Housing Affordability Task Force Report: My Two Cents

Toronto Politics

15 minute read

February 14, 2022

We have a lot of fun here on Toronto Realty Blog, don’t we?

We talk, we share, we opine, and we debate.  We laugh and we lament.  And at times, we commiserate.

There are the fun posts and there are the serious ones.

There are posts that explore good and posts that explore bad.

There is simply no subject we shy away from, and there is truly no real estate stone unturned.

When the Housing Affordability Task Force released their report last week, at first, I somewhat dismissed it.  I’ve heard nothing but rhetoric from all three levels of government for the last two decades and I honestly don’t expect that to change.

But the more I thought about the impact that this report could have, the more I realized that this could be one of the biggest real estate stories we have ever explored here on TRB.

Upon reading the full report, which spans thirty-three pages and is, at times, as dry as the Sahara, I again determined that an examination of this report could also serve as one of the most important blog posts in the history of TRB.

So this week, I would like to dive into the fifty-five recommendations that the Housing Affordability Task Force included in their report, which will likely span the length of three blog posts.

For some of you, these will be the most boring posts you’ve ever read.  You like the “MLS Musings,” you read the stories, and you like gritty, in-the-trenches tales, but this just isn’t for you.  I get that.  I understand, and I don’t blame you.

For others among you, each of these fifty-five points is an entire discussion unto its own.  Each of these points could benefit from an individual blog post, fully dedicated to exploring the pros and cons of that point, the implementation of the idea, and the realistic or unrealistic nature of the promise therein.

Before I get started, I want to make three things clear:

1) I applaud the Task Force for publishing this report, just as I applaud the Province for commissioning it in the first place.  I believe in almost every one of these fifty-five recommendations, but my job here today is to be honest, rational, and at times, cynical of these points.  It is my job not to cheerlead, but to poke holes in the points where possible, open them for examination and debate, and hold the Task Force and the report accountable.

2) This will be among the more opinionated pieces that you will see me write, which is saying a lot, since every single blog post contains my opinion.

3) This is going to be a highly political blog, and that is unavoidable.

It is the government that has given us this report and the government who have put Torontonians, Ontarians, and Canadians in what we are all referring to as a “housing crisis.”  Thus, this entire discussion will be political.

Now, before I get started, I also have to explain two points regarding my feelings on the idea of “politics” and “politicians” in general.  These two points will help you to understand not only my opinion on the fifty-five recommendations in the report, but my opinions on the motivations behind the report, the individuals involved, as well as the potential implementation (or not) of the recommendations going forward:

1) Politics is not about serving the people.

This isn’t meant to be inflammatory or condescending, but rather I really believe this.  And I think that by the end of this section, I will have convinced you.

I do not blame politicians for the fact that politics isn’t about, and cannot be about, serving the people.  This is the contradiction and catch-22 that automatically exists because of the very notion of, and definition of, a politician.

“Politician” is an occupation.

An “occupation” is what one does in order to generate income or a salary.  An occupation is a job.  A job is what you do to make money to pay for everything in life that necessitates money.

Ergo, if a politician does not want to be without an occupation/job/income, then that politician needs to remain in the position.

But how does one become a politician?  One is elected.

In order to be elected, or re-elected, a politician must be popular.  A politician must be in favour.  People must like that individual, or his or her beliefs, values, goals, intentions, plans, policies, recommendations, and outlook for the city or district.

As somebody wrote in the comments section last month, Henry Ford once said, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”  But Henry Ford wasn’t elected.  He owned a company and because he was a forward-thinking visionary, he went to work on something that nobody wanted, asked for, or even knew existed.

But politicians cannot act in any manner that is unpopular or unwanted.  If a politician knew what was best for the city as a whole, but would not be best for his or her immediate constituents, that politician could not act on his or her knowledge, otherwise, the politician would risk his or her livelihood.

Politics isn’t about serving the people.  Politics is about staying in power.  If a politician is not re-elected, then that politician is unemployed.

Ergo, politicians do anything and everything to be re-elected, and thus anything and everything to win the votes of the constituents.

