What I found more interesting than anything else with respect to Monday’s blog post was just how many people emailed me directly, compared to how many commented on the blog.

I think that the post resonated with a lot of people that work in government, as I heard from five different people.  I heard from two architects as well, one lawyer, and a handful of real estate agents.

One real estate agent explained to me that in terms of the “as of right” zoning, the province can overrule the city, and thus my comments were misplaced.

While I understand the concept of as of right zoning, my point is that I don’t believe the city will back down.

Do you think that the average Torontonian knows, understands, or cares to understand as of right zoning?  Do you think that if and when a development enters their world, that they don’t like, that they will not reach out to city councilors?

And what is the city councilor going to do?

“Sorry, Jim, but I can’t do anything about this.  I’m completely powerless.”

No way.  The city councilor will fight with whatever means necessary to show constituents and voters that “something is being done.”

My problem with most of these recommendations is that it requires the province and city to work together and I remain exceptionally skeptical of that.

Let’s pick up where we left off:

15. Require mandatory delegation of site plan approvals and minor variances to staff or pre-approved qualified third-party technical consultants through a simplified review and approval process, without the ability to withdraw Council’s delegation.

You know that when I see “third party,” I’m going to get cynical, right?

In 2017, an Etobicoke resident was irate when the municipality hired a company to put in a staircase at a community garden in Tom Riley Park, at a cost of $65,000 – $150,000.  He built the staircase for $550 in materials and his free labour.

This story was actually picked up by CNN, read it HERE.

For local coverage, HERE is the CTV news story.

Eventually, the municipality ripped out his staircase and hired a firm to do the work at a cost that was still several thousand, if not tens of thousands, but it just goes to show you how much more things cost when government hires “third parties.”

The idea of “pre-approved, qualified, third-party technical consultants” has me cringing.  I’m the guy that believes every single snow-removing, pot-hole-filling, bridge-building experience in this city is born on the backs of some sort inside scoop.

But that’s my cynical side.

Per the report:

“Technical planning decisions have become politicized.  One major city has delegated many decisions to senior staff, but an individual councillor can withdraw the delegation when there is local opposition and force a vote at Council.”

Clearly, this recommendation is attempting to remove the politicizing of developments and let projects pass or fail based on merit, not NIMBY’sim.  Or “BANANA’s,” which stands for “Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.”

16. Prevent abuse of the heritage preservation and designation process by:

a) Prohibiting the use of bulk listing on municipal heritage registers

b) Prohibiting reactive heritage designations after a Planning Act development application has been filed

This goes back to my point from Monday’s blog: there are some beautiful old historical buildings in Toronto, and many of us do believe in preserving our city’s history and charm.  However, shall we do so at a major cost to natural development and expansion of the city?

In Monday’s blog, I noted that there are some Victorian mansions on Jarvis Street regularly for sale for $10M – $20M, but nobody can buy those buildings at that price, to keep them in their current form.

All too often, Toronto residents get involved in matters that might not necessarily concern them, by pushing for heritage designation of properties that maybe aren’t worth preserving.

The second point above is an important one.  Many times, after a developer or an Average Joe makes an application to tear-down, develop, or modify an old structure, neighbours seek to block the development by adding it to the heritage roster.

December of 2020, I wrote: “The Friday Rant: Mind Your Own Business!”

This was about a young man who wanted to build a triplex – imagine that, eh, a mutli-unit dwelling?  Only to find that neighbours rushed to have the house designated as historical to block his development.

Nonsense like this has to end.

17. Requiring municipalities to compensate property owners for loss of property value as a result of heritage designations, based on the principle of best economic use of land.

I think this idea has merit.

Although, there’s an argument to be made that buying real estate is a risky venture, and if somebody is buying an old property, they’re taking on the risk that the property is eventually designated as historical.

I don’t think this point is included to help compensate property owners, but rather to deter the municipalities from designating properties as historical, since it will cost them money doing so.

18. Restore the right of developers to appeal Official Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews.

Yes, absolutely.

This is a whole other blog topic so let’s not go into this right now.

19. Legislate timelines at each stage of the provincial and municipal review process, including site plan, minor variance, and provincial reviews, and deem an application approved if the legislated response time is exceeded.

Another no-brainer.

There simply has to be a timeline or time limit placed on development applications et al, especially considering how quickly the price of real estate is rising.

When we hear about all these canceled condominium projects and how evil developers are, I have to think that sometimes, it’s because a process that could or should take six months ends up taking two years.  The more costs that the developer incurs, and the higher the price of material and labour rises over that time, the less economically viable the property is, and the higher the chance of cancellation.

Part of me thinks that a time limit would necessitate the hiring of more bureaucrats, but if that’s the cost, then so be it.

20. Fund the creation of “approvals facilitators” with the authority to quickly resolve conflicts among municipal and/or provincial authorities and ensure timelines are met.

