I've just started reading an excellent book called Building Powerful Community Organizations. It's a guidebook to doing just that presented along the same lines as What Color Is Your Parachute. Case Studies, Stories, tips and exercises to sort out the direction on your way to building a new community organization or to strengthening existing ones.
I've also posted another blog on my personal development blog page which you can read here: jppersonalwellness.blogspot.com
In my last post here, I spoke of voter turnout in London and the related topic of community engagement. A Twitter friend had said in a Tweet sent while I was writing that blog that one can't talk about turnout without talking about engagement. ie, the reason that people don't vote may have to do with their feelings of efficacy and the legitimacy of government. Our governments in Canada are legitimate in some ways (rule of law, open elections, a high degree of transparency) but in other ways struggle for legitimacy (low voter turnout, parliamentary democracy, first-past-the-post.)
And so it is with these thoughts and some of the comments that I have seen, both on Twitter and in various other forums, such as TVO's AgendaCamp (I participated in many of the online discussions during Sunday's forum) that I am forming the basis for a community organization.
Part of this process will be to sit down with at least 50 engaged Londoners and people of interest. These people range from the many London friends I have on Twitter and Facebook as well as community leaders I've not yet met both elected and in the NGO and Private sectors. I have ideas and skills to bring to the table but no community organization can thrive with only one person at the wheel. It would be arrogant and quite misguided of me to engage in this process after only being back in London for 6 months.
It is my mission though, to help create a more engaged community around me. I have lived some of the problems. I was for a time one of those youths that leave our City. Now that I've come back with some excellent experience, I am determined to do what I can to address those issues.
So if you are from London and you read this I ask: Will you meet with me? Can you provide me the names/contact info or perhaps a reference to at least 5 people that I should meet with on my Listening Tour? What are your ideas/concerns? And How can you help me to work at building a better London (it's a pretty great place already!)
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Voter Turnout in Municipal Elections
I’m going to make some statements here at the fear of them being misconstrued and me being misunderstood. It seems to be a theme these days so why stop now?
First – I wish more people would vote. I think you give up any right to complain when you don’t vote.
Second – I’m actually happy some people don’t vote. Some people are idiots who have no clue about government or politics and probably shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Third – I think it’s an absolute democratic right to not vote.
Fourth – I think Municipal Elections should be open to all residents of a City, citizens and non-citizens. If you pay property taxes here, you should have a voice in the decision-making (and Tenants do pay taxes.)
Fifth – I think we should have an elected Youth Advocate; This person would be elected by students. This would encourage youth voting and create a life-long interest in politics.
Sixth – Voters don’t vote for a number of reasons. Most Political observers know that bad weather can swing voter turnout from 5-10 percent. So can distance to a polling station
Seventh – Voting has to become part of a cultural shift. In other words, we can’t simply put up some posters and expect people to vote. We have to have an ongoing campaign to increase participation and we probably need political/government reform to stop disenfranchisement. If it seems like your vote didn’t count, you’re less likely to vote in the future.
Eighth – Transparency and engagement by City Hall are key to continuing to increase voter participation. We can’t expect people to care about something they don’t know a lot about.
Ninth – Community-based orgs need to hold public meetings and bring Councillors to the community during their term and candidates during elections
Tenth – an independent Report Card is needed to show residents how Council votes on various issues
Eleventh – none of this will happen without people creating and driving change (this sounds like a personal challenge to myself.)
Twelfth – The eleventh requires the creation of a Social Business to drive a change in the political culture of our City. This umbrella group would serve as a non-partisan information resource and bring together different interest groups and perspectives to create an ongoing discussion.
So. I’ve been looking for a new job for some time. I’ve been involved in Municipal politics for about 10 years since I moved to Toronto in 1998. Now that I’m back in the town I left for many of the reasons people are searching to identify, perhaps its time for me to get off my butt and put thoughts and words into action. As a friend said recently “I may not be the Quarterback but at least I’m in the game. You’ve got the brains and skills, why are you sitting in the stands?”
