Planned Sprawl in the GTA

[howl]

Howl, what exactly do you think that "career bureaucrats" are? They are properly trained experts. Just because someone works for the government that doesn't mean they aren't experts.

From my experience a lot, if not most people, who work for the government have degrees in things like public administration, policy studies or even MBA's. Where the do have degree in Environmental Sciences or similar its with a specialization in high level policy and they went straight into their government job from their PhD program without every actually getting their boots muddy in the field. They couldn't actually identify a critical habit if they were standing in the middle of it in hip-waders. The government relies very heavily on environment consultants to do the actual dirty work, the very same consultants who also work for the developers. In this case the government has chosen not to hire the consultants to help them refine the Greenbelt boundary lines. Why, I don't know, perhaps budget, perhaps on some idealistic principle.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

It boils down to money because we live in a capitalist society. The government doesn't build space for the 100,000 people arriving in Ontario every year, the development industry does. If they don't build houses here they will just build them someplace else, perhaps on land that would make more sense to be within the Greenbelt.

Indeed, this is true and the rules should be fair. I'm not equipped to look at the Greenbelt map and say whether the borders are fairly drawn - it certainly wouldn't be surprising if something that huge wasn't nailed to the hectare right out of the gate - but I trust the "career bureaucrats" at MOE (sorry, MOECC) more than I trust some independent developer who happens to have bought land on the wrong side of the line. That's not to say some of them aren't right...but I don't favour them, on balance. At least in theory, no developer cares about more than their own land while the province's job is to look at it holistically.

And besides, our capitalist society has all sorts of rules. If developers had their way they wouldn't pay development charges, for example. They oppose Inclusionary Zoning, even though other places in the capitalist world have it and the developers are able to operate - and profit - within that context.

I've seen some here (not naming names!) suggest municipalities should effectively stop sprawling on a dime and intensify only, or at least first and foremost. But that's socialist at best and highly oppressive at worst. If you buy a piece of land, you are allowed to do certain things with it. We don't have American-style rights of land ownership but still. Our government has done some bold things with Places to Grow and the Greenbelt - and neither is perfect - but you can go too far the other way too.

That said, much of the Greenbelt didn't really need field work. Although the natural heritage system plays a role in the greenbelt, much of those lands are already protected. It was more about growth management and protecting rural land.

I wonder if there's merit in merging the Greenbelt, Oak Ridges Moraine, Places to Grow, and Niagara Escarpment into one plan. It sure would make things more efficient.

I suspect that will at least come up for discussion. Don't forget, all the plans were initiated at different times and they actually held back the review periods so they could all be co-ordinated which, unusually for a government, makes a lot of sense. They function as a single suite of tools so looking at them in that context is the right thing to do. That said, I think ironing out those wrinkles is probably too tricky. Each is governed by separate legislation, for starters, and they're also funded/operated through different ministries. I think it's fair to say that there are several areas in which everyone has not been on the same page (and that's without getting into MTO/Metrolinx and their transit plan, which is also related) but I think a single, comprehensive plan is unlikely. Maybe they'll suggest something slightly less ambitious like putting it all under one ministry?

 

[MisterF]

From my experience a lot, if not most people, who work for the government have degrees in things like public administration, policy studies or even MBA's. Where the do have degree in Environmental Sciences or similar its with a specialization in high level policy and they went straight into their government job from their PhD program without every actually getting their boots muddy in the field. They couldn't actually identify a critical habit if they were standing in the middle of it in hip-waders. The government relies very heavily on environment consultants to do the actual dirty work, the very same consultants who also work for the developers. In this case the government has chosen not to hire the consultants to help them refine the Greenbelt boundary lines. Why, I don't know, perhaps budget, perhaps on some idealistic principle.

What's your source for the Greenbelt review not using consultants? That seems very unlikely. There's nothing wrong with using consultants when your organization lacks knowledge in a certain area. That said, the Greenbelt plan and other plans aren't being put together by public admin grads and MBAs. They're being done by planners, engineers, ecologists, etc. There are large numbers of these kinds of professionals working at the various ministries, especially since the province started taking a more active role in regional planning. And most of those have worked in other levels of government and the private sector.

I suspect that will at least come up for discussion. Don't forget, all the plans were initiated at different times and they actually held back the review periods so they could all be co-ordinated which, unusually for a government, makes a lot of sense. They function as a single suite of tools so looking at them in that context is the right thing to do. That said, I think ironing out those wrinkles is probably too tricky. Each is governed by separate legislation, for starters, and they're also funded/operated through different ministries. I think it's fair to say that there are several areas in which everyone has not been on the same page (and that's without getting into MTO/Metrolinx and their transit plan, which is also related) but I think a single, comprehensive plan is unlikely. Maybe they'll suggest something slightly less ambitious like putting it all under one ministry?

