News   Jul 25, 2024
 760     0 
News   Jul 25, 2024
 675     0 
News   Jul 25, 2024
 509     0 

Tridel asks for stay of Toronto development charge increases

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
27,243
Reaction score
35,896
Location
by the Humber
INSIDE CITY HALL
Councillors march to condo king's tune
JOHN BARBER
jbarber@globeandmail.com
November 11, 2008

His family company has built tens of thousands of apartments over six decades of activity in Toronto, but Tridel Corporation president Leo Del Zotto had never once appeared at City Hall before he arrived at executive committee yesterday to plead for a break on behalf of a beleaguered industry.

Perhaps "plead" is the wrong word. One might just as fairly say that Mr. Del Zotto dictated what the mayor and council must do to keep the housing industry alive as its dark night descends. They snapped to attention and obeyed, voting to delay implementation of an already gutted plan to hike the fees that stand in for a municipal tax on the industry.

"Condominiums have been a cash cow for the city of Toronto. You can't go and take the feed away from the front end," Mr. Del Zotto told reporters after his successful intervention. "You take the feed away from the trough and you're going to have less milk, and the milk is building the backbone of Toronto."

Perhaps "trough" was the wrong word there, in view of the dissident opinion - emerging not from council's left but its right wing - that developers are already taking massive advantage of municipal largesse. Councillor Cliff Jenkins made the forlorn case for a crippling fee hike in the face of sagging demand, but the majority leftists would have none of it.

"I believe I'm on your side," Mr. Del Zotto said, and they lined right up behind him - joining the mayor in setting aside city staff advice to orchestrate a cautious, staged introduction of higher development charges.

Mayor David Miller had already declared himself on the issue, rejecting an early proposal for immediate increases in favour of a compromise scheme that would have linked fee hikes with development activity - with the result that none would apply in a flat market. Yesterday, he agreed to delay the compromise until Mr. Del Zotto and his colleagues, helped by their own researchers, come up with a plan more to their liking.

Provincial legislation permits fee hikes, the mayor noted. "But that doesn't mean you are required to impose them."

Mr. Del Zotto makes a compelling case for support, meshing it with official policies aimed at forestalling sprawl and building population through redevelopment. High-density, free-market housing is the only type on offer in Toronto today, he noted, and four out of five of such units are built inside city limits.

"You want to push your costs up, you want to front-end load, then what you're doing is saying, 'Let's get rid of this 80 per cent share of condominiums that we have and ship it out to the green pastures,'" he said, adding that suburban politicians "would love to have you send them the gift of future buyers."

"Thank you very much then for all the environmental commitment that the city is making. Leave the brown field and go build in another green field."

Condominium construction generates a significant number of jobs in itself, he added, and the result has served downtown employers by salting the core with workers. "You have a chance to keep those high taxes on those office buildings because you bring the labour pool to them," Mr. Del Zotto said.

Such reasoning will have more force if the local housing market continues its current trajectory, with or without the help of higher fees. But this council, the most pro-development in memory, needs little further persuasion. The boss has spoken.
 
BS !!!

I'll bet you that the developers would NOT pass any savings to the consumer. They are completely taking advantage of the current situation.

The development charges are supposed to be used towards improving the infrastructure. What do you think will happen when you add 1000's of new condos within the old existing infrastructure in the city???

We already have pipes that are upwards of 80 years old and many have already burst.
 
Of course the developers are taking advantage of council, but the council would just as easily take advantage of the developers by imposing higher development charges IF there was a net benefit.

Consumers will already be getting relief in the form of lower PSF sales prices. Council probably already saw this coming. When prices go down, supply goes down, it's just simple economics. The decision was likely made based on the reality that lower prices combined with higher costs would not keep the market strong.

He WAS right when he talked about developers moving to the 905. Obviously not all of them would, but if the landscape changes and now it's more profitable to build a series of SFH's in the burbs, then they're going to do it. If (when?) the economy comes back then i'm sure council will raise development charges again, if it's deemed the smartest thing.
 
