Northern Light
Superstar
76? You don't seem a day over 59!
****
Also, I get calls from pollsters probably once every couple of months, on the landline, which I keep for business, typically around dinner time.
|
|
|
- Thread starter animatronic
- Start date
76? You don't seem a day over 59!
****
Also, I get calls from pollsters probably once every couple of months, on the landline, which I keep for business, typically around dinner time.
old boy
Senior Member
Thanks. Flattery will get you everywhere, haha.
I have frequently received phone polls about elections, politicians, etc.
Thinker
Active Member
Pffffttt I am 75, wasn't asked either.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Question. Do the Ford Tories spend more on transit than the Wynne Liberals did? This government has committed to a $70B+ transit plan over the next 10 years. Did transit spending ever get that high under Wynne or McGuinty?
Northern Light
Superstar
The 2018 Liberal budget claims 79B for Transit over 10 years:
Chapter II: Growing the Economy and Creating Good Jobs | Ontario.ca
2018 Ontario Budget: Chapter II: Growing the Economy and Creating Good Jobs
budget.ontario.ca
* note the graphic there is terrible as it conflates a 14-year plan that started 4 years earlier and a 10-year plan with distinct numbers; but I am citing the 10-year forward promise in the numbers.
Thinking better of it, I'll bring forward the graphic:
afransen
Senior Member
The Liberals did talk a lot about transit funding but seemed to slow-roll actually committing to and delivering anything. They dithered quite a lot on GO electrification.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I'm wondering how much the Liberals actually spent while in office. I'm trying to get an idea of who is actually building more. Because I remember the dithering too. Meanwhile, Ford can actually claim credit for getting major international transit developers like DB and FCC involved with GO RER. Not sure they'd be here with the kind of dithering we saw from Wynne.
Northern Light
Superstar
In order to look at $ out the door, one needs to review the public accounts which are published mid-year following the preceding fiscal year.
That means we can't look 2023-2024 yet.
So I looked back at 2018 again and at 2022-2023.
In the Annual Reports, which don't include line items, Transit and Transportation {primarily highways) are grouped together.
The 2018 number was 6.1B out the door that year.
While the 2022 number was 8.5B out the door.
I can find a graph in the latter though, that shows the incremental increase in Transportation Fixed Asset value from 2018 to 2022:
I found the same graph from the Liberal 2018 numbers looking backwards to 2014:
We'd have to extract the highway numbers out to get a solid look at transit; but my sense from the above is that incremental spending increase was probably similar between the two gov'ts (Wynne) and (Ford) though, the Liberal show sharper numbers in their year 1 for sure and maybe their year 3, while the number slows markedly in the last year. Though the latter was actually Doug Ford's decision, (indicated in the docs).
From those docs:
****
Something to weigh in terms of spending impact is to consider the non-residential construction inflation during the periods in question.
Black line is non-res.
Looking at those, both governments faced similar'ish rates of inflation~2% for the first several years. But Ford's gov't since 2020 has faced inflation that is much higher in the construction sector.
Public Accounts: 2018:
Public Accounts 2018-19: Annual report
The annual report is a high-level summary of the fiscal year’s results. It includes financial statements, analyzes the state of the province’s finances and outlines achievements for the fiscal year. Download PDF
Public Accounts: 2022:
Public Accounts 2022–23: Annual report
The annual report is a high-level summary of the fiscal year’s results. It includes financial statements, analyzes the state of the Ontario government’s finances and outlines achievements for the fiscal year. Download PDF
123GTA123
New Member
Liberal MP Adil Shamji is expected to introduce a private members bill allowing Fourplex's to be built up to four storeys on any Residental lot or parcel without Municipal Approval. Furthermore, there is no restrictions on FAR or requirement on Parking Spaces.
This falls in line with Ford's Housing Task Force's Recommendation to remove municipal restrictions which includes the following
(https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-housing-affordability-task-force-report-en-2022-02-07-v2.pdf)
"Allow “as of right” residential housing up to four units and up to four storeys on a single residential lot."
Ford thinks his own task force recommendation's are ridiculous and doesn't approve of this idea.
“I can assure you 1,000 per cent, you go into communities and start putting up four-storey, six-storey, eight-storey buildings right deep into communities, there’s going to be a lot of shouting and screaming,” Ford said.
“We are not going to go into communities and build four-storey or six-storey buildings beside residents.”
globalnews.ca
toronto.ctvnews.ca
----
I personally find it somewhat unreasonable that there is hesitation or resistance to the idea of allowing more dense building developments in residential neighborhoods. I am strongly in favor of creating high-density communities, featuring a mix of urban townhomes and mid-to-high-rise condominiums, as I believe these are essential to addressing the housing crisis. However, these types of projects are highly capital-intensive and take a significant amount of time to develop, limiting them to a few select developers. Allowing residential lots to be transformed into fourplexs provide larger access to developers and can increase housing starts in my opinion because of lower capital costs as well as the speed to complete these projects.
