Minister Clark is shamefully misleading or dangerously ignorant about development charges

No matter which explanation is offered, Steven Clark has shown himself unfit for this portfolio and ought to resign.

Thestar.com
Dec. 2, 2022
Steven Parish

I was involved in municipal politics in the GTA for 28 years, 23 of which I served as the Mayor of Ajax (1995-2018). Therefore, I have some detailed familiarity with development charges -- how they are calculated, approved, budgeted and spent.

When I read the commentary on this subject by Steven Clark, Ontario’s minister of municipal affairs and housing, I couldn’t believe what I was reading.

Is it possible that a former mayor and now minister is so poorly informed about development charges? Or is he deliberately misleading the citizens of Ontario to justify his government’s disastrous Bill 23 recently rammed down our throats without municipal and expert input?

Development charges are authorized by provincial statute to allow municipalities to raise the very large sums of money to build water, sewer, road and other infrastructure necessary to allow growth, both for housing and employment purposes. These charges are based on the principle that growth should pay for growth -- and not be funded by existing property taxpayers.

The costs of this infrastructure are calculated based on long-term growth projections with full input from the development industry. Then these costs are apportioned between those that solely benefit from new development and those that benefit both new and existing taxpayers. The latter category is excluded from development charges.

Let me be clear: Clark’s statement that these costs are completely borne by homeowners is false. The portion that benefits everyone is raised through property taxes on everyone.

The minister then goes on to say that he will ensure 60 per cent of funds from development charges will be spent immediately so as to prevent municipalities from “sitting” on these funds, ensuring that they are spent on the infrastructure they were raised for. The fact is that development charges must, by statute, be spent on what they were raised for and disbursed over the life of the project -- often many years.

Municipalities must report balances and commitments on each infrastructure category annually. The development industry has the ability to challenge amounts raised and expended and appeal if they are not satisfied. The financial oversight is scrupulous. To imply that these moneys constitute some sort of slush fund that municipalities can use and abuse as they see fit is simply false. Ministry staff, if not the minister, surely are aware of this information.

Finally, how does the minister expect new housing to be built if the water, sewer and roads aren’t built to support it? Either he is deliberately sabotaging his housing goals or he is insisting that all infrastructure costs be funded by existing taxpayers, who have lived in their homes for decades and have already paid their fare share. Which is it, Mr. Clark?

There are only two possible conclusions from the minister’s commentary. He is either embarrassingly ignorant of the intricacies of development charges or he is misleading the electorate with gross misrepresentations that some might call lies. But, hey, they already lied about the Greenbelt. What’s one more? No matter which explanation is offered, the minister has shown himself unfit for this portfolio and ought to resign.

The overarching truth with respect to Bill 23 is this: there is no need whatsoever to encroach on existing Greenbelt land to provide for additional -- never mind “affordable” -- housing.

The government’s own expert panel stated that the problem is not a lack of land but how existing urban lands are used. GTA Regions are in the process of completing their Official Plan reviews that provide land for growth beyond 2051 without encroaching on the Greenbelt.