Politicians agree with things they don’t believe in.  Politicians make promises they don’t intend to keep or cannot possibly keep.  Politicians do not make unpopular decisions, speeches, or actions.  Politicians will avoid controversy, disagreement, debate, and dissent.

Politicians are not forward-thinking; at least not to the extent that builds cities.  Voters are self-interested.  That goes without saying.  And what is the easiest way to win over a voter?  Give them what they want, but give it to them now.

The reason that we, the people, are in any and every “mess” or “crisis,” including that of housing, is because we put people in power who’s number-one goal is to stay there.

2) There is no “long-term” in politics.

From the very minute that Donald Trump won the U.S. Presidency in 2016, half the country was saying, “We need to get him out.”  It was four years of that, right from the get-go.

And as soon as Joe Biden won the U.S. Presidency in 2020, the other half of the country began to challenge the legitimacy of the election results.

Further to my point above, politics is about survival.

And while any example drawn from the United States is going to be extreme, I would add that whether we’re looking at Toronto City Councilors, Ontario Members of Provincial Parliament, or Federal Members of Parliament, every single one of them is under siege from the moment they take office.

If politicians serve four-year terms, consider just how difficult it would be to act on meaningful long-term plans for any city, province, or country.

Let’s say that back in the 1980’s, when Toronto was merely a city of parking lots, the Mayor, City Council, Premier, or Prime Minister had a vision for the city.  Let’s say that somebody or a group of people could look into the future and see Toronto as it is now.

Imagine a Toronto in 2022 with a TTC subway line under Queen Street, from Victoria Park to Roncesvalles.  Imagine another line under St. Clair Avenue from Mount Pleasant all the way To Scarlett Road.  Now imagine two more of these lines, anywhere you want.

Imagine thirty more public schools than what we have now, complete with ample outdoor spaces and sports fields.

Imagine another half-dozen Sunnybrook-sized hospitals throughout the GTA.

Imagine another 1,000,000 purpose-built rental units throughout the GTA, many of which are owned either by the government or in partnerships with the private sector, allowing for subsidies for low-income individuals or families.

Now, imagine a Japanese-style “bullet train” that runs from Niagara Falls to Oshawa, connecting the Golden Horseshoe and allowing Ontarians to flow freely across an area that is home to almost 25% of the population of the entire country.

Would we be better off?

That’s beyond rhetorical, so let’s not dwell on it.

And here’s where my defeatist attitude comes into view when it comes to politics, because I don’t see any way that all this could have ever happened when we vote political parties, city councilors, MP’s and MPP’s in and out of office every four years.

It’s impossible to build a city long-term when every four years, a new view, outlook, or goal replaces the old one.

If I were to start writing a blog here on TRB, and then Chris took over, then he handed it off to Matthew, and then Tara finished it, there would be a massive difference in writing style, tones, spelling and grammar, turns of phrases, not to mention opinions and content.

So how in the world can we expect the Liberal government to start a project, then have the Conservative Government continue it, then hand it back over to the Liberals to work on, then watch as the NDP takes over (that happened once in Ontario, don’t forget…), and on and on, with the same goal in mind.

It’s not possible, and therein lays the problem with building a city long-term.

With that out of the way, let’s get into these points, one-by-one…

 

1. Set a goal of building 1.5 million new homes in ten years.

Great.

Let’s do it!  Let’s get started today!

But how?  Where?  When?

We’ve heard this type of talk before, and it has come from all three levels of government.

September 9th, 2015: “Trudeau Promises Affordable Housing For Canadians”

None of this has happened.  It’s voter candy.  It’s election-speak.

And as we’ve noted many times here on TRB, meaningful change with respect to housing has to come from the municipalities first, the provinces second, and the federal government third.

The 2015 “National Housing Strategy” didn’t do anything to help with affordability.  In fact, house prices in the country have almost doubled since then.

So what’s another promise to build 1,500,000 homes in ten years mean?

Oh, wait, it’s not a promise.  It’s a goal.  So what does that mean?

