News   Jan 27, 2023
 678     0 
News   Jan 27, 2023
 1.8K     0 
News   Jan 27, 2023
 3.9K     1 

Zoning Reform Ideas

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,126
Reaction score
58,642
Location
Toronto/EY
I would kind of like to see some sort of passport system for CAs. It would be nice to be able to get a membership for one and be able to use the various facilities of each CA. It's $20 for a couple to go for a hike or buying multiple CA memberships...

For most CA's, a membership is not required to hike; the fees are typically for parking. Through hiking is typically free. Though this may vary by CA.

Certainly I can see some room for cooperation on fees; though as someone whose hiked the Bruce Trail, I generally found plenty of free parking outside the Conservation Areas/Parks and then just hiked through.
 
Last edited:

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
6,163
Reaction score
5,957
For most CA's, a membership is not required to hike; the fees are typically for parking. Through hiking is typically free. Though this may vary by CA.

Certainly I can see some room for cooperation on fees; though as someone whose hike the Bruce Trail, I generally found plenty of free parking outside the Conservation Areas/Parks and then just hiked through.
If it's just for parking, why is it charged per person?
 

evandyk

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,754
Reaction score
6,037
Location
St. Lawrence
I've recently gone to places like Heart Lake, Mt Nemo, Terra Cotta (where my parents got married 50 years ago!) etc. and it's all per-car fees.
 

allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,494
Reaction score
3,574
I’m pretty underwhelmed by the changes on the exclusionary zoning front. It appears they’re far less sweeping than billed, Given the scale of the housing crisis facing Ontarians, the recent election results, and the timing of the bill I would have hoped for a little more verve in tackling this problem.

Separately, I cynically sometimes wonder if these bills are just cover for CA changes: I’ve never heard of CAs being the reason why housing is built, yet every bill neuters them a bit more.
 

wopchop

Building Toronto
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
1,721
Reaction score
896
Location
Oakville
I’m pretty underwhelmed by the changes on the exclusionary zoning front. It appears they’re far less sweeping than billed, Given the scale of the housing crisis facing Ontarians, the recent election results, and the timing of the bill I would have hoped for a little more verve in tackling this problem.

Separately, I cynically sometimes wonder if these bills are just cover for CA changes: I’ve never heard of CAs being the reason why housing is built, yet every bill neuters them a bit more.
It will be interesting to see the actual bill and what changes.
The media reports on it talks a lot about garden suites or laneway suites. Garden suites / laneway suites are great - but very few people have $100K+ to drop on the construction of one of these. Construction of these will not solve the housing crisis.
Allowing duplexes and triplexes to will do far more. But it does seems a bit daring to exempt all this from development charges. Putting the cost of infrastructure upgrades for new construction back onto the general taxpayer.
There is also nothing to guarantee that these savings will ever reach buyers. Developers will sell for whatever the market will bear, not less.
 
Last edited:

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
6,163
Reaction score
5,957
Which CA are we discussing? Lots of places do things lots of different ways.

I haven't paid a CA fee in years.
Most recently, I went to Kelso in Halton. It is beautiful, and well maintained. They require reservations, sold on a per-person basis, $9.75/adult. Free for members.


Individual membership is $75/year. I go to CAs in 4 or 5 different regions, buying memberships in each would be quite pricey.
 

AlxOptimism

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 29, 2022
Messages
55
Reaction score
44
We need clarification on this. If it costs cities too much money, they may move to repeal inclusionary zoning. We need a clear strategy for funding cities, not merely one of knocking down their revenues.
Clark confirmed in question period today that they are hoping to substitute lost development fees through Federal housing accelerator funds. CBC has the story

I agree that without supplementing municipal revenues you'd just be essentially defunding municipalities or making them adverse to social housing which is a whole can of worms
 

Urban-Affair

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
2,294
Reaction score
1,376
Location
Toronto
Perhaps I am missing some of the details, but one thing that was clear to me, is that there doesn't appear to be anything in the bill to really incentivize development over holding, both for underutilized sites without re-zoning in place, as well as sites which have been rezoned and are not being acted upon (read: developed and occupied). Aside from the fact that the market has slowed today, even when it was roaring, many developers sat on thousands of approved units, as well as sites which were clearly destined to be developed. Some of them even sat on sites while they battled for lower property tax before releasing the project. All legal of course, but it does show how most developers don't really have any interest in developing unless they can achieve these maximally profitable use, and the maximally profitable timing. If there is no incentive from a tax side to push these things along, that to me is a problem. (Maybe it was in there and I missed it? Then again with Ford, I feel like this isn't a concern of his either.)

Another concern I have is how does any of this really help get anyone other than people who can afford current price points, in to housing. I think the portion of sales currently (multi-res market) is primarily investor driven given where we are sitting today. Flippers, and speculating end purchasers.

I will just add a comment that when I searched some contractors for a laneway suite (exploratory research) we were getting quotes from 100-300k. When I do my proforma to test how that plays out financially, it's not great, excluding reversion at the end if I were to sell with the new suite as well.

Hope I didn't take that too OT. ADHD info dump for ya with apologies. Happy to hear your thoughts.
 

Undead

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 3, 2020
Messages
2,863
Reaction score
7,373
Location
Condoland
I think the portion of sales currently (multi-res market) is primarily investor driven given where we are sitting today.
70%
"Hildebrand says about 70 per cent of pre-construction units are sold to investors, most of them mom-and-pop buyers who are looking to recoup their costs with rent while waiting for the unit to appreciate longer term."
 

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
6,163
Reaction score
5,957
I think we should move to a model of taxing land value more and property/improvements less. That includes development charges. We current tax land and property at basically the same rate. We could gradually increase the burden borne by land so it is 2x, 3x, 4x etc the rate on property. This will do a lot to deflate speculative bubbles in land prices, encourage development rather than sitting on empty plots, and encourage intensification.

This has been done in various jurisdictions, such as Pennsylvania (4-5x the rate on land vs property), and has been shown to increase investment.

 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,126
Reaction score
58,642
Location
Toronto/EY
The Ford gov't introduced some relatively small tweaks to bill 23 yesterday.

An article at the Globe and Mail (paywalled at time of posting) discusses:


From said article:

1669111746747.png


First paragraph seems fine, though I want to review the text.............

But 'retroactive' laws are generally a good way to get a bill struck down in the Courts.
 

allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,494
Reaction score
3,574
The Ford gov't introduced some relatively small tweaks to bill 23 yesterday.
I’m pretty cynical about this bill. Even before - and especially following - the tweaks, it seems the overall effect was to reduce funding power for municipalities, and gut the CAs and the Greenbelt.

I have little faith in any level of government acting in any meaningful manner or any meaningful urgency on the housing crisis.
 

westtoeast

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 26, 2018
Messages
229
Reaction score
950

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,126
Reaction score
58,642
Location
Toronto/EY
Pretty sweeping directive by the Mayor and Bradford here: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2023.CC2.1

I haven't had a chance to fully go through this and digest, but seems to be much more aggressive than previous language directed to staff around zoning. @Northern Light have you had a spin through this yet? Figured you may be interested.

I have not, but I shall, sometime today, I'm mixing some last minute work before the holidays with going through the Council Agenda from the end to the beginning, in that order, LOL Don't ask, I don't know...........I just tend to do it that way.
 
Last edited:

Top