North York Council Madness

Well, Tuesday October 7th will go down as a day that lunacy reigned at City Hall - or at least at North York Civic Centre.

A group of disgruntled City Councillors from North York voted to name a street "OMB Folly" in response to an OMB-approved development. John Filion, the NIMBYest of all Councillors, a lefty only by affiliation made the motion over a development in his own ward. Surely this is a low-point in his career, though we haven't seen yet how he will mangle any new policies for food carts! Mr. Filion constantly complains about the traffic that infiltrates North York City Centre everyday but doesn't make the connection between more compact urban development and higher transit use. I think you'll agree this is an interesting position for a New Democrat.

This vote may have been one of the single-biggest indicators of why Toronto City Council ought not to have authority over individual development approvals. Every single City Councillor, with the possible exception of Kyle Rae who is too pro-development, acts in a NIMBY-like manner when it comes to development in their Ward. Some Councillors act in a NIMBY manner about development anywhere in the City of Toronto which is at least consistent.

The worst offenders though are those who perpetrate hypocrisy and my favourite, intellectual dishonesty. These Councillors tend to support big ideas and big moves, higher transit priority and intensification - as stated in our Official Plan but then actively oppose development in their ward. The Right wing of Council is not without their own issues when it comes to the day-to-day application of private property rights, de-regulation and the interests of private capital on their constituents - they support free markets except in housing and development. There is also tremendous political pressure on bureaucrats and planners to write reports and to make recommendations that will be safe and that Council will adopt.

Don't get me wrong. I support a clear zoning by-law that regulates the size/shape and use of properties. But I also don't think Zoning is ever cast in stone and that non-conforming developments can be accepted based on other considerations such as quality of architecture and design. Part of the problem in Toronto is that the Official Plan was adopted before any attempt was made to create a new, unified Zoning By-law with numbers that were updated to reflect the realities on the ground. For instance, Forest Hill's zoning at .35 lot coverage does not reflect the fact that most homes are at .57 x lot area. This creates a almost automatic need for Committee of Adjustment and/or Zoning reviews and automatically causes the angst of neighbours.

There are too many issues about Urban Planning and its legal framework, how it fits with capitalism, private property rights, natural law and the entire basis of zoning (actually an elitist attempt to keep the wrong people out of various areas in England where it was conceived) to the impacts of the entire system on property values, speculation and the orderly development of a City for this blog to explain. Plus, I am not an urban planner but have formed an opinion based on my experience in front and behind the scenes in development approval. The public cannot be expected to understand all of these underlying principles or the play between their various supporters. Developers will always push for the freest market possible. Homeowners will always fear change in their neighbourhoods and a vocal minority will generally lead an opposition. And politics does nothing but further confuse the issues and rather than constructively engage people it creates animosity about something that should be considered positive: growth and intensification

Here are some conclusions I have made: Happy people don't call City Hall to complain. A significant number of people less than a majority of people call City Hall. Therefore, particularly with respect to Toronto's growth, most people are fairly happy or indifferent. And given the rate that most new condo projects sell at, the market is further stating to Council that it is mostly positive about new developments.

People disconnect their own theory/belief when it comes to change in their neighbourhood. Why else would free market conservatives, home-ownership supporting liberals and/or some tenants-rights activists oppose many of these developments? New supply means cheaper rents and home prices, a free market encourages the growth of private capital. All of us believe in rational and good government but many of us believe that means "I get my way." They forget that Minto's Skyscrapers are directly related to their own ability to propose and get approval for a much-needed home renovation. Somehow the wealthier the land-owner or the bigger their property, the less right they should have to question blanket zoning by-laws that treat all properties similarly regardless of their individual characteristics or local context.

Without knowing it, Torontonians generally become supporters of a Soviet-style central decision making regime where plans for the use of capital and assets, i.e. the means of production, are made by City Hall bureaucrats. Most people would consider those fighting words but I've long argued that this is the real world application of political theory and you cannot disconnect the two! They may not like to be called that but that is exactly what they support - if they don't understand that, it is time to do some reading. I suggest starting with John Locke, some Marx, perhaps some Adam Smith...

I'm rambling. To get back to my central point - Politicians are in a lose/lose situation with regards to development approval and ought to divest themselves of authority for individual decisions while setting the broader policy context. In fact, that is what we elect them to do, not to review building plans or the location of driveways to new developments. The current system works on conflict of interest and deal-making, whether that's with NIMBY voters or secretly pro-development colleagues on Council. Some people think this is about contributions to candidates and lobbying rules but that is very simplistic. This is about politicians sheltering the public from the tough decisions. It's about the fact that Laws and Sausages are two things the public shouldn't see being made.


This is why a Vancouver-model, with exactly the kind of broad-policy oversight I mention above is set by Councillors while day-to-day decisions are made by experts and others in the development field through peer review. This preserves the integrity of their decision-making process; something that all City Councillors would benefit from.

It is clear to me that the OMB system is broken and for bringing that to our attention yet again Councillor Filion has done us all a service. However, when one fails to achieve anything constructive and sings the same tune, does not adapt his approach, change strategy, one has to worry about the effectiveness of that politician. I imagine most developers know well the records of local Councillors and their chance of a reasonable and open discussion about local change and those who will drive even the most modest changes to the OMB.

Unfortunately, Mr. Filion is also being somewhat less than honest with the public. The City of Toronto currently has Legislative Powers to reform many of its processes for building and zoning reviews, particularly with respect to the Committee of Adjustment set-up. The Provincial Government has at least expressed an interest in giving more authority to the City of Toronto in a de-politicized process.

Consider too that Councillor Filion supported appeals against the City of Toronto’s new plan. This is one of those odd prerogatives that Councillors enjoy – to oppose the Corporation whose by-laws they are sworn to uphold. Does it then make sense that after Council has made a decision – by the majority, that a minority can assist aggrieved homeowners Associations in holding up that By-law from taking effect? In this instance it was the City’s Official Plan. Councillors have funded fights against their own Urban Planners. What kind of use of Tax Dollars is that? Either fire them for giving bad planning advice or take their professional advice. Reports can be questioned in Council after all.

Furthermore, this Administration with the tacit support of Councillor Filion has completely failed to follow-up on former Chief Planner Paul Bedford’s directions that a new Zoning By-law be written within 5-years of the adoption of the new Official Plan. It has identified money as a central issue of course.

But this petty decision, to throw sand across the sandbox at the Dirty Rotten Developer is not only a sad reflection on our politics and our politicians but on our own ability to accept the organic and unorganized growth of a vibrant City. After all, how did John Filion’s constituents get their homes in the first place? Were they always there or at some point did a developer not apply to break some rules, create some new ones - it used to be farmland at Yonge/Sheppard after all!

The attitude is, I got here first - go find your own Greenfield to ruin! It is far past the point where we address the suburban growth patterns that make us entirely susceptible to an economic collapse fueled by higher carbon-based energy prices.

At the end of the day we need OMB Reform to remove the adversarial approach but we also need a substitute appeal mechanism separate from City Council. Council needs to update its Zoning By-law to be in conformity with the goals of the new Official Plan. Lastly, Council should create peer review and other panels to make decisions about individual development applications after they have set the broader policy context.