The City of Toronto Executive Committee will discuss the matter of a new Development Charges Bylaw at its meeting on July 3, 2013. This is a statutory requirement as the current bylaw expires in April 2014, and it must be replaced in order for the city to continue collecting these charges.
Already press reports show a real estate industry apoplectic at the possibility that these charges will double. With all the concern over a possible softening of the market for new units, the last thing they want is yet more cost added to the purchase price. However, what we are seeing is a combined effect of the rising population and the exhaustion of surplus capacity in existing infrastructure, notably transit and water. Much of the new development is concentrated in the central city in former industrial areas that do not possess the infrastructure needed to support their coming new populations.
(Chief Planner Jennifer Keesmaat observed at the “Feeling Congested” session earlier this week, about 70,000 people will call places like Liberty Village and the waterfront neighbourhoods their new home over the coming decade.)
There is bound to be lively debate, especially from the “no new taxes” brigade on Council, but the simple fact is that the city cannot have new development without some way to pay for the supporting infrastructure and services. In this article, I will talk only about the transit component which is the single largest piece of the new DCs rising about 150% from the previous level for residential development. (DCs overall will go up 86% because other categories have lower increases.)
The City of Toronto’s Planning Department is consulting with the public for the development of an updated Official Plan. The plan’s transportation component falls under the rubric of “Feeling Congested” with a website devoted mainly to transit issues. In the first round of meetings, the focus was on “what is important”, what goals should the new plan try to achieve. In the second round, the topic is the prioritization of goals and how these might drive out different choices in a future network.
This parallels work that Metrolinx is doing on their Big Move plan, but it includes additional options for study that are city initiatives such as transit to serve the waterfront.
A survey now in progress (until June 30) seeks feedback on the evaluation criteria for transit projects, and also for the goals of the cycling plans. Some of this makes more sense if one first reads the toolkit, but even then the presentation will leave skeptics unhappy because there is no link to the detailed study explaining how the proposed criteria have been measured for each of proposals. (A summary chart on page 14 does not include the subcategories within each of the eight criteria that generated the total scores .)
Even with this background, an exercise asking whether the methodology is sound seems to be an odd way to survey public attitudes without a stronger discussion of the implications for a preferred network. This is rather like discussing the colour of a magician’s hat rather than the effect this might have on the rabbit he pulls out of it (or if there’s even a rabbit at all).