Potentially nothing, unfortunately.  It’s merely a suggestion in a housing report, written by many people who have little ability or influence with respect to building.

I applaud this “goal” but we have to see it for what it is.

 

2. Amend the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement, and Growth Plans to set “growth in the full spectrum of housing supply” and “intensification within existing built-up areas” of municipalities as the most important residential housing priorities in the mandate and purpose.

I love this idea!

Amend the Planning Act, which was written when:

  1. “Driving Miss Daisy” won the Oscar for Best Picture
  2. Madonna released “Vogue”
  3. Wayne Gretzky was in his 2nd season with the Los Angeles Kings

Suffice it to say, 1990 was a long, long time ago.

I understand that legislation is meant to be forward-thinking and is to be built upon, but for a city like Toronto, which has undergone such an incredible transformation in the past three decades, amendments should have been constant.  There should have been a scheduled examination of the Planning Act every 2-3 years for the last two decades as the GTA exploded with growth.

This recommendation mentions “intensification within existing built-up areas” which will become a theme through the rest of the report.  I take this to mean that if there’s a 40-storey tower on one corner, then there should be absolutely, positively, no issue with building a 40-storey tower on the other corner.  However, as we will also note in this report, NIMBYism, red-tape, and opposition hold up construction for years and years on end, and in many cases, completely thwart the projects.

The report notes: “Throughout the 1970’s, Ontario built more housing units each year than we do today.”

That tells you all we need to know about how construction has stalled in this province.

Again, this point is more general in nature and simply opens the door to other ideas, and sets up other points, but it’s a start.

 

3. Limit exclusionary zoning in municipalities through binding provincial action:

a) Allow “as of right” residential housing up to four units and up to four storeys on a single lot

b) Modernize the Building Code and other policies to remove any barriers to affordable construction and ensure meaningful implementation (e.g., allow single-staircase construction for up to four storeys, allow single egress, etc.).

Per the report:

“The province is responsible for the legislation and policy that establishes planning, land use, and home building goals, which guide municipalities, land tribunals, and courts.  Municipalities are then responsible for implementing provincial policy in a way that works for their communities.”

This point is essentially saying that when the province puts legislation in place, the municipalities need to follow it.

And right now, the municipalities are falling victim to that catch-22 I mentioned at the onset, which is that individual city councils or councilors are looking out for their own best interests on a day-to-day and case-by-case basis.  A city councilor is going to fight any project that constituents don’t want, regardless of the provincial legislation and/or guidance.  This too is a very common theme in these recommendations.

Per the report:

“It is estimated that 70% of land zoned for housing in Toronto is restricted to single-detached or semi-detached homes.  This type of zoning prevents homeowners from adding additional suites to create housing for Ontarians and income for themselves.”

In order to create 1,500,000 new housing units in ten years, exclusionary zoning must be relaxed.

However, can you see the house next door to you being converted to four units?  Do you want that?

Can you see the 2-storey house next door to you having two more storeys added on top?

Would you like that?  Would you support that or would you fight that?

I think this point makes perfect sense on paper, but in reality, this makes every GTA resident a NIMBY.

 

4. Permit “as of right” conversion of underutilized or redundant commercial properties to residential or mixed residential or commercial use.

No-brainer.

There is far too much red-tape involved with amending zoning by-laws in this city, and official plan amendments take forever.

I understand that if a developer owns a block of sixteen houses in an area zoned “Neighbourhood” and wants to re-zone as “Apartment” to build an 80-storey tower, that there are processes in place.  But we’re not talking about building an 80-storey tower on Fern Avenue in Roncesvalles.  All too often, zoning amendments create an unnecessary delay and an unnecessary cost, the latter of which is passed on to the consumer.

 

 

5. Permit “as of right” secondary suites, garden suites, and laneway houses province-wide.

Some municipalities are further ahead on this one:

February 2nd, 2022: “City Toronto Gives Green Light To Garden Suites”

Too little, too late?  Or any time is a good time?

This took forever, folks.

One of my readers attempted eight years ago to construct a garden/laneway suite in an underutilized back alley.  The amount of time she’s spent working with the municipality on this is downright embarrassing for our city in the midst of a housing crisis.