And so I will ask for some volunteer help to get this effort off the ground. I would like to earn a living wage from it – I’ve got debts to pay. But I’m also willing to work to create something new, to help the City of my birth. If you’ve got ideas, if you’ve been involved in London, if you’ve got skills (particularly internet design) I’d love to talk to you. Please get in touch and we’ll talk about how to get this started. From name to vision statement, from focus to scope, I’m open to ideas. And by the way…Londontopic.ca is for sale. So there’s an emerging gap and opportunity.
Okay. So this started as one topic and drifted to another. I'm like that. More vision than fine details. I'll write more about voter engagement in the future I'm sure.
First – I wish more people would vote. I think you give up any right to complain when you don’t vote.
Second – I’m actually happy some people don’t vote. Some people are idiots who have no clue about government or politics and probably shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Third – I think it’s an absolute democratic right to not vote.
Fourth – I think Municipal Elections should be open to all residents of a City, citizens and non-citizens. If you pay property taxes here, you should have a voice in the decision-making (and Tenants do pay taxes.)
Fifth – I think we should have an elected Youth Advocate; This person would be elected by students. This would encourage youth voting and create a life-long interest in politics.
Sixth – Voters don’t vote for a number of reasons. Most Political observers know that bad weather can swing voter turnout from 5-10 percent. So can distance to a polling station
Seventh – Voting has to become part of a cultural shift. In other words, we can’t simply put up some posters and expect people to vote. We have to have an ongoing campaign to increase participation and we probably need political/government reform to stop disenfranchisement. If it seems like your vote didn’t count, you’re less likely to vote in the future.
Eighth – Transparency and engagement by City Hall are key to continuing to increase voter participation. We can’t expect people to care about something they don’t know a lot about.
Ninth – Community-based orgs need to hold public meetings and bring Councillors to the community during their term and candidates during elections
Tenth – an independent Report Card is needed to show residents how Council votes on various issues
Eleventh – none of this will happen without people creating and driving change (this sounds like a personal challenge to myself.)
Twelfth – The eleventh requires the creation of a Social Business to drive a change in the political culture of our City. This umbrella group would serve as a non-partisan information resource and bring together different interest groups and perspectives to create an ongoing discussion.
So. I’ve been looking for a new job for some time. I’ve been involved in Municipal politics for about 10 years since I moved to Toronto in 1998. Now that I’m back in the town I left for many of the reasons people are searching to identify, perhaps its time for me to get off my butt and put thoughts and words into action. As a friend said recently “I may not be the Quarterback but at least I’m in the game. You’ve got the brains and skills, why are you sitting in the stands?”
And so I will ask for some volunteer help to get this effort off the ground. I would like to earn a living wage from it – I’ve got debts to pay. But I’m also willing to work to create something new, to help the City of my birth. If you’ve got ideas, if you’ve been involved in London, if you’ve got skills (particularly internet design) I’d love to talk to you. Please get in touch and we’ll talk about how to get this started. From name to vision statement, from focus to scope, I’m open to ideas. And by the way…Londontopic.ca is for sale. So there’s an emerging gap and opportunity.
Okay. So this started as one topic and drifted to another. I'm like that. More vision than fine details. I'll write more about voter engagement in the future I'm sure.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Comparing Apples to Apples – A response
I recently saw a blog post by London City Councillor Paul Hubert that caused a bit of a boiling of my blood. It was titled “Comparing Apples to Apples.” Councillor Hubert was trying to make the point that London was a very well-managed municipality that spent tax dollars wisely. That compared to the City of Toronto that has required ‘bailouts’ from the Provincial government, London’s 1.8 percent tax increase and building of reserve funds was a wonder of fiscal management.
Here's a link: comparing-apples-to-apples/
I have some beefs about this blog and the charts that Mr. Hubert selectively included. The Councillor paraphrased complaints about London’s government and the cost of it relative to other municipalities. When compared solely on the basis of Property Tax paid per household, London measures-up quite favourably to other municipalities. However, anyone with a passing understanding of Property Taxes, Assessments and City Services, as well as the very different circumstances that Toronto finds itself in from all other Ontario and indeed Canadian Municipalities, can tell you that Mr. Hubert is comparing apples to boathouses. He’s not even using fruit for a comparison.