True, although a truly ambitious overhaul would reorganize the ministries and amend the legislation that governs these plans. True, not very likely but it's an interesting discussion. I have a couple colleagues from the UK who aren't very impressed with our various disconnected plans. Apparently things are a lot more streamlined there. And developers have less power.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

They're being done by planners, engineers, ecologists, etc. There are large numbers of these kinds of professionals working at the various ministries, especially since the province started taking a more active role in regional planning. And most of those have worked in other levels of government and the private sector.

People would probably be surprised how much of the government's work is done by outside consultants. It's not a secret, just that people don't pay attention. All the growth plan population projections, for example, come from Hemson. Open a Metrolinx Case Benefits Analysis and you'll see the imprints of the consultants who did those too.

True, although a truly ambitious overhaul would reorganize the ministries and amend the legislation that governs these plans. True, not very likely but it's an interesting discussion. I have a couple colleagues from the UK who aren't very impressed with our various disconnected plans. Apparently things are a lot more streamlined there. And developers have less power.

Americans would probably also be surprised at something like our government daring to declare millions of prime acres off limit - and the developers there have a lot more power It goes to show that everything is relative and we take our existing situation for granted as "normal." To return to the IZ example I mentioned above, it's anathema to developers here but it's not like developers in the UK either do it out of the goodness of their hearts or lose money in the process. They do it because it's what they have to do; no different than obeying the building code.

People don't really think about it but all these pieces of legislation we have...one is an MOE plan aimed at preserving agricultural land (but not the agriculture industry) and one is an MMAH plan aimed at intensifying development and then there's an MTO plan aimed at creating a transportation network etc. They're all going in the same direction, but each in its own silo. Hopefully this review will break at least some of that down but I don't expect any kind of mega-effort to bring them all on the same page.

 

[44 North]

I’m surprised more people aren’t at least somewhat upset by Vaughan’s decision. Or at the underwhelming apologist responses – i.e cleaning a boundary, a lack of expert data from real experts, and blaming the developers (but absolving the ones actually voting through these things).

One: the "edge" is already pretty clean and defined. It’s not like the City is filling in undeveloped scrubland surrounded by subdivisions...much of it is forest, with cemetery and golf course to its north. And even if it wasn’t 'clean', the property is considered within the Moraine’s core, part of a natural linkage, and it’s on a section of aquifer with a high vulnerability.

Two: The Moraine is a distinct geologic feature. It and the Greenbelt weren’t first mapped in detail by some bureaucrats at QP in 05. The area's been studied, analyzed, and mapped in high detail since it was settled. And yes by “experts”. We know the soil, rocks, ecology, and (most importantly for YR) its hydrology. This is southern Ontario, not the Barrens.

Three: Sure, we live in a “capitalist society”. But why hold those pesky “developers” to account, when it’s the City that overwhelmingly supported this 11th hour decision? Or, when it’s their turn, the Region for nodding in approval? Really, this is disheartening. And I’m not just writing that as an environmentalist, or concerned observer that has watched much of the GTA become a sprawling mess. From just about every standpoint, nothing good can come of this decision. Vaughan has ample land to build single family homes, not to mention their underdeveloped "centre".

 

[doady]

A lot of the 905 politicians have links to the development industry. That was widely noted with Durham Region municipal leaders opposing the Greenbelt a few years back. Vaughan is probably the same. Money is all that matters in the end.

 

[howl]

I’m surprised more people aren’t at least somewhat upset by Vaughan’s decision. Or at the underwhelming apologist responses – i.e cleaning a boundary, a lack of expert data from real experts, and blaming the developers (but absolving the ones actually voting through these things).

One: the "edge" is already pretty clean and defined. It’s not like the City is filling in undeveloped scrubland surrounded by subdivisions...much of it is forest, with cemetery and golf course to its north. And even if it wasn’t 'clean', the property is considered within the Moraine’s core, part of a natural linkage, and it’s on a section of aquifer with a high vulnerability.

Two: The Moraine is a distinct geologic feature. It and the Greenbelt weren’t first mapped in detail by some bureaucrats at QP in 05. The area's been studied, analyzed, and mapped in high detail since it was settled. And yes by “experts”. We know the soil, rocks, ecology, and (most importantly for YR) its hydrology. This is southern Ontario, not the Barrens.