Couple of key things though, since there are no restrictions on FAR what exactly does this entail? This change is likely to grant developers significant flexibility in their construction plans. However, there still will be some practical limitations, such as infrastructure capacities and existing zoning laws, that might still influence building designs. No FAR restrictions would still allow municipalities to implement other measures to ensure neighbourhood cohesiveness and orderly development. I would appreciate further clarification on this aspect.
As for the lack of parking requirements, I view this as manageable. Realistically, developers will probably still include some parking solutions or decide to build near transit hubs.
This falls in line with Ford's Housing Task Force's Recommendation to remove municipal restrictions which includes the following
(https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-housing-affordability-task-force-report-en-2022-02-07-v2.pdf)
"Allow “as of right” residential housing up to four units and up to four storeys on a single residential lot."
Ford thinks his own task force recommendation's are ridiculous and doesn't approve of this idea.
“I can assure you 1,000 per cent, you go into communities and start putting up four-storey, six-storey, eight-storey buildings right deep into communities, there’s going to be a lot of shouting and screaming,” Ford said.
“We are not going to go into communities and build four-storey or six-storey buildings beside residents.”
‘Massive mistake’: Premier Ford rules out Ontario-wide fourplex policy | Globalnews.ca
Doug Ford said a province-wide fourplex policy is 'off the table' for his government after weeks of active discussions at Queen’s Park.
globalnews.ca
Ontario Liberals push for fourplexes in housing bill proposal
The Ontario Liberals will be the latest party to propose legislation that would allow developers and homeowners to build fourplexes.
----
I personally find it somewhat unreasonable that there is hesitation or resistance to the idea of allowing more dense building developments in residential neighborhoods. I am strongly in favor of creating high-density communities, featuring a mix of urban townhomes and mid-to-high-rise condominiums, as I believe these are essential to addressing the housing crisis. However, these types of projects are highly capital-intensive and take a significant amount of time to develop, limiting them to a few select developers. Allowing residential lots to be transformed into fourplexs provide larger access to developers and can increase housing starts in my opinion because of lower capital costs as well as the speed to complete these projects.
Couple of key things though, since there are no restrictions on FAR what exactly does this entail? This change is likely to grant developers significant flexibility in their construction plans. However, there still will be some practical limitations, such as infrastructure capacities and existing zoning laws, that might still influence building designs. No FAR restrictions would still allow municipalities to implement other measures to ensure neighbourhood cohesiveness and orderly development. I would appreciate further clarification on this aspect.
As for the lack of parking requirements, I view this as manageable. Realistically, developers will probably still include some parking solutions or decide to build near transit hubs.
Northern Light
Superstar
If the opposition is strictly to fourplexs, or to rental tenure then that is a problem. But the idea that 8-storey on a side street next to 2st homes is fine is not reasonable, most people would not see it as reasonable, and politicians who vote for it will soon find themselves out of work, replaced by those who will rollback such permissions.
Context matters.
I'm pro-development, pro-density and myself a renter........but one needs some awareness of where the person who bought an SFH is going to be at when you suggest its ok to plunk an 8s building next to them and they aren't on an arterial road either.
I agree w/that much.
You keep using the term 'FAR'.. what are you using that to mean?
****
Additional notes - Four plexes are now legal, as-of-right, in the majority of major urban centres in Ontario, including Toronto. A sweeping provincial bill will affect only those places that have no made such a change and some smaller towns. Its more window-dressing than meaningful.
Last edited:
123GTA123
New Member
I agree as well, but the Bill that's going to be introduced next week is in regards to Fourplexes specifically at four storeys. Ford bringing up an example of a 8 storey unit is an exaggeration since it wouldn't happen and isn't what is even being proposed in the first place.
FAR is referring to Floor Area Ratio.
Thank you for the additional notes section. I knew that Mississauga recently approved it but completely missed out that the Federal Gov funding that's been given to cities recently incentivized these changes. As you mentioned, majority of the GTA has already made these changes so legislation wouldn't really make drastic changes other than to make it official for all of Ontario. I wouldn't say that's a bad thing to apply province wide but this isn't a large policy concern at the end of the day.
smably
Senior Member
I'll admit that I may be an outlier here, but as someone with the immense privilege of owning an SFH in a PMTSA, I would be more than happy to see a few 6- to 8-storey apartments plopped up and down my street.
Northern Light
Superstar
I think its safe to say you are an outlier.
Collingwoodbuildinglover
Active Member
PMSTA? Not sure I know that acronym