News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

We would agree on the need to see a more distributed development pattern.

I'm not sure I can get behind the word scandalous, but that isn't to diminish the seriousness of the concern, rather its me being pedantic about the meaning of the word.

****

As to costs, that's not really accurate.

Property tax on one's home does not decline because there are fewer people living in the home.

So the City's revenues to maintain these areas are roughly constant (but for the general fact that Toronto tax rates for SFH have risen below the rate of inflation most years since amalgamation).

The cost to maintain watermains is not any greater if less water is drawn down, nor is the cost of maintaining a sewer any greater if there are fewer 'flushes' in a home.

The only fixed assets where this is an issue would be schools, as the province pays for schools through enrollment, so as that declines, revenue to maintain the schools declines too.
This supposes that the property tax revenues raised in these neighbourhoods is sufficient to maintain them, which is not typically the case in low density sprawl.
 
I’ll try to find the tweet, but IIRC, Kingston just did a study, and SFH did not “pay its way”. I wonder if that’s true in Toronto. (I hope I’m remembering correctly!)

That will certainly be true some of the time; but not all of the time.

It will depend, on level of taxation, level of service, user-pay/toll options, lot size, tax allocation (how tax is allocated between various use-types as opposed to simply global amount) etc. etc.
 
Question for the well informed here. What's everyone's thoughts on Ministerial Zoning Orders (MZOs)? Do folks think that might be a way to ignore nimbys throughout Toronto and build the type of built form that allow our citizens to find the home right for them? Any cons with MZOs? Do other parties outside the conservatives support MZOs?
 
Question for the well informed here. What's everyone's thoughts on Ministerial Zoning Orders (MZOs)? Do folks think that might be a way to ignore nimbys throughout Toronto and build the type of built form that allow our citizens to find the home right for them? Any cons with MZOs? Do other parties outside the conservatives support MZOs?

MZOs are not needed to amend Official Plans which the province already controls (an Official Plan is signed off by the Minister); and which could be amended in other ways by Ministerial prerogative.

MZOs are essentially the Minister bypassing/overriding the rules.

They have a legitimate place, but its rare. They should be used in circumstances that are extremely urgent, where going through the process would have a materially adverse impact; not routinely for ordinary development.

If the province wants to allow 3-plexes as-of-right, or multi-family housing, as-of-right, it can pass that law/regulation. MZOs are about specific sites/proposals.

Put simply, they are a 'hammer', and over-used, everything else is a nail.

Widespread use would make a mockery of the entire planning process.

Which, to be sure, needs some lampooning and reform; but exceptions to rules by Ministerial fiat.............only sparingly.
 
Last edited:
MZOs are not needed to amend Official Plans which the province already controls (an Official Plan is signed off by the Minister); and which could be amended in other ways that Ministerial prerogative.

MZOs are essentially the Minister bypassing/overriding the rules.

They have a legitimate place, but its rare. They should be used in circumstances that are extremely urgent, where going through the process would have a materially adverse impact; not routinely for ordinary development.

If the province wants to allow 3-plexes as-of-right, or multi-family housing, as-of-right, it can pass that law/regulation. MZOs are about specific sites/proposals.

Put simply, they are a 'hammer', and over-used, everything else is a nail.

Widespread use would make a mockery of the entire planning process.

Which, to be sure, needs some lampooning and reform; but exceptions to rules by Ministerial fiat.............only sparingly.
Ahh okay this is useful info! I wasn't aware that the province could allow 3-plexes or any other built form as-of-right. Are there any parties that have brought this up as a solution? Trying to figure out where to vote and I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere by anyone.
 
Ahh okay this is useful info! I wasn't aware that the province could allow 3-plexes or any other built form as-of-right.

The province binds Municipalities through legislation such as 'The Places to Grow Act'
And through various policies with which cities/towns are to make their Official Plans compliant.
I'm not sure if the regulatory mechanisms already on offer would allow a change by regulation; others may know better.
But certainly it is within the province's legislative purview to simply pass a bill saying 'No Municipality shall prohibit in area where residential zoning is permissible, multi-family housing/multi-residential zoning.'

It can similarly dictate no parking minimums, or 1-storey height limits etc etc.
It can also qualify those .............shall permit except where the design criteria of a Heritage Conservation District designate otherwise .....or w/e.

Better to make systemic change than to have the Minister signing off on arbitrary one-offs.

re there any parties that have brought this up as a solution? Trying to figure out where to vote and I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere by anyone.

