Undead
Senior Member
A pox on both their houses?
|
|
|
Zoning Reform Ideas
- Thread starter A Torontonian Now
- Start date
dusk
Active Member
Part of what bothers me about this whole debate is the notion that the voices that matter when it comes to neighbourhood planning is those that already live there.
In my mind this is exactly backwards. Planning should be focused on the future of the neighbourhood.
Existing residents by and large will resist change and prefer the status quo.
Garden suites and other such nonsense (yes nonsense) is not the solution to this crisis. We need to empower small and large developers alike to add density to existing neighbourhoods in a cheap and predictable way.
In my mind this is exactly backwards. Planning should be focused on the future of the neighbourhood.
Existing residents by and large will resist change and prefer the status quo.
Garden suites and other such nonsense (yes nonsense) is not the solution to this crisis. We need to empower small and large developers alike to add density to existing neighbourhoods in a cheap and predictable way.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
City Planning (Toronto) has a report before next week's Executive Ctte in which they lay out their thoughts on the Provincial Affordability Task Force recommendations.
There are too many to highlight them all here. But a few probably stand out. Either for the City's Support or opposition.
No surprise they opposed this one (I agree they should):
Good to see support on this one, and the caveats are reasonable:
They oppose this one, and again, I find this fair:
This one surprised me.........I bet it catches some members of Council off guard too. I'm happy enough to support it, but I question the political viability in some locations:
@allengeorge , @HousingNowTO Its worth saying the City could implement this w/o the province if it wished. With City Planning going on the record for this, it resets many applications for
arterials if approved. Why ever ask for less than 6s?
This one I thought they might go for.......but no....
I expected opposition on both of these and concur:
Once again, no surprise in opposing the below, and I concur:
Sensible support for this one:
Interesting take here:
There's a bunch more but I'm pretty much out of room for screenshots here.
So I'll leave it at that and say follow the link for more!
There are too many to highlight them all here. But a few probably stand out. Either for the City's Support or opposition.
No surprise they opposed this one (I agree they should):
Good to see support on this one, and the caveats are reasonable:
They oppose this one, and again, I find this fair:
This one surprised me.........I bet it catches some members of Council off guard too. I'm happy enough to support it, but I question the political viability in some locations:
@allengeorge , @HousingNowTO Its worth saying the City could implement this w/o the province if it wished. With City Planning going on the record for this, it resets many applications for
arterials if approved. Why ever ask for less than 6s?
This one I thought they might go for.......but no....
I expected opposition on both of these and concur:
Once again, no surprise in opposing the below, and I concur:
Sensible support for this one:
Interesting take here:
There's a bunch more but I'm pretty much out of room for screenshots here.
So I'll leave it at that and say follow the link for more!
allengeorge
Senior Member
Hit "Like" for flagging this - thank you @Northern Light.
For the 6-11s item, I'm less enthused at their 'support'. First, it's quite wishy washy ("Support is subject to municipalities being able to implement reflecting local conditions...") Sounds suspiciously like ye old "neighbourhood character" qualification to me. Also, 6s with Toronto's mid-rise guidelines, setbacks and (potentially) heritage rules probably puts plenty of sites into the "does not pencil" category.
I also have to shake my head at the tower floor plates business - it's really a weird hill to die on: over-prioritize the needs of people outside vs those actually living in the building. I feel like there's need for some give-and-take there.
For the 6-11s item, I'm less enthused at their 'support'. First, it's quite wishy washy ("Support is subject to municipalities being able to implement reflecting local conditions...") Sounds suspiciously like ye old "neighbourhood character" qualification to me. Also, 6s with Toronto's mid-rise guidelines, setbacks and (potentially) heritage rules probably puts plenty of sites into the "does not pencil" category.
I also have to shake my head at the tower floor plates business - it's really a weird hill to die on: over-prioritize the needs of people outside vs those actually living in the building. I feel like there's need for some give-and-take there.
Northern Light
Superstar
You're welcome
Fair concern, TBD in terms of any reality, of course.
I understand the principle behind the floorplates, it has to do w/shadowing/skyview, all sorts of things..........and I understand that.
I'm happy to agree there would ideally be some flexibility around these things, and a need to understand appropriate compromises of competing needs.
That said, the City needs some leverage in any negotiation.......
So I'm not unsympathetic to their take.
They have shown a willingness to vary from the floorplate rules if there is a compelling public good.
See this site:
1319 Bloor West | 112.3m | 35s | KingSett Capital | Hariri Pontarini
The applicant filed a resubmission with the City. Updated plans are available for review on the A.I.C.
allengeorge
Senior Member
Separately, I'm amused at Planning's exhortation that they're working hard on the PMTSA front. I remember quite a few having density targets that barely exceed the provincial minimums (laughable, given that they're on incredibly expensive transportation infrastructure), and Planning/Council seems determined to avoid any density along the Bloor-Danforth line. (That mass hertitage listing was egregious).
I have no faith that we'll see any ambition wrt. MTSAs. I'm OK with the Province telling the city that they don't get to call the shots there anymore.