While some people think that building dwellings in alleys or backyards will strip away at the look and feel of our communities, I don’t know that we’re at the point where can concern ourselves with that anymore.  We need housing, any way we can get it.

Of course, I wonder about the cost of building a secondary suite, since it will be difficult to finance.  I also wonder about the amount of red-tape that will come with applications, approvals, inspections, et al.

 

6. Permit “as of right” multi-tenant housing (renting rooms within a dwelling) province-wide.

This is a ridiculous idea unless implementation and oversight is extremely diligent.

Can you honestly imagine every house in Toronto becoming a rooming house?

And in which areas?  This suggestion is laughable depending on the location.

You live in Forest Hill.  Your house is worth $9,000,000.  Your neigbhour is now renting his 9-bedroom house by the room.

I don’t know how this idea is going to be put into practice.

I also think this opens the door to extreme exploitation of foreign students (who are already exploited by many members of their own communities), as well as minorities and low-income individuals.

I have to question what type of government oversight would exist in turning any house into a rooming house.

 

7. Encourage and incentivize municipalities to increase density in areas with excess school capacity to benefit families with children.

Where in the GTA is there “excess school capacity?”

I’m not being sarcastic.  I genuinely want to know.

When we examined Transit-Oriented Communities in the blog earlier this month, I asked how bringing 80,000 new residents into a small area dominated by 70 condominium towers would work with respect to supporting infrastructure, including grocery stores, medical/dental, amenities, and of course, schools.

I’m not an expert in the field of public education, but I would hazard a guess that “excess school capacity” is a bit of a unicorn.

And as I noted at the onset, I don’t think that governments are in the habit of building for the future, so we’re unlikely to stumble upon a town with eight schools, all sitting empty, waiting for residential construction.

When I see the words “encourage and incentivize municipalities,” see the problem therein.  This is one body of government trying to give direction to another body of government, and unless the province is going to pay the city to build, then this point is empty.

 

8. Allow “as of right” zoning up to unlimited height and unlimited density in the immediate proximity of individual major transit stations within two years if municipal zoning remains insufficient to meet provincial density targets.

“Ladies and gentlemen, introducing, Toronto’s first six-hundred storey condominium!”

Unlimited, eh?

Once you take the cap off that beer, it’s impossible to put it back on.

Think about that poor franchisee of Ihop in Valdosta, Georgia, who advertises “all you can eat pancakes,” only to see big ol’ Bubba waltz through the front door after an 18-hour drive in a big rig.  That’s instant regret, right there.

But what is meant by “in the immediate proximity of individual major transit stations?” How far is that?  Are we talking any section of Yonge Street from Front to Sheppard?  I have a hard time believing that if somebody bought Sporting Life at Yonge & Blythwood and wanted to build a 90-storey tower that this would see a green light.

I also think that this will undoubtedly be thwarted by local City Councilors.

Let’s say that, hypothetically, I put together a land assembly downtown and that land happened to be in the ward of, oh, lemme see, I dunno, say…….Kristyn Wong-Tam.  And let’s say that, hypothetically, this would have seen the demolition of a dozen single-family homes, some completely derelict, and would be replaced with 600 new units, 30% of which would be low-income housing.  And let’s also say that, hypothetically, this project was dead before it ever got off the ground, via a single phone call.

Now, that’s a hypothetical case, of course.

But that goes to show you what can happen, even “in the immediate proximity of major individual transit stations,” if local city councilors are not on board with the grandiose vision of Task Force and the province.

 

9. Allow “as of right” zoning of six to 11 storeys with no minimum parking requirements on any streets utilized by public transit (including streets on bus and streetcar routes).

Similar to the point above, this is incredibly vague.

A while back, a TRB reader asked about a potential land assembly for herself and her neighbours on a major uptown road.  The idea that a developer could purchase these houses and construct an eleven-storey condominium is an absolute pipe-dream.  But this is a major street that is utilized by public transit!  It falls right into the recommendation above!

