Province’s affordable housing plan ‘achieves the exact opposite,’ councillors say
Many argue the legislation would not result in a substantial increase in affordable housing in Toronto, with the incentives the city has to provide to developers too high.

Thestar.com
Jan. 16, 2018
Samantha Beattie

“A monstrous failure in public policy” is how one Toronto councillor describes the province’s proposed legislation to create more affordable housing.

The province released long-awaited draft legislation Dec. 18 that would allow municipalities to use what it calls “inclusionary zoning” to force developers to create affordable units.

But that choice comes at a cost. Cities like Toronto would be required to either exempt developers from funding community benefits such as park improvements and child-care spaces, or pay developers 40 per cent of the cost of the units, according to the province.

In return, developers would have to temporarily make five to 10 per cent of their building’s units affordable, but only if the building is a condominium — not purpose-built for rentals, says the proposed legislation. The units would remain affordable for a maximum of 30 years.

“It is rare I have seen such a monstrous failure in public policy as this one. It actually achieves the exact opposite of everything it was supposed to achieve,” said Councillor Gord Perks (Parkdale-High Park) at a planning and growth management committee meeting Monday.

The province is accepting comments on the draft legislation until Feb. 1. Council will vote on submitting comments at its January meeting and the Ministry of Housing will “carefully consider any comments received and recommend to the minister what, if any, changes should be made,” said Ministry of Housing spokesperson Myriam Denis.

The legislation, as it stands, would not result in a substantial increase in affordable housing in Toronto, Perks said, a perspective echoed by other councillors.

It would cost the city millions of dollars to implement “without the necessary flexibility to create deeper subsidies and have the tenure we want and need,” Councillor Ana Bailao, the city’s housing advocate, told the Star. The incentives the city has to provide to developers “are so high it puts into jeopardy the whole legislation,” she said.
In 2016, Jennifer Keesmaat, then Toronto’s chief planner, estimated if the city had strong inclusionary zoning in place for the previous five years, as many as 12,000 affordable homes could have been created — three times the number created through existing programs.

But what the province is proposing now “falls short, very short, of the program Toronto needs,” said Joy Connelly, on behalf of housing advocacy groups such as Social Planning Toronto and Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, at the committee meeting.

These groups estimate the proposed regulations would generate 500 to 1,000 affordable homes over five years, Connelly said.

The fact the affordable units could only be purchased, not rented, makes them less affordable for residents who would have to make mortgage payments and pay condo fees, Councillor Mike Layton (Trinity-Spadina) told the Star.

The condominium-only rule is also complicated for the city to enact. It would need to bring other agencies on board to deliver affordable mortgages.

“I’ve never seen restrictions like this in inclusionary zoning,” said Layton, noting many American cities, including Boston, San Francisco and New York City, have a similar regulation in place. “What the province is proposing is incredibly developer friendly. It’s a fail on many fronts.”

Ontario Home Builders’ Association CEO Joe Vaccaro told the Star his organization, one of the largest organizations representing developers, supports the legislation, as it sends a message to municipalities that they can’t “command and demand” affordable housing. It needs to be done in partnership, with municipalities achieving affordable housing by supporting new developments.

“There’s no such thing as free housing,” Vaccaro said, adding instead of municipalities covering 40 per cent of affordable unit costs, he’d like to see a 50-50 split.

“This is a partnership tool, so let’s work through this, and let’s figure out where the units go and how they get managed. We all have to work together.”

But councillors argue the legislation sends the wrong message about who should contribute to affordable housing.

“What the program should be doing is saying to (developers) it’s your duty to give something back and contribute to affordable housing,” Perks told the Star. “But it doesn’t put the obligation on the developer. It puts the obligation on the municipality because we have to pay them to do it.”