Not so far as I am aware; but next years platforms aren't out yet.

I remembered the Green Party's housing policy for next year's platform is in fact out, after I posted this.

I have quoted from it and linked to it below.
 
Last edited:
Ahh okay this is useful info! I wasn't aware that the province could allow 3-plexes or any other built form as-of-right. Are there any parties that have brought this up as a solution? Trying to figure out where to vote and I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere by anyone.

I thought about it for a few seconds..............and I remembered reading the Provincial Green Party's Housing Platform which is out.....................and yes......it does touch on this.

1625767760441.png


Their housing policy paper is here:

 
I'll just tack some news on here that's from California..........seems they are making some, modest progress on permitting intensification.

1631889906567.png
 
This seems to have flown under the radar, but the city is holding its final round of consultations on updates to parking requirements for new development: https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...-of-parking-requirements-for-new-development/

The third of the three meetings will be held tomorrow at 1pm to 3pm. I was at tonight's session and it seemed to be sparsely attended -- probably no more than a half dozen questions and it wrapped up after one hour instead of two.

The good news is that the proposal has evolved from its original June form. Staff are now recommending that parking minimums be removed city-wide, not just in areas close to higher-order transit. In their place will be parking maximums, with the maximum amount depending on the parking policy area, as shown in this map (tightest maximums in the orange/purple areas, somewhere in the middle for the green areas, and least restrictive maximums everywhere else):
Screen Shot 2021-09-28 at 8.59.50 PM.png


Staff expect that some developments will exceed the maximums, but it will now require a negotiation with the city, so there will be more leverage to extract concessions.

The exceptions are visitor parking and accessible parking, for which the minimums will be maintained.

Staff are also proposing doubling the amount of short-term bike parking required in the central part of the city (looks like the Humber to Victoria Park, south of Lawrence -- map is in the presentation slides) but allowing half of the short-term parking to be payment-in-lieu. Those payments could go toward city-built bike initiatives, whether it be bike parking or maybe even more serious infrastructure.

My main quibble with proposed changes is that they are not removing the requirement that existing parking be maintained when changing uses. So existing uses with an over-supply of parking won't be able to easily remove that parking. Apparently they are worried about sudden reductions to the parking supply. Personally, I think we should let the market decide how much parking is enough.

Anyway, the presentation slides are worth a read if you have any interest in parking policy. And please fill out the survey if you care about this stuff! Next step, this is off to the Planning and Housing Committee.
 
Last edited:
This seems to have flown under the radar, but the city is holding its final round of consultations on updates to parking requirements for new development: https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...-of-parking-requirements-for-new-development/

The third of the three meetings will be held tomorrow at 1pm to 3pm. I was at tonight's session and it seemed to be sparsely attended -- probably no more than a half dozen questions and it wrapped up after one hour instead of two.

The good news is that the proposal has evolved from its original June form. Staff are now recommending that parking minimums be removed city-wide, not just in areas close to higher-order transit. In their place will be parking maximums, with the maximum amount depending on the parking policy area, as shown in this map (tightest maximums in the orange/purple areas, somewhere in the middle for the green areas, and least restrictive maximums everywhere else):
View attachment 352064

Staff expect that some developments will exceed the maximums, but it will now require a negotiation with the city, so there will be more leverage to extract concessions.

The exceptions are visitor parking and accessible parking, for which the minimums will be maintained.

Staff are also proposing doubling the amount of short-term bike parking required in the central part of the city (looks like the Humber to Victoria Park, south of Lawrence -- map is in the presentation slides) but allowing half of the short-term parking to be payment-in-lieu. Those payments could go toward city-built bike infrastructure, whether it be city-provided bike parking or maybe even infrastructure.

My main quibble with proposed changes is that they are not removing the requirement that existing parking be maintained when changing uses. So existing uses with an over-supply of parking won't be able to easily remove that parking. Apparently they are worried about sudden reductions to the parking supply. Personally, I think we should let the market decide how much parking is enough.

Anyway, the presentation slides are worth a read if you have any interest in parking policy. And please fill out the survey if you care about this stuff! Next step, this is off to the Planning and Housing Committee.

Ty for posting this; I was aware it was ongoing, but hadn't been keeping up with it.

Excellent synopsis, and really, a lot of positive progress from staff, even if they have a bit further left to go!
 

Back
Top