I just don’t see it happening.  Ever.

The neighbours would go nuts.

The word “shadow” appears many times in the Task Force’s report.  It’s always about tall buildings “casting a shadow” on other properties or schools.  A shadow from an eleven-storey building on Avenue Road would have cast a shadow on dozens of homes and it would have completely changed the identity of this neighbourhood.

Never say never, but this will never happen.  Not as long as city councilors are working in their own self-interest, on behalf of local constituents who are inherently self-interested.

 

10. Designate or rezone as mixed commercial and residential use all land along transit corridors and redesignate all Residential Apartment to mixed commercial and residential zoning in Toronto.

This is a recommendation.

There are many recommendations in this report.

But in order for these recommendations to do good, there has to be implementation by the municipalities.

My cynical side says that in order to properly define “transit corridor,” two levels of government will have to put out RFP’s to groups that can work and create another report with this definition, and we’ll create a few more government jobs in the process.

The province and the municipality would have to first of all, agree on the definition of “transit corridor,” but then also work to systematically identify which streets would qualify.

Can you see the problem with this already?

 

11. Support responsible housing growth on undeveloped land, including outside existing municipal boundaries, by building necessary infrastructure to support higher density housing and complete communities and applying the recommendations of this report to all undeveloped land.

Oh my god, this is so vague and dreamy it actually weakens the effectiveness of the entire report.

This is jargon.  There’s no actual meaning here.

Whereas many of the fifty-five “recommendations” are highly specific, some, like this one, are too vague to even have a purpose.

“Support responsible housing growth” can mean just about anything.

“Building necessary infrastructure” can also mean anything, but more to the point, we could be talking about spending billions on a dozen different infrastructure projects in order to “support housing growth.”

Build roads, highways, public transit, schools, parks, commercial/retail, and anything else that would be required for residential living.  Okay, sure!  Great idea!  But how many billions?  And when?  How?

I’m all for the three levels of government spending money on infrastructure, but the way this point is written is just silly, and it finishes in a circular way by talking about “applying the recommendations of the report.”

 

12. Create a more permissive land use, planning, and approvals system:

a) Repeal or override municipal policies, zoning, or plans that prioritize the preservation of physical character of neighbourhood

b) Exempt from site plan approval and public consultation all projects of 10 units or less that conform to the Official Plan and require only minor variances

c) Establish province-wide zoning standards, or prohibitions, for minimum lot sizes, maximum building setbacks, minimum heights, angular planes, shadow rules, front doors, building depth, landscaping, floor space index, and heritage view cones, and planes; restore pre-2006 site plan exclusions (colour, texture, and type of materials, window details, etc.) to the Planning Act and reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements; and

d) Remove any floorplate restrictions to allow larger, more efficient high-density towers.

There are heritage buildings on Jarvis Street that are absolutely beautiful.

They date back to the Victorian era and every time I drive by them, I think to myself, “I can’t believe that people were able to construct buildings like these in the 1800’s.”

They are magnificent!  The character and detail is something we will never see in residential construction again.

They are masterpieces.

And they should be torn down.

I lived in the St. Lawrence Market area when I first moved to downtown Toronto and I was enamoured with the history of the neighbourhood as well as the buildings that remain from the late-1800’s and early-1900’s.  I wrote blogs about these buildings.  I sent out newsletters about these buildings.  I absolutely love the history and character of old, original buildings in our city.

I believe in preserving the history and character of our city.  I believe that our city is better off with some of this history and character.

But how much?  And where?  And at what cost?

The buildings on Jarvis Street have been for sale, off and on, for years.  They are far too expensive for anybody to buy in order to open a restaurant, and nobody wants to own a $20 Million single-family house downtown.  So what do we do with these buildings?  Should the government buy them and preserve them?  Is that in our best interests?  Do we turn them into a museum?

At some point, we have to realize that the lands that these houses and some of the surrounding houses sit on would be much better utilized if there were two or three 60-storey towers in place.  It’s become quite apparent that nobody is going to to purchase these to preserve the heritage and history that exists on that site, so at what point to we simply move on from this romantic idea?