London’s per-household (Single-Family Residential only) property taxes are about $1500.00. Unfortunately this is based on an assessment that is about 1/3 of what a Toronto’s house is. The average price of a Toronto home, including those in Scarborough is around $375,000.00. That would buy a lot of house in London but its taxes, if London were Toronto without the increase in density and accordant increase in the Tax base, would be about $4500.00. Comparing taxes paid does not make for a deep analytical comparison.
First, there are vastly different realities facing London and Toronto that play an important role in the cost of providing services. For starters, Toronto’s workforce is made up of significant numbers of people who don’t live in the City and don’t pay taxes to the City of Toronto yet use services in the City. From Public Transit to sidewalks to public garbage bins, from roads to parks and every other municipal service that these migrant workers use on a daily basis, costs are borne for their provision by City residents. On top of these are the tens of thousands of international tourists who visit Toronto and don’t make it to a place like London.
Secondly, there is the scope of services offered by the City of Toronto relative to those that the City of London offers. One shining example: Library hours. London’s Libraries are closed on Sundays, some of them on Mondays too. Not so for Toronto’s Libraries. Council Services is another example where Toronto’s costs are necessarily higher. City Councillors in Toronto are full-time workers with a paid staff of 3 and a communications budget of $53,000. This means they communicate with their constituents on a regular basis. In six months in London I’ve seen rampant complaints about a lack of consultation and I know that our Councillors are part-time with a staff of 3 – for all 14 Councillors.
I’m sure there are other examples of how Toronto offers much better services but I don’t need to be exhaustive to dismiss Mr. Hubert’s comparison.
Thirdly, Toronto is a magnet for those in need of social services. While London plays the same role regionally, it’s not hard to imagine that Toronto attracts people both from our region as well as the rest of the country in search of good public social services as well as access to a larger and more fluid job market. This increases Toronto’s costs.
Fourthly, while London is nearly as old as Toronto it did not grow as rapidly in its early years as Toronto did and hence, the age of its infrastructure is not as much of an issue as Toronto’s.
Fifthly, per-capita income is actually less while costs of living are higher in Toronto. It is a rich City but it is also a very poor City.
So there are a few quick points that illustrate how meaningless it is to compare Property Taxes paid. I’ve not even mentioned the fact that Mr. Hubert did not discuss the fact that Toronto is the engine of the Canadian economy or that it competes with other global Cities that do receive investment from Senior levels of government in their nations.
One must look at: Service provided, Cost of Services provided, Per-household costs, per-population costs, per assessment class costs. The Ontario Government had previously set requirements for benchmarking. These provide more valid data for a comparison between municipalities. How much does it cost per household to pick up my garbage. Even then, frankly there is no comparison to be made between London and Toronto and Londoners should really just stop with the envy thing.
I’ve lived in London for 28 and a-half years. I also lived in Toronto for 10 years. I have never understood the resentment of Toronto. It is the Province’s urban playground, where we go to see concerts and festivals and gritty urban scenes. We buy our fashion there and many of the movies we watch and the clothes we buy are designed and produced in Toronto. Let’s stop the comparisons. Let’s measure London by our own standards and expectations for our local government. Let’s see Toronto’s difficulties as our own. We need National Urban and Transit strategies. Not petty bickering.
Here's a link: comparing-apples-to-apples/
I have some beefs about this blog and the charts that Mr. Hubert selectively included. The Councillor paraphrased complaints about London’s government and the cost of it relative to other municipalities. When compared solely on the basis of Property Tax paid per household, London measures-up quite favourably to other municipalities. However, anyone with a passing understanding of Property Taxes, Assessments and City Services, as well as the very different circumstances that Toronto finds itself in from all other Ontario and indeed Canadian Municipalities, can tell you that Mr. Hubert is comparing apples to boathouses. He’s not even using fruit for a comparison.