Why would developers run to the 905? Even with the proposed increases Toronto's fees will be less. This is nothing more than an attempt to protect the value of the assets they already hold in the city. If fees are increased they will get capitalized into the prices paid for land.
 
yeah the fees may be worked into the cost of land, but if the market price for money you can get by selling that land again in the form of condos, than less profit will be made and less developers will build condos. Said developers will look for alternatives, and if the 416 profit margins go down while the 905 area stays the same, than some of them will build elsewhere.

I'm not saying i'm in favor of cutting fees or anything, just that raising costs during a recession doesn't make a whole lot of sense
 
yeah the fees may be worked into the cost of land, but if the market price for money you can get by selling that land again in the form of condos, than less profit will be made and less developers will build condos. Said developers will look for alternatives, and if the 416 profit margins go down while the 905 area stays the same, than some of them will build elsewhere.

I'm not saying i'm in favor of cutting fees or anything, just that raising costs during a recession doesn't make a whole lot of sense

Again, even with the increased fees developers will still pay less than in the 905. So while the 416 might loss its position as a cash cow for them, it will still remain cheaper. Toronto also has the advantage of depressed real estate prices of ICI properties for developers to poach (cough Kodak) and convert.
 
Absolutely agree ... Tridel is definitely using it's influence in a way that reflects it's greed. Particularly evident with the statement regarding the 905 being cheaper.

Regarding ICI lands, such do exists in the 905 do they not, southern Mississauga, parts of Brampton possibly?
 
The development charges are supposed to be used towards improving the infrastructure. What do you think will happen when you add 1000's of new condos within the old existing infrastructure in the city???

So the millions upon millions of dollars in new property tax revenue from the 1000s of new condos are used to add bounce to Miller's hair?

Again, even with the increased fees developers will still pay less than in the 905.

So what. Land and construction costs are significantly less (moreso than the difference in the selling price per square foot.)
 
So the millions upon millions of dollars in new property tax revenue from the 1000s of new condos are used to add bounce to Miller's hair?

Fantastic! the city will not have to provide any services to these new units.

So what. Land and construction costs are significantly less (moreso than the difference in the selling price per square foot.)


Construction cost are near identical. Land cost can be either more or less. With residential zoning in place, Toronto would be more expensive. If the existing zoning is non residential, it would be cheaper in Toronto.
 
Fantastic! the city will not have to provide any services to these new units.

oh, boohoo! Let's be reasonable. There's a reason TIF is so popular in areas where something like section 37 contributions would be the subject of fairytales.

Construction cost are near identical. Land cost can be either more or less. With residential zoning in place, Toronto would be more expensive. If the existing zoning is non residential, it would be cheaper in Toronto.

Perhaps I should have been more concise. Reducing the scale of projects (ideal in a lukewarm market with financial constraints) is far more doable in the suburbs than in the city.
 
oh, boohoo! Let's be reasonable. There's a reason TIF is so popular in areas where something like section 37 contributions would be the subject of fairytales.

Section 37 monies do not even cover the shortfall for one year. The city provides a whole lot of services while charging residents only a fraction of the actual cost.

In a week or so the latest Local Government Performance Index will be released demonstrating this point clearly.
 
DCs are supposed to fund growth not rotting infrastructure and a city that has failing finances. The current DC proposal has new development bearing the cost of the majority of budget items that are related to current residents, not strictly growth.

If DCs go up 230% for high-rise projects as proposed, you can kiss most development activity in areas like Etob and Scarb good-bye. Land values just won't support it in these areas and we'll be stuck with current land uses. Luxury projects in Yorkville can bear the increase but not sites that are on the margins of feasibility. These are generally in the neighbourhoods where we should be encouraging home-ownership and intensification not overtaxing it to the point that it doesn't work.

God forbid that greedy landowners and evil developers would make money taking on the risk to do it...
 

Back
Top