 

 

13. Limit municipalities from requesting or hosting additional public meetings beyond those that are required under the Planning Act.

Another great “recommendation,” but does the province have the power to limit municipalities in this regard?

Who’s holding the sword here?

 

14. Require that public consultations provide digital participation options.

Sure, and while we’re at it, can we get the Toronto Real Estate Board to stop sending us faxes?

When the pandemic began, we all figured out rather quickly how to use Zoom.

I think the days of going to a local community centre to sit in folding chairs and shake our fists in opposition of development are long gone, don’t you?

This is a surefire way to increase participation and interest and there’s no downside here.

Okay, that was way too long, but I noticed that the most meaningful of the fifty-five recommendations seem to come at the beginning of the report.  It’s almost like this report was written late one night, and as time went on, the people writing the report started to mail it in.

By the time we get to the mid-40’s, the points are like, “Do nice things and stuff….”

Let’s leave it here for today and we’ll pick it up on Wednesday.

Written By David Fleming

David Fleming is the author of Toronto Realty Blog, founded in 2007. He combined his passion for writing and real estate to create a space for honest information and two-way communication in a complex and dynamic market. David is a licensed Broker and the Broker of Record for Bosley – Toronto Realty Group

Find Out More About David Read More Posts

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

12 Comments

  1. Daniel

    at 9:34 am

    I’m going to need to take a day off work to read this post. Couldn’t this have been split into two??!!?

  2. Appraiser

    at 10:42 am

    The committee and our political representatives need to come up with 2 or 3 clearly defined easily communicated and practical initiatives that they can focus on regarding housing.

    And get started on it right away.

  3. TokyoTuds

    at 11:23 am

    “The five most underutilized schools:

    Drewry Secondary School which is at 24 per cent capacity and;
    Maplewood High School which is at 27 per cent. Both Drewry and Maplewood are for special needs students.
    George Harvey — it can hold 1,557 students but only has 539 – putting it at 35 per cent capacity.
    Central Etobicoke — was built for 378 students but has 134 with 35 per cent capacity.
    Central Tech — it can hold 2868 students but has 1049 putting it at 37 per cent capacity.”

    1. Steve

      at 1:16 pm

      Yeah, I was scrolling down to mention the same. Yes, there are areas like Yonge & Eglinton that are massively oversubscribed in terms of # of people who are going to need schools, but there are equally large numbers of schools that are massively underutilized for various reasons.

  4. Kyle

    at 11:42 am

    It’s an irrefutable fact that we’ve been underbuilding for decades, this is why housing is no longer affordable.

    It is beyond ridiculous that the official plan of North America’s fourth largest city doesn’t allow more than 0.6 density across 2/3rds of it’s total area. Toronto’s official plan is so restrictive and regressive, that the vast majority of houses that exist in Toronto today, already exceed what the plan allows. This doesn’t call for tweaking, this calls for a complete and utter overhaul. Updating the Planning Act, takes away municipal councils’ and planning departments’ ability to further regress their official plans and forces them to update them accordingly.

    While not perfect and not without some fluff, i have to give credit where credit is due this report is shockingly practical, action-based and results-oriented. It goes straight for the jugular of the parties that have prevented building in the past and removes a lot of the tactics previously used by planning departments, councilors, and nimbys to stop supply from being added and it goes on to set targets and consequences for not reaching those targets. Serious kudos to the task force on this.

    1. DenisT

      at 12:54 pm

      Agree completely.

  5. A Grant

    at 1:25 pm

    Personally I am all for well-planned densification – but I’m more about finding and developing the “missing middle” rather than giving developers cart blanche to 70+ story condo towers.

    David, you throw around the term “NIMBY” a lot in this piece. And while I certainly wouldn’t consider myself one – I live in post-war suburb near a major city centre with tiny homes and large lots which, quite frankly, is no longer sustainable – I also wouldn’t be so dismissive of their concerns.

    I propose a thought exercise for you. Apply what you know of the Housing Affordability Task Force Report to your neighbourhood. What would you embrace? What potential changes would you fight?