London’s per-household (Single-Family Residential only) property taxes are about $1500.00. Unfortunately this is based on an assessment that is about 1/3 of what a Toronto’s house is. The average price of a Toronto home, including those in Scarborough is around $375,000.00. That would buy a lot of house in London but its taxes, if London were Toronto without the increase in density and accordant increase in the Tax base, would be about $4500.00. Comparing taxes paid does not make for a deep analytical comparison.
First, there are vastly different realities facing London and Toronto that play an important role in the cost of providing services. For starters, Toronto’s workforce is made up of significant numbers of people who don’t live in the City and don’t pay taxes to the City of Toronto yet use services in the City. From Public Transit to sidewalks to public garbage bins, from roads to parks and every other municipal service that these migrant workers use on a daily basis, costs are borne for their provision by City residents. On top of these are the tens of thousands of international tourists who visit Toronto and don’t make it to a place like London.
Secondly, there is the scope of services offered by the City of Toronto relative to those that the City of London offers. One shining example: Library hours. London’s Libraries are closed on Sundays, some of them on Mondays too. Not so for Toronto’s Libraries. Council Services is another example where Toronto’s costs are necessarily higher. City Councillors in Toronto are full-time workers with a paid staff of 3 and a communications budget of $53,000. This means they communicate with their constituents on a regular basis. In six months in London I’ve seen rampant complaints about a lack of consultation and I know that our Councillors are part-time with a staff of 3 – for all 14 Councillors.
I’m sure there are other examples of how Toronto offers much better services but I don’t need to be exhaustive to dismiss Mr. Hubert’s comparison.
Thirdly, Toronto is a magnet for those in need of social services. While London plays the same role regionally, it’s not hard to imagine that Toronto attracts people both from our region as well as the rest of the country in search of good public social services as well as access to a larger and more fluid job market. This increases Toronto’s costs.
Fourthly, while London is nearly as old as Toronto it did not grow as rapidly in its early years as Toronto did and hence, the age of its infrastructure is not as much of an issue as Toronto’s.
Fifthly, per-capita income is actually less while costs of living are higher in Toronto. It is a rich City but it is also a very poor City.
So there are a few quick points that illustrate how meaningless it is to compare Property Taxes paid. I’ve not even mentioned the fact that Mr. Hubert did not discuss the fact that Toronto is the engine of the Canadian economy or that it competes with other global Cities that do receive investment from Senior levels of government in their nations.
One must look at: Service provided, Cost of Services provided, Per-household costs, per-population costs, per assessment class costs. The Ontario Government had previously set requirements for benchmarking. These provide more valid data for a comparison between municipalities. How much does it cost per household to pick up my garbage. Even then, frankly there is no comparison to be made between London and Toronto and Londoners should really just stop with the envy thing.
I’ve lived in London for 28 and a-half years. I also lived in Toronto for 10 years. I have never understood the resentment of Toronto. It is the Province’s urban playground, where we go to see concerts and festivals and gritty urban scenes. We buy our fashion there and many of the movies we watch and the clothes we buy are designed and produced in Toronto. Let’s stop the comparisons. Let’s measure London by our own standards and expectations for our local government. Let’s see Toronto’s difficulties as our own. We need National Urban and Transit strategies. Not petty bickering.
Why I don't get excited about Intensification projects
I will get back to my series of posts describing the Ontario/London Planning process soon. I've just been a little distracted by an ongoing search for meaning in my life, a sense of greater purpose and numerous setbacks in my basic search for work.
Over the past couple of weeks a number of people have voiced concern about a proposal for a 4-storey building in the heart of Wortley Village. The site is currently a surface parking lot topped with gravel and is the former site of a church that was demolished some years ago (knowing London, perhaps after a fire.) As an aside, empty lots are always harder to oppose for re-development than an existing structure since they don't convey the kind of emotional response that a site with a building does.
For a number of reasons, I have not been tremendously 'excited' about this project and by excited I mean angst-ridden about the future of Wortley Village. For quite some time I've been of a view that no one is on this earth long enough to really be overly concerned about the size, shape and colour of a building, so long as it embodies a sustainable approach to development. In other words, be as concerned as hell about plowing under arable farm land but worry not about those buildings that are built within existing neighbourhoods.
