually get to plan much, as much of the work gets done at the OMB.
I really doubt Hudak will address OMB and Planning Act reform, as it would be seen as additional "red tape" to business.