  6. Average Joe

    at 2:16 pm

    I’m all for cynicism when it comes to politicians. But many of these ideas aren’t original, they’re coming from initiatives that are being passed in many U.S. states and in other commonwealth countries like New Zealand. Toronto has extremely low density by even North American standards. We’re worse than Philadelphia. And that has huge ramifications on our cost competitiveness in global markets and our ability to hit climate targets because of all the driving we need to do. Many Toronto neighborhoods actually have declining density because of empty nesters and ageing in place. And they could probably downsize if they had desirable options nearby.

    Noone is going to spend $9M on a rooming house in Forest Hill. You’d be able to operate one anywhere in the province so those will go where rent is high, demand is high and costs are lower. These were common where I went to University and I would like to know why you think underground markets are safer than legal options. Your example is fear mongering and makes no practical sense. Just because any house can be a rooming house does not mean every house or even most will be.

    I think a better (and shorter) critique could have been “where are we going to get all the labour and materials to build all this?” The real cynic might question why politicians are doing this now. It isn’t to help young families or the climate. It’s because very high cost of living and low productivity is bad for business in the long run. Both public and private sectors are going to suffer if they don’t act. This will get rammed through eventually, just like in California and elsewhere.

  7. Old Planner

    at 9:16 pm

    In appreciation of your hardworking blog I’ll file comment, not my usual hobby, but you are doing real work reporting and discussing the Housing Affordability Task Force report. Good to know it at least has one reader.

    Skipping past the operating logistics of the career politician, it is possible you are missing the report’s real value in an old, tedious and fragmented public debate. It contains every nostrum, pie-in-sky, buzzword, fashionable cure-all, developer bar talk, pipe dreams and blame identities all in one document. It not often we find encyclopedic precision anywhere, let alone from committee-speak in the public realm.

    My praise ends there. I’ll wait for a report – from anyone – who might at least examine the following factors:

    If almost 70% of the Canadian population lives in owner-occupied housing, nominal inflation of that asset tends to create modest joy. For those just entering ownership status the misery of that challenge is overnight replaced by hope of further inflation, if only to make sense of what they have just done.

    The 30% without ownership housing could be studied to show what proportion have no interest, desire or personal circumstances to buy houses. What, exactly is the proportion of the truly downtrodden here? Whatever the number is, good writers for two centuries have noted democracies are hard on minorities.

    The hypocrisy of the deep thinkers or their political adherents that small-scale rental arrangements part of the solution is breathtaking. The street has known, for decades, it don’t easily work due to the Ontario regulatory regime. As a RE pro, you must know ‘sitting tenants’ is the kiss of death in a sale scenario here.

    For policy entertainment, go no further than the basis for any civic planning problem, new or old, is to ‘pack-em in’. Higher densities, everywhere and anyway. The writers have apparently never tried to use the Yonge subway once at peak hours during the past 20 years. Proximity to useless transit is fraud in this context, it’s repetition implies congenital lack of imagination to create better ones. Of course we are finally, sorta, building new ones, but before I can have a ride, I’ll be dead.

    But if the land developers could just get free rein, supply would magically appear. As peaches are cheap at the end of August. Writers who assert this not only know nothing about development, I suspect they don’t know anything.

    As a veteran of the Toronto RE trenches you might consider the long-term popularity of that city or it’s residential component relative to other cities might be partly due to stability, interesting house forms making no official list, relatively civil society and bankers underwriting that package as folks buy and sell. It has just happened for a long time, and municipal government – hard to love, I know – was part of that. So is Toronto civic administration the enemy? Possibly, but of who, precisely? They did tend to get elected by the people who live or work there.

    But if you take the central planners in the Ontario Government seriously, this ‘Task Force’, it at least provides you blog material forever. I’ve always enjoyed your blog as good sketches of real life, but this subject path recalls the proverb that ‘Against stupidity, the Gods themselves labour in vain”. An editorial black hole. But activity, statistics and even stupidity within and near the Toronto RE world holds far more interest.