Buildings stand for a long time. Some in our City are 200 years old. In Europe there are 1000-year old Cathedrals. We hope that buildings will last generations spanning our lives on this mortal coil. Contrarily, development is actually a gradual and fairly slow process. The neighbourhood I live in, Westmount, has not changed much if at all since it was built in the 60's and 70's. The potential to intensify the residential and mixed-uses in this area is fraught with difficulties.
At the same time, along Wonderland, new Big Box Stores have killed the Mall that was built when the neighbourhood I live in was built, depreciating the value of the surrounding neighbourhoods by decreasing the amount of amenities within a walkable distance.
So if I don't get up-in-arms about 4-storeys (where 3 and 1/2 is permitted as-of-right) requiring minor variances from the Zoning By-law, I hope you'll understand. Architectural style and building materials, in a hodgepodge neighbourhood with inconsistent standards and patterns of development is a matter of taste that I am not prepared to debate or get worked up about. No neighbour of that building would subject their own property to the whims of neighbourhood taste either.
One thing has become clear of late. We must intensify existing neighbourhoods and make better use of existing infrastructure. By those standards, a 4-storey building painted Hot Pink with big juicy lips on its cornices would be entirely acceptable.
Call me when someone proposes turning more green-space and/or farmland into a house-farm.
Over the past couple of weeks a number of people have voiced concern about a proposal for a 4-storey building in the heart of Wortley Village. The site is currently a surface parking lot topped with gravel and is the former site of a church that was demolished some years ago (knowing London, perhaps after a fire.) As an aside, empty lots are always harder to oppose for re-development than an existing structure since they don't convey the kind of emotional response that a site with a building does.
For a number of reasons, I have not been tremendously 'excited' about this project and by excited I mean angst-ridden about the future of Wortley Village. For quite some time I've been of a view that no one is on this earth long enough to really be overly concerned about the size, shape and colour of a building, so long as it embodies a sustainable approach to development. In other words, be as concerned as hell about plowing under arable farm land but worry not about those buildings that are built within existing neighbourhoods.
Buildings stand for a long time. Some in our City are 200 years old. In Europe there are 1000-year old Cathedrals. We hope that buildings will last generations spanning our lives on this mortal coil. Contrarily, development is actually a gradual and fairly slow process. The neighbourhood I live in, Westmount, has not changed much if at all since it was built in the 60's and 70's. The potential to intensify the residential and mixed-uses in this area is fraught with difficulties.
At the same time, along Wonderland, new Big Box Stores have killed the Mall that was built when the neighbourhood I live in was built, depreciating the value of the surrounding neighbourhoods by decreasing the amount of amenities within a walkable distance.
So if I don't get up-in-arms about 4-storeys (where 3 and 1/2 is permitted as-of-right) requiring minor variances from the Zoning By-law, I hope you'll understand. Architectural style and building materials, in a hodgepodge neighbourhood with inconsistent standards and patterns of development is a matter of taste that I am not prepared to debate or get worked up about. No neighbour of that building would subject their own property to the whims of neighbourhood taste either.
One thing has become clear of late. We must intensify existing neighbourhoods and make better use of existing infrastructure. By those standards, a 4-storey building painted Hot Pink with big juicy lips on its cornices would be entirely acceptable.
Call me when someone proposes turning more green-space and/or farmland into a house-farm.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Comparing London and Toronto
Here is an example of how Toronto serves its public in a slightly better fashion. Below is a link to the Agenda for the February 1st meeting of the Executive Committee. Within that document you will find hyperlinks to the various reports - in clear typeset.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/agendas/2010-02-01-ex40-ar.htm
Below is a link to the webpage where a London City Council Agenda is posted. You must download the pdf to see an unreadable document.
http://london.ca/d.aspx?s=/meetings/Council%20Agendas/2009-12-14%20Agenda/MeetingPackages.htm
This is the first thing that should be addressed to ensure an open and transparent government.
Toronto takes a lot of heat for having an expensive local government. But these are the small things that make it so.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/agendas/2010-02-01-ex40-ar.htm
Below is a link to the webpage where a London City Council Agenda is posted. You must download the pdf to see an unreadable document.
http://london.ca/d.aspx?s=/meetings/Council%20Agendas/2009-12-14%20Agenda/MeetingPackages.htm
This is the first thing that should be addressed to ensure an open and transparent government.