Three: Sure, we live in a “capitalist society”. But why hold those pesky “developers” to account, when it’s the City that overwhelmingly supported this 11th hour decision? Or, when it’s their turn, the Region for nodding in approval? Really, this is disheartening. And I’m not just writing that as an environmentalist, or concerned observer that has watched much of the GTA become a sprawling mess. From just about every standpoint, nothing good can come of this decision. Vaughan has ample land to build single family homes, not to mention their underdeveloped "centre".

The moraine is only part of the Greenbelt. The majority of what prevents development is the "Protected Countryside" designation. Where experts and municipalities had previously mapped features the Province used that information to set the boundary. In some cases they used municipal mapping that was conceptual and was never intended to be a hard defined line (e.g. was intended to be further refined by the developer's experts). But where information was missing they put some tracing paper over an aerial photo got out their crayons. http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page191.aspx

The real issue thought is due process. When the government makes a decision that financially affects one property owner and not another there needs to be a public process to ensure fairness and accountability. The government needs to prove it picked the right line, or needs to have a process in place to fix problem areas. To date that due process hasn't happened. If it doesn't happen the eventual outcome might be that the courts strike down the entire Greenbelt legislation.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I’m surprised more people aren’t at least somewhat upset by Vaughan’s decision. Or at the underwhelming apologist responses – i.e cleaning a boundary, a lack of expert data from real experts, and blaming the developers (but absolving the ones actually voting through these things).

I was generous in my language but I'm borderline livid about it, if that makes you happy.
I'm most certainly NOT absolving council but you have to understand cause and effect. That Star article mentions ONE particular councillor trying to open up ONE particular piece of land and he is most certainly to blame for that. But it would be awful naive to think he pulled it out of thin air. Someone told him to do it. You think it was someone other than the landowner?

People have a right to make deputations at council but there were something like 58 of them at York Region, almost all of the developers. They have a right to be heard and council has a right to ignore them but no one should underestimate their influence on council, which is the problem.

One: the "edge" is already pretty clean and defined. It’s not like the City is filling in undeveloped scrubland surrounded by subdivisions...much of it is forest, with cemetery and golf course to its north. And even if it wasn’t 'clean', the property is considered within the Moraine’s core, part of a natural linkage, and it’s on a section of aquifer with a high vulnerability.

As already explained, the Moraine is only part of the Greenbelt and part of the point of this review is that they are governed by separate plans under separate legislation. Some of the whitebelt is indeed "scrubland" or agricultural fields. I don't think there's too much forest at stake; certainly not in York Region.

Three: Sure, we live in a “capitalist society”. But why hold those pesky “developers” to account, when it’s the City that overwhelmingly supported this 11th hour decision? Or, when it’s their turn, the Region for nodding in approval?

Already answered. Council does not develop land. It RESPONDS to requests.
I have no apologies to make for either council but there's a bigger picture of influence here. Developers often seem to think they are part of the political process - like it's them and the government, hand in hand, building cities. I'm rather cynical of that view but things get mushy in the suburbs. The fact that the region has set things up so it needs continuous development to pay its debt is not unrelated.

Really, this is disheartening. And I’m not just writing that as an environmentalist, or concerned observer that has watched much of the GTA become a sprawling mess. From just about every standpoint, nothing good can come of this decision. Vaughan has ample land to build single family homes, not to mention their underdeveloped "centre".

I agree and I agree. I live in York Region and most people probably don't even know this happened last week. I'd even go beyond "disheartening" to "disturbing" but the big picture issue is developer influence on council(s), not council's acquiescing, per se.

The "good news" is that the council has NO POWER here. All they are doing - and this is part of the irony - is giving the province feedback for its review. The province can look at every one of these requests - vetted by Vaughan or YR or not - and scoff a them, straight to the trash heap. I doubt the province would give much attention to the idea of municipalities opening more Greenbelt land on their own either, especially when it's pretty clear the developers would line up and then you really do get the death by 1000 cuts.

To be clear: neither council actually DID anything. Not a single square foot of Greenbelt was opened to development. They did, however, show a willingness to start chipping away and that's why they shouldn't be given the power they requested.

I'm not so much concerned that the Greenbelt will get chewed up like this as I am with how amenable council seemed to it.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Unfortunately it's a pretty clear cut case of "follow the money" - developers are relatively large contributors to 905 municipal election campaigns and there's no counterbalancing fundraising source on the conservation side. Most residents vote purely on name recognition and the absence of a party system makes it very difficult to dislodge incumbents even if they're obviously acting in favour of developer interests and against that of citizens. The only solution is for local residents to become more aware and engaged...