    I’d like to write more, but busy now organizing my move to Paris, FR. I need an apartment downtown there but it is difficult. The costs for anything seem absurdly high, way worse in $CDN. I can only hope the wisdom of the ‘Housing Affordability Task Force’ gets there before I do, and save us all.

  8. cyber

    at 2:17 pm

    Overall I am positively surprised by Doug Ford’s initiative on this topic, and cannot believe I’m considering voting for the guy as I’d love to see (most of) these recommendations implemented by the Province flexing its power over cities. Did not like it when number of city wards was drastically reduced in the middle of election as a big FU to the city, but happy to see these powers hopefully used for good.

    What we learned during the council re-jigging – something I was not aware of before – is that cities are mainly “creatures of the province” and really only as ‘independent’ to the extent the Province lets them. Under the Constitution Act, “Through the provincial legislature, the provincial government has the power to enact or amend laws and programs related to: -natural resources and environment -hospitals -property and civil rights in the province -education -administration of justice -social services”

    Yes, this is in part setting the stage for ‘developer buddy’ give-away of allowing further development in the Greenbelt (#11)… but is overall a net positive to the ridiculous red-tape, NIMBY-dominated environment we now face.

    There’s a clear message of the Province letting “cities” (mainly Toronto) know that if they continue being sneaky with ‘character’, credit to NIMBYs who show up to complain etc., that Province is willing to override them in a way that’s much ‘worse’ than if the city just gets in line(#8). The whole point is if planning department, or local politicians, continue using tools at their disposal to prevent densification near public transit, they might get four 50-storey towers approved by OLT after successfully stopping two 15-storey ones. Basically, Doug Ford can take the issue away from city counsellors, planning department, and kicking and screaming neighbours very easily – and task force report is showing the ‘flex’.

    Regarding #7, many parts of our ‘yellow belt’ actually have less population now, so plenty of opportunity to further densify, or let empty nesters run BnBs.

    On #6, I don’t see how renting out rooms legally is less safe than renting basements illegally. At least they are above ground and generally have escapable windows… a big improvement over many illegal, not fire safe basement rentals today. In terms of rules, it would be very easy to specify something along the lines of “no more than 1 person per above-ground bedroom and 3 adults per bathroom; must pass Fire Marshall inspection before getting occupancy max & rooming house permit”. I still doubt many Forest Hill homes will turn into rooming houses, but even if they do become ‘high end dorm rooms’ for rich foreign students, don’t see why neighbours there should get more say about who leaves nearby than the rest of Toronto… you don’t get to be against NIMBYs and then become one when there’s more people potentially moving in next door.

    Elevating this issue from mostly local to mostly provincial is the right move – hoping most of these get implemented very quickly and without wasting time on further public consultation that end up mostly attended by those who are primarily interested in continued accelerated equity growth due to supply choke hold and do not care for ‘public good’. In the meantime, I invite anyone interested in more supply, to join fellow “YIMBYs” at the More Neighbours Toronto group on Discord so we can join forces and organize to provide support for common-sense projects at our local public consultation meetings.

  9. Mxyzptlk

    at 5:49 pm

    David’s “imagine a Toronto in 2022” wish list of four new subway lines, thirty more public schools, another half-dozen Sunnybrook-sized hospitals, another 1,000,000 purpose-built rental units and a Japanese-style “bullet train” that runs from Niagara Falls to Oshawa (did I cover everything?) would have been wonderful had it reached fruition, even in part, I think (hope?) we can all agree.

    But to put most if not all of the blame on lack of political will is in my opinion giving short shrift to perhaps the most obvious elephant in the room: cost. The public’s appetite for higher taxes (income, sales, property, capital gains, you name it) is, quite simply, nearly non-existent, and has been for a very long time. Until Torontonians (perhaps that should be GTAers), who are by no means alone in this regard, are willing to pay out of their own pockets, not someone else’s, for the improvements they want, civic progress will move at a snail’s pace, at best. And that’s tragic, for all of us.

Pick5 is a weekly series comparing and analyzing five residential properties based on price, style, location, and neighbourhood.

Search Posts