Toronto takes a lot of heat for having an expensive local government. But these are the small things that make it so.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Planning in London - Introduction
I’m going to attempt to write a bit of a primer and to keep personal views and biases to a minimum in this series of blogs outlining Urban Planning. Entire Masters theses have been written on tiny aspects of Urban Planning and that’s not appropriate or easy for a Blog format. Urban Planning includes the analysis of statistical data, private property rights and law as well as concepts of urban design and architecture.
To make this all a bit more readable and so that I can publish this within a reasonable time-frame while also attending to other important matters, I’ve decided this will be a 4-part series (at least, that number may grow based on thought, writing and responses.)
1. The basics of Planning in Ontario
2. Communication Breakdown – London
3. The Wortley proposal in context
4. Planning philosophy and reform
Urban Planning in Ontario is regulated by a number of Provincial Acts, Court decisions and local regulation. Furthermore, municipalities are limited in their ability to control local decision making by the Ontario Municipal Board. Property development is at the core of our rights and liberties and is a crucial element of a capitalist system. Private property rights can be tempered but we must also ensure that laws are applied equally and consistently with a somewhat scientific approach. Planning decisions and policies must be based in rational thought rather than emotion.
Taste is certainly no small part of the issue either. Architecture, as with any creative endeavour is subject to differences of opinion and taste. Certain building designs, styles, materials and colours may please some while highly offending others. The Use of a property may make immense sense to some while seeming to be entirely irrational to others.
Development is also a major employer in any advanced, growing economy. Development is both an indicator and a function of economic growth. Development can have massive impacts on a local economy – too little supply of new housing has an impact on values and rents. Development is also impacted by land values (and development can impact land values) and the economic health is both affected by and effects the local economy. I’m not trying to be difficult here; The chicken-egg question of development remains whether tall buildings increase land values or whether increased land values cause tall buildings.
We are a capitalist economy. We generally believe in rewards for those who take risk and a profit margin for those who engage in business. Our pension plans are invested in development. The greatest single purchase most people make is their home. We have an interest in creating an ownership society where people see the value of their investments increase rather than paying rent forever. All of these factors affect how we see development in our communities. Economics is also a study in contradictions and counter-intuitive thought. Rent controls can limit investment in the creation of new rental units and the improvement of existing units. Similarly, overly restrictive growth and zoning policies can limit the supply of new housing.
All this is to say that governments constantly struggle with how to respect local sentiment while allowing for reasonable, responsible and measured growth.
I will try to address all of these issues as well as to explain the facts (as I know them) to examine possible problems with the existing system both in Ontario and in London specifically and to propose any solutions that might create a ‘better’ system for Urban Planning in Ontario and London. Keep in mind there is about 150 years of legal precedent and principles, countless OMB decisions and local issues of growth as well as the economic realities of property development that cannot be simply summarized for easy consumption.
I will do my best.
The Basics of Planning
This blog will describe the existing legal and regulatory framework. How are Zoning By-laws established? What is a Committee of Adjustment and how are Minor Variances determined? How many days does a municipality have to consider an application for development approval?
Communication breakdown
This will require some work to assess how London’s development process works. I am most familiar with Toronto’s system and I’m not sure that London invests the same amount and I know full well that the political culture at London City Hall is very different from Toronto’s.
The Wortley proposal in context
A discussion with a friend from Toronto who has a great degree of experience in dealing with planning issues revealed a funny point of agreement; “I’d fall on my knees and thank the heavens if a 4-storey proposal came forward.” While Toronto is about 9 times larger than London and I have no desire to transplant Toronto development to London, I do think a 4-storey development is never something to get entirely excited about, particularly in a City with such an unsustainable pattern of growth as London’s. Old South is an interesting study. One cannot simply cite the buildings they like as the character of a neighbourhood without acknowledging the ones they aren’t crazy about as being part of that same character. How does this proposal fit and not fit and what is the legal framework, as described above. I’ll try not to make judgments about the good or bad nature of the development though as you have just read, I’m fairly non-fussed about the proposal.
