THE STAR’S VIEW,

There’s a lot being sacrificed in Ontario’s rash rush to build housing.

Democracy. The environment. Municipal budgets. Affordable rental housing.

There’s so much at risk, in fact, it’s now time to question whether the province’s headlong push to build more houses is worth the mounting cost.

No doubt, some changes are needed to ease the construction of new homes. That includes streamlining municipal approval processes, along with relaxing zoning rules to permit a greater diversity of housing beyond single-family homes. There is much common ground for municipalities and the province to work together on this important issue.

But rather than take a collaborative, consultative approach on this file, Doug Ford’s government has opted for a legislative bludgeon. Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, and Bill 39, the Better Municipal Governance Act, ultimately risk impeding rather than encouraging the construction of new homes.

It’s obvious that developers are in the driver’s seat of the province’s housing push, to the benefit of their bottom lines — and the Ford government is stepping on the gas, no matter what the consequences.

As the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) bluntly noted, this one piece of legislation “will enhance the profitability of the development industry at the expense of taxpayers and the natural environment.”

Take, for example, the province’s proposal to open up portions of the Greenbelt for housing development. Ontario wants to allow housing on 15 parcels of protected land. In return, it says it would add land elsewhere to the Greenbelt.

The sole measure of the land’s suitability appears to be that housing can be built quickly. No other criteria has been provided. Yet a recent investigation by the Toronto Star and the Narwhal provided some clues why this particular plots were picked.

Some of the land is held by developers, some of whom curiously bought their holdings after it was set aside as protected property. The investigation notes that this includes properties purchased in the four years since Ford was first elected. You might recall Ford was recorded telling a private audience in 2018 that he would “open a big chunk” of the protected area.

“Does the premier understand how shady this looks?” NDP MPP Jennifer French asked in the legislature.

It certainly underscores who has the premier’s ear. Beyond the virtuous excuse of building more homes, we’ve heard no compelling reason why Greenbelt lands should be opened up for development. It will only add to urban sprawl, enrich developers and weaken the very role the Greenbelt was meant to serve.

Municipalities are speaking out about other changes. The province seeks to eliminate or discount development charges and parkland levies, ostensibly to lower the cost of new housing.

Yet that is revenue that goes into municipal coffers to pay for the infrastructure needed to support new developments, such as sewer and water pipes, roads and sidewalks, along with developing parkland.

In its own analysis, the AMO warns that Bill 23 will transfer up to $1 billion a year in costs from the private sector to property taxpayers “without any likelihood of improved housing affordability.”

It notes too that provisions reducing environmental protections will “benefit developers in the short term, with costs to the public and homeowners that cannot be calculated.”

In Toronto, the changes to development charges and parkland levies could cost the city an estimated $200 million a year, according to an analysis by municipal staff. That lost revenue could mean service cuts or property tax hikes. It also threatens to frustrate the city’s own efforts to boost affordable housing. It would reduce the affordability period to 25 years from 99 years, and eliminate the city’s efforts to tie rents to income.

In Mississauga, the lost revenue could total some $80 million a year; staff warn there’s no guarantee this would provide any benefit to renters or new homebuyers. Other changes could actually imperil hundreds of affordable housing units planned for the city.

Add to all this the latest move by Queen’s Park to allow “strong mayors” in Ottawa and Toronto, in order to push through bylaws related to provincial priorities with only a third of council support.

The haste and lack of consultation has produced a legislative package that is badly flawed. It’s certainly clear the various initiatives cannot move forward without amendments. Municipal leaders want parts of the legislation removed, notably the changes to development charges, urban parkland and their authority to encourage affordable housing.

As it stands, the province’s housing moves would see green spaces opened up for development, diminish the influence of municipal councils, saddle local taxpayers with infrastructure costs once paid by developers, dramatically decrease the funding for urban parkland, erode the ability of conservation authorities to protect watersheds and, ironically, put affordable housing at risk.

That, for now, is the toll of getting 1.5 million homes built province-wide. It’s a price too high.

Rather than take a collaborative, consultative approach on this file, Doug Ford’s government has opted for a legislative bludgeon that ultimately risks impeding rather than encouraging the construction of new homes