The most outrageous example was the Ontario Government’s invasion of land within the Greenbelt to address the housing crisis. As discussed in an earlier blog, almost all of the land in question happened to be owned by major contributors to the Conservative Party who, with amazing foresight, had purchased the land not long before. After a full retreat and several resignations, this farce continues to plague the Premier of Ontario.
The need for housing has also been used to justify a series of provincial attacks on municipal government, with the resulting public outcry again forcing a retreat. For example, the province extended the urban boundaries of a number of municipalities into surrounding rural areas and amended their planning policies to allow development on the (mostly) farmland in question. It was recently announced that these changes will be reversed. Also being reversed is a provincially imposed amendment to Hamilton’s official plan which copied, word for word, a developer’s request for the change, to allow the removal of a designated heritage building so that a condo could be constructed on the site.
Another good example of scapegoating was the proclaimed need to create strong mayors who would then be able to lead the charge to get more housing. Here again, a previous blog examined the arbitrary and essentially undemocratic nature of this Ontario initiative – which has recently been extended to cover 26 municipalities, with an additional four (Newmarket, Chatham-Kent, Sudbury and Thunder Bay) now promised the strong mayor system, if those municipalities sign on to the province’s pledge to meet housing construction targets.
Development charges were another scapegoat, and they were removed by the Ontario Government on new projects to facilitate the construction of housing. But these charges were a major source of revenue for municipalities – a source used to finance the infrastructure needed to support the housing that was desired. Perhaps in an unspoken acknowledgement of this financial shortfall. Premier Ford announced at the AMO Conference on August 21 that a new three year $1.2 billion “building faster fund” would be available to those cities and towns that try to meet the housing construction targets imposed upon them.
Possibly “inspired” by Ontario, the Nova Scotia government is now using the housing issue to remove any semblance of municipal democracy for the Halifax Regional Municipality.[i] On the first day of the fall session of the provincial legislature (October 12) a bill was introduced that would give sweeping powers to the Minister of Municipal Affairs to make development decisions within the municipality. The bill will authorize him to approve whatever development he wants, irrespective of the views of the regional council or its local community councils. But as the Mayor of the regional municipality points out building permits have been issued for 11,000 units of housing and there is “development-ready” land for over 200,000 units because of zoning changes previously made. A number of housing projects have not gone ahead, the Mayor explained, because of the interest rates, lack of labour, and supply chain issues. Once again, it appears that housing has been used as a scapegoat to justify an attack on municipal democracy.
Other Causes
There are many factors affecting the supply of housing, notwithstanding the outrageous provincial efforts to blame everything on municipalities to justify their assault on them. A few such factors are the Bank of Canada rate hikes, the CMHC mortgage eligibility rules, and the backlog of hearings by the Ontario Land Tribunal. We also have lots of land approved for housing that is not being developed, such as in the Halifax example cited above. We have rampant land speculation, in which developers buy land, get it subdivided or otherwise approved for housing, and then flip it for a large profit.
Municipalities (and their residents) are not Blameless
It must be acknowledged that many municipalities have contributed to the housing problem by failing to ensure that planning policies and zoning regulations support the growth needed. In many instances, this failure stems from the resistance of local residents to increased density, leaving much of the municipality restricted to single family homes, with the City of Toronto being a prime example. Whereas community groups once formed to resist expressways or the bulldozing of neighbourhoods, citizen activism has become increasingly narrow in focus and reflected in NIMBYism (Not in My Backyard). Other less well-known acronyms related to this more selfish focus included NIABYs (Not in Anyone’s Backyard), and BANANAS (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone).
Combatting the Scapegoating
If people want to stop the erosion of municipal democracy, they need to become much more active participants in municipal government. They also need to reject the NIMBY mentality and accept the need for some increase in the density of housing development. If we can overcome the public apathy that has been far too prevalent in recent decades (as discussed in an earlier blog (Richard Tindal Blog - Tindal on Government (weebly.com), provincial governments will find it increasingly risky to continue their attacks on municipal democracy. Citing the need for more housing to justify these attacks will be exposed for the spurious scapegoating that it is – and the governments that perpetuate these falsehoods may go down in flames, much like Mrs. O’Leary’s barn!
[i] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/housing-minister-power-hrm-construction-bill-fall-sitting-1.6993899