Improvements
Given all the above, what does London need to better process planning applications. Some of the ideas will involve costs and I won’t provide such information here as it will have little hard evidence to prove or disprove costs. Some may be impossible to achieve and some may require an entire overhaul of the political culture at City Hall. But I’ll do my best.
I welcome comments about all of my blogs but particularly about this one. I’ll try to address questions in future blogs on the topic and as always, I’ll publish the links on Facebook and Twitter. Feel free even to make suggestions as to how to improve the blog itself. Thanks for reading. Hope you enjoy, learn and discuss!
To make this all a bit more readable and so that I can publish this within a reasonable time-frame while also attending to other important matters, I’ve decided this will be a 4-part series (at least, that number may grow based on thought, writing and responses.)
1. The basics of Planning in Ontario
2. Communication Breakdown – London
3. The Wortley proposal in context
4. Planning philosophy and reform
Urban Planning in Ontario is regulated by a number of Provincial Acts, Court decisions and local regulation. Furthermore, municipalities are limited in their ability to control local decision making by the Ontario Municipal Board. Property development is at the core of our rights and liberties and is a crucial element of a capitalist system. Private property rights can be tempered but we must also ensure that laws are applied equally and consistently with a somewhat scientific approach. Planning decisions and policies must be based in rational thought rather than emotion.
Taste is certainly no small part of the issue either. Architecture, as with any creative endeavour is subject to differences of opinion and taste. Certain building designs, styles, materials and colours may please some while highly offending others. The Use of a property may make immense sense to some while seeming to be entirely irrational to others.
Development is also a major employer in any advanced, growing economy. Development is both an indicator and a function of economic growth. Development can have massive impacts on a local economy – too little supply of new housing has an impact on values and rents. Development is also impacted by land values (and development can impact land values) and the economic health is both affected by and effects the local economy. I’m not trying to be difficult here; The chicken-egg question of development remains whether tall buildings increase land values or whether increased land values cause tall buildings.
We are a capitalist economy. We generally believe in rewards for those who take risk and a profit margin for those who engage in business. Our pension plans are invested in development. The greatest single purchase most people make is their home. We have an interest in creating an ownership society where people see the value of their investments increase rather than paying rent forever. All of these factors affect how we see development in our communities. Economics is also a study in contradictions and counter-intuitive thought. Rent controls can limit investment in the creation of new rental units and the improvement of existing units. Similarly, overly restrictive growth and zoning policies can limit the supply of new housing.
All this is to say that governments constantly struggle with how to respect local sentiment while allowing for reasonable, responsible and measured growth.
I will try to address all of these issues as well as to explain the facts (as I know them) to examine possible problems with the existing system both in Ontario and in London specifically and to propose any solutions that might create a ‘better’ system for Urban Planning in Ontario and London. Keep in mind there is about 150 years of legal precedent and principles, countless OMB decisions and local issues of growth as well as the economic realities of property development that cannot be simply summarized for easy consumption.
I will do my best.
The Basics of Planning
This blog will describe the existing legal and regulatory framework. How are Zoning By-laws established? What is a Committee of Adjustment and how are Minor Variances determined? How many days does a municipality have to consider an application for development approval?
Communication breakdown
This will require some work to assess how London’s development process works. I am most familiar with Toronto’s system and I’m not sure that London invests the same amount and I know full well that the political culture at London City Hall is very different from Toronto’s.
The Wortley proposal in context
A discussion with a friend from Toronto who has a great degree of experience in dealing with planning issues revealed a funny point of agreement; “I’d fall on my knees and thank the heavens if a 4-storey proposal came forward.” While Toronto is about 9 times larger than London and I have no desire to transplant Toronto development to London, I do think a 4-storey development is never something to get entirely excited about, particularly in a City with such an unsustainable pattern of growth as London’s. Old South is an interesting study. One cannot simply cite the buildings they like as the character of a neighbourhood without acknowledging the ones they aren’t crazy about as being part of that same character. How does this proposal fit and not fit and what is the legal framework, as described above. I’ll try not to make judgments about the good or bad nature of the development though as you have just read, I’m fairly non-fussed about the proposal.