Per the report:

“One of the strongest signs that our approval process is not working: Of 35 OECD countries, only the Slovak Republic takes longer in Canada to approve a building project.  The UK and the US approve projects three times faster without sacrificing quality or safety.”

Anything that can speed up development must be considered.

All of these recommendations will help in that regard.

21. Require a pre-consultation with all relevant parties at which the municipality sets out a binding list that defines what constitutes a complete application; confirms the number of consultations established in the previous recommendations; and clarifies that if a member of a regulated profession such as a professional engineer has stamped an application, the municipality has no liability and no additional stamp is needed.

Per the report:

“There is too much complexity in the planning process, with the page count in legislation, regulation, policies, plans, and by-laws growing every year.  There are too many studies, guidelines, meetings, and other requirements, including many that go well beyond the scope of Ontario’s Planning Act.”

Amen.

We all know this.  There’s so much red-tape in this city that we laugh about it.

22. Simplify planning legislation and policy documents.

Per the report:

“Some provincial policies that are more relevant to urban development but that result in burdensome, irrelevant requirements when applied in some rural and northern communities.”

Once in a while, I’ll download a brokerage’s boiler-plate “Schedule B” and there will be a clause to the effect of “if there is a septic tank on the property…” but for a condo.  I always wonder why agents and brokerages don’t do a better job of applying appropriate schedules and clauses and avoiding an attempt at a single-use catch-all.  The point above illustrates how much of the legislation and policy are not relevant.

23. Create a common, province-wide definition of plan of subdivision and standard set of conditions which clarify which may be included; require the use of standard province-wide legal agreements and, where feasible, plans of subdivision.

“Standardization” can be troublesome when you want every single instructor at the Humber College real estate program to check their identity at the door, teach from the text, don’t point out errors or discuss grey areas and real-world situations, and simply act like a robot hired by RECO to teach compliance to the Act, but nothing else.

However, standardization can also make things easier, as noted in the recommendation above with respect to sub-divisions.

I also love the idea about a “province-wide legal agreement” but I wonder how developers would fall into line here.

24. Allow wood construction of up to 12 storeys.

This is well beyond my area of expertise.

But the report notes:

“Wood using ‘mass timber’ – an engineer compressed wood, made for strength and weight-bearing – can provide a lower-cost alternative to reinforced concrete in many mid-rise projects, but Ontario’s Building Code is hampering its use.”

I simply have to assume that the Three Little Pigs were not consulted here.

25. Require municipalities to provide the option of pay on demand surety bonds and letters of credit.

Per the report:

“We were told that a shift in how builders are required to guarantee their performance would free up billions of dollars to build more housing.  Pay on demand surety bonds are a much less onerous option than letters of credit, and are already accepted in Hamilton, Pickering, Innisfil, Whitchurch-Stouffville and other Ontario municipalities.”

Anything to bring down the cost to the consumer, right?

26. Require appellants to promptly seek permission (“leave to appeal”) of the Tribunal and demonstrate that an appeal has merit, relying on evidence and expert reports, before it is accepted.

Per the report:

“When an approved project is appealed, the appellant – which could be just a single individual – may pay $400 and tie up new housing for years.”

There’s a recurring theme in all these points: that it’s too easy for people to slow down the build process.

27. Prevent abuse of process:

a) Remove right of appeal for projects with at least 30% affordable housing in which units are guaranteed affordable for at least 40 years.

b) Require a $10,000 filing fee for third-party appeals.

c) Provide discretion to adjudicators to award full costs to the successful party in any appeal brought by a third party or by a municipality where its council has overridden a recommended staff approval.

I don’t know if removing any right of appeal, just because a project has 30% affordable housing, is the answer.  But maybe we just have to assume that a project that is approved is done so with merit, and that including 30% affordable housing, in a city starved for it, is the price to pay.

The idea of jacking up the appeal fee from $400 to $10,000 is a good way to deter flippant opposition.

But the idea of awarding costs for people abusing the appeals process is a surefire way to deter frivolous appeals.

28. Encourage greater use of oral decisions issued the day of the hearing, with written reasons to follow, and allow those decisions to become binding the day that they are issued.

I don’t know enough about this to provide meaningful commentary.

29. Where it is found that a municipality has refused an application simply to avoid a deemed approval for lack of decision, allow the Tribunal to award punitive damages.

Punitive damages, you say?

Oh, you had my attention.  Now you have my interest!

At this point, through 29 of the 55 recommendations by the Task Force, it feels like they’re going on the offensive.  They know how and where to hit people so it hurts.

This is going to ensure action on the part of the municipalities, and in a timely manner.

Get into the municipalities’ pockets, and you’ll see action.  No doubt.

30. Provide funding to increase staffing (adjudicators and case managers), provide market-competitive salaries, outsource more matters to mediators, and set shorter time targets.

Pay people more.

Hire more people.

