Automation Gallery
Superstar
'Inclusionary zoning" would zip condo owners
When is enough, enough?
New home buyers are already faced with unaffordable prices, the looming HST, which will jack up the price of all real estate transactions, and, in Toronto, the double whammy of the city’s own land-transfer tax added to the provincial tax.
But, wait, there could be more.
Come May, NDP MPP Cherri DiNovo (Parkale-High Park) will re-introduce her private member’s bill that calls for “inclusionary zoning.â€
If adopted, the legislation would alter the provincial Planning Act and allow municipalities to require all new home and condo developers to set aside a percentage of units for affordable housing.
That means new home buyers will be asked to subsidize the affordable units in their condos and neighbourhoods.
Di Novo calls it a “novel idea†that will not cost any tax dollars.
Excuse me? Why shouldn’t affordable housing come from our tax dollars? Affordable housing should be the responsibility of the federal and provincial governments and we should all expect to pony up some cash for it via our taxes — which we already do.
Affordable housing should not be downloaded onto municipalities or, in this case, onto the backs of the people who have managed to scrape together a down payment for a new home or condo.
Make no mistake, “inclusionary zoning†would amount to an exclusive tax on homeowners who, despite myths, are not necessarily rich.
If DiNovo thinks developers will just absorb the cost of setting aside valuable units, she is wrong. Those costs would be passed onto the purchasers who are paying full freight for their homes and condos, so those purchasers would now be paying even more to subsidize their neighbours in the “affordable†units in the building.
And, in a condo, that subsidy would not likely not be a one-shot deal. It would be ongoing.
A developer’s responsibility for a building ends once the building is registered and turned over to the condo corporation, the owners. Those owners each own their individual unit and, together, a share in the common amenities — the hallways, lobby, stairwells, pool, etc.
In addition to their own mortgage, all condo owners are responsible for the monthly maintenance fees that go toward the upkeep of the building’s common areas and into a reserve fund to fix big ticket items down the road, such as windows, the roof and heating systems.
Maintenance fees are expensive — often hundreds of dollars a month. And, as a building ages, maintenance fees rise.
One assumes owners who paid the full market value for their units would also be responsible for subsidizing their neighbours’ maintenance fees.
Since owners would ostensibly be supporting their neighbours, does this mean they would be allowed to choose who occupies the affordable units in their building? They say you can’t choose your neighbors, but if you’re paying their way, shouldn’t you have some say in the matter?
Could owners stipulate the person moving into the subsidized affordable unit must be quiet? A non-smoker? Have no pets? Somehow, I doubt it.
But you’d better believe that’s what condo owners will ask for — and that’s why it would be ludicrous to hand over a matter like affordable housing to developers and, by extension, private citizens.
A just society can only be financed if the responsibility is spread out among all citizens.
This isn’t about being unwilling to support affordable housing. Yes, there is a crisis in that sector. Yes, we need more of it — supported by the federal and provincial governments and funded through the tax base.
But to demand all developers do it, that’s unfair.
If a purchaser voluntarily buys into a mixed-use building with affordable units, that’s one thing. Being forced into it — and to pay a premium for it — it is social engineering at its worst.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/rachel_sa/2010/03/12/13213591.html
Developers balk at affordable-unit idea
http://www.thestar.com/yourcitymycity/article/777568--developers-balk-at-affordable-unit-idea?bn=1
When is enough, enough?
New home buyers are already faced with unaffordable prices, the looming HST, which will jack up the price of all real estate transactions, and, in Toronto, the double whammy of the city’s own land-transfer tax added to the provincial tax.
But, wait, there could be more.
Come May, NDP MPP Cherri DiNovo (Parkale-High Park) will re-introduce her private member’s bill that calls for “inclusionary zoning.â€
If adopted, the legislation would alter the provincial Planning Act and allow municipalities to require all new home and condo developers to set aside a percentage of units for affordable housing.
That means new home buyers will be asked to subsidize the affordable units in their condos and neighbourhoods.
Di Novo calls it a “novel idea†that will not cost any tax dollars.
Excuse me? Why shouldn’t affordable housing come from our tax dollars? Affordable housing should be the responsibility of the federal and provincial governments and we should all expect to pony up some cash for it via our taxes — which we already do.
Affordable housing should not be downloaded onto municipalities or, in this case, onto the backs of the people who have managed to scrape together a down payment for a new home or condo.
Make no mistake, “inclusionary zoning†would amount to an exclusive tax on homeowners who, despite myths, are not necessarily rich.
If DiNovo thinks developers will just absorb the cost of setting aside valuable units, she is wrong. Those costs would be passed onto the purchasers who are paying full freight for their homes and condos, so those purchasers would now be paying even more to subsidize their neighbours in the “affordable†units in the building.
And, in a condo, that subsidy would not likely not be a one-shot deal. It would be ongoing.
A developer’s responsibility for a building ends once the building is registered and turned over to the condo corporation, the owners. Those owners each own their individual unit and, together, a share in the common amenities — the hallways, lobby, stairwells, pool, etc.
In addition to their own mortgage, all condo owners are responsible for the monthly maintenance fees that go toward the upkeep of the building’s common areas and into a reserve fund to fix big ticket items down the road, such as windows, the roof and heating systems.
Maintenance fees are expensive — often hundreds of dollars a month. And, as a building ages, maintenance fees rise.
One assumes owners who paid the full market value for their units would also be responsible for subsidizing their neighbours’ maintenance fees.
Since owners would ostensibly be supporting their neighbours, does this mean they would be allowed to choose who occupies the affordable units in their building? They say you can’t choose your neighbors, but if you’re paying their way, shouldn’t you have some say in the matter?
Could owners stipulate the person moving into the subsidized affordable unit must be quiet? A non-smoker? Have no pets? Somehow, I doubt it.
But you’d better believe that’s what condo owners will ask for — and that’s why it would be ludicrous to hand over a matter like affordable housing to developers and, by extension, private citizens.
A just society can only be financed if the responsibility is spread out among all citizens.
This isn’t about being unwilling to support affordable housing. Yes, there is a crisis in that sector. Yes, we need more of it — supported by the federal and provincial governments and funded through the tax base.
But to demand all developers do it, that’s unfair.
If a purchaser voluntarily buys into a mixed-use building with affordable units, that’s one thing. Being forced into it — and to pay a premium for it — it is social engineering at its worst.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/rachel_sa/2010/03/12/13213591.html
Developers balk at affordable-unit idea
http://www.thestar.com/yourcitymycity/article/777568--developers-balk-at-affordable-unit-idea?bn=1