Improvements
Given all the above, what does London need to better process planning applications. Some of the ideas will involve costs and I won’t provide such information here as it will have little hard evidence to prove or disprove costs. Some may be impossible to achieve and some may require an entire overhaul of the political culture at City Hall. But I’ll do my best.
I welcome comments about all of my blogs but particularly about this one. I’ll try to address questions in future blogs on the topic and as always, I’ll publish the links on Facebook and Twitter. Feel free even to make suggestions as to how to improve the blog itself. Thanks for reading. Hope you enjoy, learn and discuss!
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Too many topics, not enough writing
I’ve got at least 4 blog posts, some with multiple facets on the go now and haven’t been able to coherently finish any of them. Sometimes events eclipse my ability to write. I also have multiple blogs so perhaps I should change that but I don't want to over-blog either. Hmmm.
Here’s a list of (hopefully) soon to be posted blogs:
1. Urban Planning in London
a. Basics of The Ontario Process
b. Communication Breakdown
c. The Wortley proposal specifically
2. Giambrone’s personal troubles
3. Should I stay or Should I go (thoughts on the future)
4. JP Personal Wellness – update on how I’m feeling/coping
Rather than belabour this post, I’m just sticking it up to whet your appetite. I’ll get going on the others after posting this. Suffice it to say, a certain couple of comments on the London Free Press’s website have me once again questioning what my life’s purpose is. I could stay in London and battle what seems sometimes to be an overwhelming opposition to sensible growth and urban planning or I could move back to Toronto where more people seem to agree with my worldview, the dating pool is significantly larger and (condition of my move) a job in Ontario Politics would await.
Today an old, younger friend retorted on Twitter that he thought unemployment and sedintarism (new word) had ruined my sense of humour – because I objected to his comment that the Giambrone affair was almost as embarrassing as his campaign video. A – Affairs are devastating for all involved and not a matter that I think should be joked about. B. I liked the video C. There’s something very misogynist in stating that a campaign video could in any way be more embarrassing or hurtful than an affair. I’ll forgive the kid for both comments and chalk it up to his being in his early 20’s. I can’t forgive the smugness of his retort.
Okay. Off to do some writing and finish off at least one more blog post. The Planning stuff is enjoyable for me but also requires a deep amount of thought. Now if only someone would pay me for this bottomless font of knowledge and talent! (London Free Press, I’m looking at you!)
Here’s a list of (hopefully) soon to be posted blogs:
1. Urban Planning in London
a. Basics of The Ontario Process
b. Communication Breakdown
c. The Wortley proposal specifically
2. Giambrone’s personal troubles
3. Should I stay or Should I go (thoughts on the future)
4. JP Personal Wellness – update on how I’m feeling/coping
Rather than belabour this post, I’m just sticking it up to whet your appetite. I’ll get going on the others after posting this. Suffice it to say, a certain couple of comments on the London Free Press’s website have me once again questioning what my life’s purpose is. I could stay in London and battle what seems sometimes to be an overwhelming opposition to sensible growth and urban planning or I could move back to Toronto where more people seem to agree with my worldview, the dating pool is significantly larger and (condition of my move) a job in Ontario Politics would await.
Today an old, younger friend retorted on Twitter that he thought unemployment and sedintarism (new word) had ruined my sense of humour – because I objected to his comment that the Giambrone affair was almost as embarrassing as his campaign video. A – Affairs are devastating for all involved and not a matter that I think should be joked about. B. I liked the video C. There’s something very misogynist in stating that a campaign video could in any way be more embarrassing or hurtful than an affair. I’ll forgive the kid for both comments and chalk it up to his being in his early 20’s. I can’t forgive the smugness of his retort.
Okay. Off to do some writing and finish off at least one more blog post. The Planning stuff is enjoyable for me but also requires a deep amount of thought. Now if only someone would pay me for this bottomless font of knowledge and talent! (London Free Press, I’m looking at you!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
