A pair of Hamilton councillors are characterizing dialogue at city hall Tuesday on the Ford government’s recent housing development legislation as “sheer disappointment.”
During a planning committee meeting Tuesday, a number of Hamiltonians stepped forward and expressed anger and frustration with Ontario’s Bill 23, which aims to speed up home construction in the province.
The dissent comes amid the city conveying its lack of support for the bill via a letter to Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Steve Clark.
The message, signed by planning and economic development general manager Jason Thorne, says the bill “show(s) little regard for the other aspects that make Hamilton a unique and desirable place to live and the elements of making communities liveable and complete.”
Queen’s Park passed the controversial Bill 23 on Monday, which now sets housing goals for 29 large cities in Ontario via an array of measures, including cuts to development charges.
Those fees are typically imposed by cities on new builds in order to pay for new infrastructure.
Ward 12 Ancaster Coun. Craig Cassar says the potential monetary impact on residents is not yet known, but says it “will cost the city.”
“So if there’s going to be new development, we need to build new infrastructure, new parkland facilities like libraries, community centres, and with that money being reduced, the city then has to take on that burden,” Cassar told 900 CHML’s Good Morning Hamilton.
“That means increased taxes to everyone who lives in Hamilton and all the businesses. So … this is more than just about farmland.”
- Project Maverick, joint police investigation is working to end child exploitation in Ontario
Ontario First Nation works with Winnipeg environmental group to help in residential school searches
Ontario set to appeal court ruling that struck down Bill 124
Funding changes to virtual health care leads to clinic closures in Ontario
‘This is an emergency’: Some Ontarians who can’t afford food pushed to breaking point
Ward 3 Coun. Nrinder Nann insists the More Homes Built Faster Act is a purely “transactional piece of legislation” enabling developers to cash in on prime agricultural soil and areas of natural heritage.
“I think it was a combination of just sheer disappointment and desire around the counsel table to actually fulfill what many of us were campaigning on in the election term … to deliver real, true, affordable housing across the city,” Nann said.
In mid-November Hamilton’s new mayor Andrea Horwath told Global News the province’s hurried bid to meet the target of building 1.5 million homes in 10 years could be “problematic” for the city’s taxpayers, who will potentially have to compensate for development discounts in the new legislation.
Under Bill 23, the province is waiving development charges for new units, which Housing Minister Steve Clark told Global News in mid-November “stifles affordable and attainable housing.”
He went on to say the motive was to incite more rental and provide a “sliding scale of discounts” in development charges up to 25 per cent for family-size rentals.
Ward 15 Coun. Ted McMeekin, a former provincial minister of municipal affairs, went as far as to say the province’s legislation “breaks his heart” in an impassioned address during Tuesday’s session.
“For those who believe, as I do, that decisions should be based on evidence supported by principle and designed to achieve the greatest good, it’s my feeling that this particular bill is the most narrow-minded, misguided initiative in Ontario political history,” McMeekin said.
Last year, Hamilton politicians voted to hold firm to the city’s urban boundary, and accommodate future population growth through a combination of infill and intensification.
The decision opposed a provincial recommendation that said Hamilton’s urban boundary would have to relinquish 1,310 hectares to accommodate an estimated increase of more than 110,000 households by 2051.
Hamilton’s politicians responded by supporting a planning staff recommendation to build 15,000 new households through growth into urban green fields, 28,000 through an expansion of the boundary and 66,000 households accommodated through intensification within the existing urban boundary.
However, the province would essentially reverse the idea in an amendment released in early November.
Of concern for Nann is the bill’s reduction of the affordable housing requirement to five per cent from the previous 20 per cent and reduction of the period to maintain affordability to 25 years.
She claims the move will “erode” affordability for renters and other tenants in the city.
“What that means is dedicating five per cent of units inside of private development to affordable housing, which is going to be more of a drop-of-the-bucket kind of approach versus what we know to be a more much more sustainable rate … somewhere in that 15 to 25 to 30 per cent rate,” said Nann.
A number of Ontario cities have already brought forward staff reports estimating the impact of revenue lost from the change in development fees.
In Toronto alone, council estimates the loss of development charges could result in a revenue loss of about $230 million annually.
In London, staff estimated the bill’s cuts to development charges could cost that city more than $97 million over a five-year period and shift the burden of paying for new infrastructure to taxpayers and other alternative funding sources.
Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward told Global News the municipality is likely to welcome some 70,000 new residents in the next 20 years and will need to find money somewhere to support community amenities.
She says if the city opts to raise taxes to compensate for infrastructure cost, bills going out to customers will identify the increases as “the provincial housing tax.”
Cassar says whether Hamilton will do the same is yet “to be determined,” but suggested it would be a good opportunity for council to show an element of transparency that many campaigned on in the October election.
“I know there’s so many parts of the community that are behind or against Bill 23 and supporting the position council is taking,” said Cassar.
“So, you know, we owe it to them to be transparent and help them understand why we would need to be increasing taxes.”
Post a Comment