 

[44 North]

The moraine is only part of the Greenbelt. The majority of what prevents development is the "Protected Countryside" designation. Where experts and municipalities had previously mapped features the Province used that information to set the boundary. In some cases they used municipal mapping that was conceptual and was never intended to be a hard defined line (e.g. was intended to be further refined by the developer's experts). But where information was missing they put some tracing paper over an aerial photo got out their crayons. http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page191.aspx

The real issue thought is due process. When the government makes a decision that financially affects one property owner and not another there needs to be a public process to ensure fairness and accountability. The government needs to prove it picked the right line, or needs to have a process in place to fix problem areas. To date that due process hasn't happened. If it doesn't happen the eventual outcome might be that the courts strike down the entire Greenbelt legislation.

That's all well and good. But half the property isn't Countryside, it's considered a Natural Linkage - with some of the highest level of protecion. Perhaps crayons were use to haphazardly scribble a line. But there's a creek and greenspace which is plain as day, with its importance equally obvious. And from what I gather from the Star article, the developer never presented any public consultations, studies, or analyses by their "experts" before Vaughan supported/endorsed the request for redesignation.

As for due process: there's been ample time to rectify any decisions and ensure fairness. ORM Act came into effect almost fifteen years ago. But I sense this is a losing battle which most saw coming. York Region needs money, and outward growth is the easiest way to get it. So long Smart growth, hello SmartCentre.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

The only solution is for local residents to become more aware and engaged...

Well, that's not the ONLY solution. There's also having the province 'outlaw' corporate donations in municipal elections. The developers can still give as individuals ("After all, gentlemen, we are not Communists!") but as much as I support increased awareness and enagement, we can't leave the onus on an informed electorate who, I'm quite sure, largely have no idea that:
a) a review is underway
b) what their councils did last week in respect to it

And from what I gather from the Star article, the developer never presented any public consultations, studies, or analyses by their "experts" before Vaughan supported/endorsed the request for redesignation.

This is most certainly true. But again, Vaughan isn't making the call. The province is and Vaughan (and York Region) were meeting to give their input to the province. The review the province is undertaking IS the due process and this is just fodder for that. I think it's highly unlikely a specific site would be redesignated merely because a city council endorsed it; the province will have its own criteria. (And I'm sure both BILD and individual developers made submissions directly to them as well.)

Vaughan and York Region officially requested a mechanism to make redesignations on their own. Presumably there would be due process there but I guess there is rather some reason to be suspicious of how that might play out.

 

[howl]

. . . I think it's highly unlikely a specific site would be redesignated merely because a city council endorsed it; the province will have its own criteria. . .

On the other hand, the Province is unlikely to make any changes UNLESS the city council endorses it.

The developers have to convince the city and region that their lands are appropriate for development, then they take that the Province and the Province says yea or nay.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

On the other hand, the Province is unlikely to make any changes UNLESS the city council endorses it.

The developers have to convince the city and region that their lands are appropriate for development, then they take that the Province and the Province says yea or nay.

Well, I think that's the premise under which they are operating but that it is not the process now in place. I don't think the province much cares what a city council says (especially when they glaringly list only ONE site as worthy of redesignation). I doubt there's many "controversial" parcels the province doesn't already know about.

The region and Vaughan made a series of recommendations and some of them are perfectly good, such as doing a better job providing infrastructure for intensification. But suggestions is all they are and the province isn't beholden to either municipalities or developers. They'll do what they're going to do. I'm not saying it's good or even neutral, I just suspect they don't carry much weight. I certainly don't think the province will allow this review to end with a net loss to the Greenbelt.
Time will tell!

 

[salsa]

Peel council votes to bring in provincial facilitator to clean up Caledon’s development mess

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...or-to-clean-up-caledons-development-mess.html

 

[James]

I read this linked article in the Star today and thought I'd table it here for further discussion.

Study takes hard look at ‘well-being’ of Vaughan
Research compares quality of life in the GTA suburb to the province and country.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/11/03/study-takes-hard-look-at-well-being-of-vaughan.html

A brief snippit:

Among the findings in the report:

• Vaughan residents spend a lot of time driving rather than transit, and feel the lifestyle has a negative impact on their health

• A staggering number of people own their homes, but spend more than a third of their income on their housing costs

• Because people spend so much time working, they have less time to get involved in their community or little desire to engage in local politics.