More Of The Same

 

H/t Moudakis

For those hoping my monomania would end after my hiatus, please stop reading now. The depredations of the corrupt Ford government are too much with me.

And apparently also with others, as these letters suggest.

That’s rich: Ford accusing Tory of mismanaging the revenue (he) already collects. What a laugh! Of course, Bill 23 hurts cities’ finances. Why should I pay for some urban sprawl somewhere that needs roads, hydro, water, and so on?

What I would really like to know is what do Ford and his developer cronies consider “affordable, attainable homes”?

Dollars to doughnuts, it will not be affordable housing except for those than can afford over $1 million for a home.

Developers are out to make money, bottom line, and they don’t make it with “affordable” housing, and that’s the problem.

You can bet that monster homes will be built with four garages, because the only way to get into the city will be by highway.

Georgia Volker, Toronto 

We all know the government of Ontario is not being run the way it was originally designed. All the ministries are made up of professional experts in their fields, so why doesn’t the Ford government use them more?

Would the Deputy Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs want to build houses on Ontario’s No. 1 farmland, which Bill 23 calls for?

Part of the ministry’s mandate is land-use planning. I would imagine that housing would be encouraged on the less fertile lands. Again, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, not to mention the conservation authorities, should be very upset with development plans for the Greenbelt.

It seems to me that the proper way to approach Bill 23 would be for Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Steve Clark to bring in all the views from affected ministries, such as agriculture and environment, if they haven’t already done so.

I would expect the ministries to work together to find common ground as Minister Clark is dramatically affecting the land-use decisions (that affect) the other ministers.

Greg Prince, Toronto 

Former Ajax mayor Steve Parish is right on, (in saying) development charges are not used as a slush fund by our municipalities; they are used to fund the growth-related component of new infrastructure, such as water and wastewater treatment plants, roads and firehalls.

Without development charges, local property taxes are expected to rise significantly in Ontario.

Ratepayers should not be expected to pay for growth-related infrastructure.

Surely there is a better way to build homes faster than to eliminate development charges and destroy municipal planning departments and our conservation authorities, which are essential.

Telling our municipalities that they need to find new efficiencies to make up for lost development charges is a huge pill to swallow, especially for our smaller cities and towns, not to mention that the math does not equate.

As an alternative to Bill 23, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing should be consulting with Ontario’s municipalities to see where proposed housing densities can be increased under local Official Plans.

Jim McEwen, Bowmanville, Ont. 

Besides threatening clean water, biodiversity, wildlife and Grade 1 farmland crucial to food security, Bill 23 will gut protection for renters because it will no longer require developers to replace affordable units.

By taking away development charges, it puts money in the pockets of developers at the expense of municipalities which will be forced to drastically cut services or hike property taxes.

The argument that the Greenbelt needs to be encroached upon to build much needed housing is bogus; there is enough land within urban boundaries to build housing and create sustainable communities and many municipalities have already created and put forward excellent development plans ready to implement.

Esther Cieri, Toronto