I have no faith that we'll see any ambition wrt. MTSAs. I'm OK with the Province telling the city that they don't get to call the shots there anymore.
Northern Light
Superstar
Read up. LOL
You're really hard on City Planning.
You make @Amare seem like an optimist! LOL (smiles)
allengeorge
Senior Member
I'd like to see some acknowledgement that this is a crisis for young people, and speed to action.
dusk
Active Member
I completely agree. Maybe I'm dense but the excerpts @Northern Light was kind enough to share read as the city saying "No" to a bunch of policies that would do good for young people, future citizens, and the health of the city. I'm quite pessimistic about our current planning regime.
wopchop
Building Toronto
Maybe?
When I read the Provincial report, I see a lot of potentially good ideas that we will commit to doing that will help developers reduce costs.
But there is nothing here that holds developers accountable for reducing their prices in anyway whatsoever.
The report is missing one huge factor in this crisis - demand. Demand that is largely driven by low interest rates and property investment. That has a huge effect on housing affordability.
Why would developers sell their properties for less than they are getting now? People are lining up to buy them, after all. If we reduce their costs, will they commit to that?
Last edited:
DirectionNorth
Active Member
Out of the province's hands.
There's the tax, which didn't do anything. I can't see a way to reduce domestic demand without draconian laws though, so ...
I would support a stronger homebuyer rights law, and whatever other people can come up with.
I don't think developers will commit to that, which is why we need to force them to honor current commitments (and possibly have the government do some market-regulating/manipulating on the side).
wopchop
Building Toronto
Of course it didn't. The investors are not all foreign, after all.
And yes, much of it is outside of the provinces hands, but it is a bit egregious to write a report on housing affordability and completely ignore those things which have a huge impact on it.
All I am saying is that we shouldn't setup a system where we are boot-lickers to developers, who will basically get to build whatever they want, wherever they want, and with no actual obligation to build affordable housing.
We are citizens and we should run this Province, not private corporations.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Interest rates yes, but reducing demand? Maybe not.
Lets try this......
Capital gains are taxable the same as regular income; and there is no principal residence exemption.
I would bet on that stifling demand.
I don't think its at all radical either.
Its actually the way the tax system started.
The government should be agnostic on how you earn your dollars and tax them equally.
***
Note that currently Ontario uses the CRA (federal agency) to collect its taxes, and this works by using the same income calculation as the federal gov't.
Ideally the Feds would change to; but in an alternate world, Quebec set up its own taxation agency for income tax, which is constitutionally permissible, so Ontario could go there on its own if necessary.
***
Lets then add, in the same vein as above, that Quebec chose to cut its immigration numbers. Which also reduces demand.
That seems controversial to many, I'm not clear on why.
The issue is not one of being anti-immigrant but simply balancing population increase against ability to keep up in terms of infrastructure.
***
Finally, even w/o a provincial-federal agreement, foreign students are a huge factor in housing prices, particularly rent, in the GTA.
The province is perfectly capable of increasing funding for domestic student places, and capping foreign student enrollment for post-secondary institutions under its control.
This is not about limiting the best and brightest from coming here; its about our Community Colleges being diploma factories.
We can cut back on the above w/no discernible harm and a great deal of obvious gain.
Last edited:
afransen
Senior Member
This would be incredibly unpopular, punitive and would have significant negative effects on labour mobility. Imagine having half the value of your home taxed away every time you move. This would create massive incentives for all housing to be owned by landlords.
Northern Light
Superstar
Yes, it would, at least initially.
Not really. If you earn only $40,000 per year, (beyond the basic personal exemption), you pay the accorded tax rate, basically 20% (fed + prov) on the full amount.
So you lose $8,000, at that income level, that is punitive.
By contrast, if I sell a 1.2M home, which was $800,000 when I bought it, I have a gain of $400,000 10x the gross income of the lower income person, and I pay zero tax on that as it stands today if its my principle residence.
If that doesn't strike you as unfair.............
***
In my scenario, under current rules where you pay the full gain in a single year, that gain would be subject, in part at least, to the highest tax brackets, but those still only take back roughly 50% of your gain/profit.
So you're still $200,000 to the good.
That said, shifting the way I have indicated would vastly reduce the size of capital gains on property in the future, ie. property would appreciate less, the flipping industry would die.
So its a one-time generational hit. Its also one completely avoidable by not selling your home. Since I also expect this would force a material market correction, the actual gain to be taxed would decline some, but I digress.
To soften the blow of the one-time hit, we do have options. We could allow someone to amortize the gain over 3-5 years on their taxes.
Its hardly different that spreading your capital losses over several years which people and businesses do regularly when it serves them.
No, that's not how capital gains is calculated. Its 1/2 the increase in value from the date of purchase, not 1/2 the entire value.
I don't see any logic to that, but if that were undesirable, we can prohibit rental of SFH entirely, or we can simply limit everyone to owning a maximum of 2 SFH (other than a developer constructing a subdivision or the like).
That latter move would also force a lot of selling and boost supply, thus lower prices and future capital gains.