It was only a matter of time before we saw this point…

31. In clearing the existing backlog, encourage the Tribunal to prioritize projects close to the finish line that will support housing growth and intensification, as well as regional water or utility infrastructure decisions that will unlock significant housing capacity.

Ah, I see a can of worms here.

This opens the door to favourtism and removes objectivity to replace it with subjectivity.

32. Waive development charges and parkland cash-in-lieu and charge only modest connection fees for all infill residential projects up to 10 units or for any development where no new material infrastructure will be required.

Per the report:

“Housing requires more than just the land it is built on.  It requires roads, sewers, parks, utilities, and other infrastructure.  The provincial government provides municipalities with a way to secure funding for this infrastructure through development charges, community benefit chards, and parkland dedication (providing 5% of land for public parks or the cash equivalent).

These charges are founded on the belief that growth – not current taxpayers – should pay for growth.  As a concept, it is compelling.  In practice, it means that new home buyers pay the entire cost of sewers, parks, affordable housing, or colleges that will be around for generations and may not be located in their neighbourhood.”

This is a whole other blog post too, and we’ve talked about development charges many times on TRB.

This recommendation that charges be waived for small developments that require no new material infrastructure seems quite reasonable.

33. Waive development charges on all forms of affordable housing guaranteed to be affordable for 40 years.

While this is simply going to take money from the government’s left pocket and put it into the government’s right pocket, it will hopefully spur the construction of more affordable housing in the process.

34. Prohibit interest rates on development charges higher than a municipality’s borrowing rate.

I don’t have anything meaningful here other than to say this seems entirely reasonable.  This doesn’t seem like a controversial or impactful recommendation.

35. Regarding cash in lieu of parkland, s.37, Community Benefit Charges, and development charges:

a) Provincial review of reserve levels, collections and drawdowns annually to ensure funds are being used in a timely fashion and for the intended purpose, and, where review points to a significant concern, do not allow further collection until the situation has been corrected.

b) Except where allocated towards municipality-wide infrastructure projects, require municipalities to spend funds in the neighbourhoods where they were collected. However, where there’s a significant community need in a priority area of the City, allow for specific ward-to-ward allocation of unspent and unallocated reserves.

From the report:

“In some municipalities, development charges have increased as much as 900% in 20 years.”

Yeah, no kidding.

The municipalities have been feeding off real estate like a newborn calf suckles…

I think we can all agree that development charges are out of control, but again, I know that they’re a zero-sum game.  If we reduce development charges, then the municipalities have to replace the revenue elsewhere.

As for the idea that the municipalities have to spend the funds in the communities in which they were collected, this is one of the more interesting points examined today.  I have no idea how a municipality would account for this, but I also think that if there’s zero development at Jane & Finch, and zero development charges, then to give that area zero funds is counterproductive.  I can see this recommendation doing more harm than good.

36. Recommend that the federal government and provincial governments update HST rebate to reflect current home prices and begin indexing the thresholds to housing prices, and that the federal government match the provincial 75% rebate and remove any clawback.

Don’t get me started on the idea of paying HST on a goddam house.

You pay HST on your coffee from Starbucks, and your hockey stick from Canadian Tire, and your mobile device from the Apple store.  But to pay HST on a million-dollar home?

Oh yeah!

The government’s got ta get theirs!

Many people don’t realize that the developers simply bury this in the purchase price, but the amount of money that the government rakes in from new developments is just shocking.

Would removing part of the HST from houses and condos help bring prices down?

Sure!

But again, the government would have replace this revenue somewhere, so get ready for the new air tax for breathing in 2023…

37. Align property taxes for purpose-built rental with those of condos and low-rise homes.

Per the report:

“Municipal property taxes on purpose-built rentals can be as much as 2.5 times greater than property taxes for condominiums or other ownership housing.”

You want to see more purpose-built rentals?

Then implement this recommendation tomorrow.

38. Amend the Planning Act and Perpetuities Act to extend the maximum period for land leases and restrictive covenants on land to 40 or more years.

Land leases?

I come across this maybe once every few years.

But the Task Force is opening up a conversation here about new homeownership models.

There is currently a 21-year limit on land leases, which makes it very difficult to finance this style of home-ownership, even though it’s quite rare.

I don’t know that this is going to have a major impact, at least not in Toronto.

39. Eliminate or reduce tax disincentives to housing growth.

Land transfer tax, anyone?

What do you think the real estate market would be like if both the provincial and municipal land transfer taxes vanished tomorrow?  Forget about how the government replaces that revenue: (See: Tax On Breathing), but can’t we agree that this would free up inventory?

How about HST?  Shall we touch on that too?

This “recommendation” is nice and all, but nobody in any level of government is listening.

Alright folks, it’s 1:00am and I’m tired from running three offer nights this evening, so I’m going to hit the hay and pick this up on Friday.

Thank God our mattresses aren’t stuffed with hay.

Hit the sack.

Huh.

A sack filled with hay.

I guess in 1905, there was just no chance of getting that Serta Beauty-Rest, eh?