Ontario still cripples Toronto

By Stig Harvor –

New construction in Toronto today is no longer defined by clear rules. The only rule is: Let’s make a deal.

Deals involve two parties: The developer and the city. As in all deals, the two parties have different interests. The developer wants to maximize profits; the city wants to encourage new development and integrate it in the neighbourhood. Through a long and tortuous process of negotiation, a deal is finally reached. But is this process creating a more liveable and attractive city? Many people do not think so.

It used to be that the city regulated new development by rules of zoning. Zoning specified what could be built on a particular piece of land. Primarily it dictated the type of use in a building, its density (size), and height. These requirements and location governed the value of the land.

As the city grew and evolved, earlier zoning rules restrained desirable development in some areas of the city. City council granted more and more exceptions to the existing rules. Exceptions have now become the rule. Most exceptions are small and handled through Committee of Adjustment. But it is the big ones that count. The big ones are becoming frequent. They set the precedent for more big ones.

Today this situation has been exacerbated by the city’s new Official Plan. It was passed three years ago by council but is still held up by appeals by interested parties at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The new plan introduced the principle of intensification of building as a means of accommodating the increasing number of people who want to live in our city. The commendable aim is to slow expensive suburban sprawl.

The new Official Plan, however, is vague on the control of density and height.

It simply piously declares that “new development will be massed to fit harmoniously into its surroundings and will respect and improve the local scale and character.”

The end result of the promotion of intensification is that many big developers have been taking strong advantage of it alone. They start out today without paying any attention to existing zoning. As their opening negotiation stance, they bring forward a project that far exceeds zoning rules on density and height and even their own bottom line for profits.

These developers know they will face objections from city planners as well as local residents.

They are prepared to reduce their demands as part of the negotiating process. The reduction they offer can be considerable. The bigger it is, the more they can claim to be reasonable no matter how unreasonable their original demand was.

Take the example of the large 40 The Esplanade condo known as “London on The Esplanade” in the historically sensitive St. Lawrence Neighbourhood.

As his opening position, the developer demanded almost four times the allowable density and four times the allowable height. In protracted negotiations with the city, he reduced his density to just above three times the allowable, a reduction of 18%. Another example is a current, large project at the corner of Bloor and Bedford St. where the developer has agreed to a 10% reduction in density.

In these two examples, the developer is still making enough money to satisfy his needs. The long, drawn-out and often exhausting negotiation, however, is wasteful of time and money on the part of everyone involved: the developer, the city and concerned citizens. This is particularly so if the developer appeals his project to the OMB which has the power to single-handedly override all city planning decisions.

In the end, the only clear winners seem to be the lawyers who are paid by the hour. The biggest losers are the citizens. They only have limited resources and time available for a process that often takes a year or more.

Would it not be better if the city set clear rules and developers had to follow them?

A desirable consequence would be the effect on the cost of land. The absence of rules has fuelled undue land speculation. Clear rules will curb rising prices. This is particularly in the interest of the buyers of new space who have to pay for the inflated cost of land as part of the building they occupy.

The land owners today are simply skimming off into their own pockets the extra value of their land created by a demand to which they have contributed very little, if any. This extra land value has been created by the growth of our city. It rightfully belongs to our city. It should be heavily taxed so that our city can provide the many and varied services required by new development to create stable, thriving communities.

Existing provincial legislation only charges a minimal tax on the sale of land. None of this tax is passed on to the city. The province continues to restrict municipalities to a narrow property tax rather than sharing in growing provincial income and sales taxes.

This cripples cities like Toronto now saddled with the heavy costs of transit, social assistance and housing formerly paid mainly by the province.

Another desirable consequence of clear city planning rules would be that the planning of the future of our city would return to its citizens through its elected representatives aided by its planning department. No longer would developers backed by the non-elected, provincial OMB plan our city.

Setting the new rules by modifying the existing ones is a labourious task. The process will require time, public input, and added city planning staff to compensate for the loss of almost half its numbers in the last decade.

Today’s construction will last for another 100 years. We must be prepared for the effort to set the rules for building a prosperous, liveable, and attractive city for ourselves and our successors.