Bill 23 More Homes Built Faster Act

What is it

Bill 23 is intended to remove bureaucratic roadblocks so homes can be built more quickly to address the housing shortage and make housing more affordable. 

1.5 million new homes will be built over the next ten years

Why should we care

The bill:

Will NOT help with housing shortages or lack of affordability. It will likely have the opposite effect.  The legislation will result in fewer and more expensive homes, higher services costs, less energy-efficient construction, increased car dependency and transportation expenses for residents, and increased property taxes.  It will also divert skilled construction labour and materials from building compact homes in existing neighbourhoods.

Will scramble much of the provinces’ land-use planning rules and strip the planning approval system of recourse.  We have experienced this firsthand. In the past, you, as a concerned neighbour, could appeal a decision made at the COA. You can no longer appeal a decision. The applicant (developer) retains the ability to appeal a COA decision.   

Will take 7,400 acres out of the Greenbelt, allowing 50,000 new homes to be built on the protected Greenbelt.

Will encourage urban sprawl, and we stand to lose much of the wetland and wildlife habitat in Ontario’s most sensitive ecoregion.  Bill 23 dismantles flood and habitat protection, regional planning and green building standards.

Strikes at the heart of environmental protections for natural features such as wetlands and rivers.  The bill strips the Conservation Authority of power by removing its ability to weigh in on the impact of development proposals. We have seen this recently with applications in our neighbourhood.  The once powerful TRCA seems unable to provide any of the previous protections it had in the past.

Erodes the standards that protect farmlands, forests, grasslands, watersheds, wetlands and species protection. This will impact our drinking water and our ability to limit flooding.  Hoggs Hollow lies within the Don Watershed, and we are prone to flooding.

Is disliked among many levels of government, including by the Feds.  Federal Environment Minister Guilbeault has stated concern and an intention to intervene under the Species at Risk Act and the Impact Assessment Act. The Minister stated that the Provincial plan “flies in the face of everything we are doing to be better prepared for the impacts of climate change

Has has caused an investigation by Ontario’s integrity commissioner and auditor general announced, who will investigate the Greenbelt development proposal to see whether the Ford government colluded with developers when opening the land for homebuilding.  After Ford was elected, developers purchased eight of the 15 Greenbelt parcels selected for development.  Opening up the land to development made the parcels extremely valuable, leading some to believe the Ford government had tipped off the developers.

What is the Premier not telling us?

This past February, the Ford government’s OWN  housing affordability task force concluded that “Most of the housing solutions must come from densification and the Greenbelt and other environmentally sensitive areas must be protected.”

Ford stated publicly on several occasions that the Greenbelt “was not up for grabs.”  He also made it an election promise.  Five months after being elected, he flip-flopped and opened up the Greenbelt to development. He was caught on video telling a room full of developers that they had given him the idea.

This abrupt policy shift was NOT based on public sentiment.  The government’s public consultations on the announcement found broad and consistent public opposition to removing Greenbelt protection.

One demographic is cheering the policy shift: the handful of property developers who are significant donors to the PC Party and who own most of the properties and would profit massively from their rezoning to allow development.  It has been discovered that property owners have been quietly buying up land in the Greenbelt over the past few years, including just weeks before the announcement.  As stated, many believe the developers were tipped off about the policy change.

Of the 1.5 million homes Ford stated will be needed in the next decade, over 70% are already in the pipeline.  There is enough land for over 2 million additional homes above the 1.5 million without touching the Greenbelt.

The City stands to lose millions because Bill 23 slashes the development charges paid by developers that help pay for new municipal infrastructure. Citizens will be forced to pay the difference in increased taxes.

Bill 23 drafts Ontario forcefully and dramatically in the wrong direction.  It disregards the advice of its own task force and ignores basic science-based facts.  It goes opposite to what the rest of the world is doing…reigning in low-density, car-dependent sprawl.  Bill 23 was forced into law through a process designed to prevent meaningful consideration of its impacts, discussions with those affected( All of Us) or within a timeframe that reflects the enormity of the changes.  The good news is that Bill 23 has gathered many disparate groups to fight the bill on many fronts.  Change and Teamwork!

Ontario passes housing bill amid criticism from cities, conservation authorities

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-passes-housing-bill-23-1.6666657 

Beware Bill 23 (Written by the LNBA)

https://www.lbna.ca/bill-23-denial-of-right-to-appeal 

On October 25, 2022, the government of Ontario introduced Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 which proposes sweeping changes to the land use approvals system in the province.

We understand the need to create more housing to accommodate population growth in Ontario, but there are some proposed amendments in Bill 23 that are cause for concern.

You have seen in this blog that the LBNA has managed to win a significant number of TLAB appeals of COA decisions on behalf of Long Branch residents. Well, provisions in Bill 23 would strip away the right to appeal COA decisions.

Currently, Section 44, subsection 12 of The Planning Act governs the appeal process, and it states:

“(12)  The applicant, the Minister or any other person or public body who has an interest in the matter may within 20 days of the making of the decision appeal to the Municipal Board against the decision of the committee by filing with the secretary-treasurer of the committee a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the decision and the reasons in support of the objection…”

Previously, the “any other person” meant anyone who had submitted oral and/or written objections to a development proposal to the COA.

Bill 23 proposes to change this clause to “a specified person”, in place of “any other person”.

A casual reader of the proposed Bill 23 might not see the magnitude of what is being proposed here. The government still seems to be allowing persons to be able to appeal.

But take a look at how Bill 23 defines “specified person”

This looks more like organizations, not people.

We understand the need to add to Ontario’s housing stock to accommodate population growth,. And the provincial government argues that Bill 23 removes obstacles to fast-paced construction of new homes, including the approval process for developments.

We agree that eliminating unnecessary red tape is a good way to expedite construction of development projects. But we do NOT agree that taking away residents’ rights to appeal COA decisions is an appropriate way to cut red tape.

If you talk to most residents in Long Branch, you’ll find we’re in favour of seeing improvements to the neighbourhood’s housing stock – some of which dates back to the 1920s to 1940s, when the neighbourhood was more like a cottage community.

I think we all would agree that one of the signs of a fair process is the ability to debate the decision and to appeal it if we disagree.

But the proposed amendments in Bill 23 seem to suggest that the appeal process is the problem. We disagree with this.

What You Can Do 

Taking away a resident’s right to appeal a decision is not a fair way to treat taxpayers and arguably demonstrates that elements of this legislation have been hastily put together without thinking through to what the true systemic issues are in getting more homes built faster.

If you share these concerns about Bill 12, please let our MPP, Stephanie Bowman, know not only how you feel, but how strongly you feel about it. The LBNA is circulating a template for a letter to Christine Hogarth, but you are also welcome to put your feelings into your own word.

Bill 23 went through 2nd reading within two weeks and went for public deputations November 16 and 17th, The Ministry also took written comments up to Nov 17th.  If you don’t speak up, the Bill will be in place before the end of the year and retroactive to October 25th, 2022.