►
Description
Planning and Growth Management Committee, meeting 26, January 25, 2018
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=14128
Meeting Navigation:
0:05:29 - Call to order
Agenda Item:
0:06:46 - PG26.1 - Bill 7 - Response to the Proposed Inclusionary Zoning Regulation (Ward All)
A
Okay,
I
want
to
welcome
everybody
here.
We're
gonna
bring
call
the
meeting
to
order,
welcome
to
the
took
meeting
26
previously,
not
scheduled,
but
due
to
the
provinces
response
to
a
request
for
inclusionary
zoning.
It's
a
meeting
that
we're
having
so
meeting
26
of
the
planning
of
growth
management
committee.
Welcome
to
members
of
the
committee
to
the
other
members
of
council
and
attendance
and
very
much
to
the
members
of
the
public
that
are
here
today
for
those
in
the
room
with
us.
A
The
screen
at
the
where's,
the
screen,
the
screen
in
the
far
corner
in
the
back
of
the
room
provides
real-time
updates.
Where
we're
at
in
the
agenda,
which
is
one
item
today,
you
can
follow
the
agenda,
though,
and
debate
on
your
computer
tablet
or
smartphone
at
wwr
on
OCA
ford,
slash,
council,
the
planning
and
growth
management
committee
gratefully
acknowledges.
It
is
meeting
on
the
traditional
territory
of
the
Mississauga's
of
a
new
credit
first
nation
Hasani
they're,
here
on
when
that
and
home
to
many
diverse
indigenous
people.
A
We
have
one
item
on
the
agenda.
I
have
to
start,
though,
and
ask:
are
there
any
conflicts
of
interest?
Any
declarations
of
interest
not
seeing
anything.
So
we
have
one
item
on
the
agenda.
We
have
a
number
of
speakers
on
it.
What
I'm
going
to
suggest
is
before
we
get
to
the
speakers.
We
have
a
report
that
our
planning
staff
has
provided
for
us,
which
is
relatively
hot
off
the
press
done
in
remarkable
time
to
get
it
here.
A
That's
why
we're
holding
a
special
meeting,
so
we
are
able
to
inform
and
mather
consider
the
provincial
actions
and
our
appropriate
response.
I
think
it's
most
appropriate,
though,
with
that
and
it's
a
not
to
lengthy
report
for
the
fairly
substantial
report
that
we
have.
Our
staff.
Give
us
a
brief
presentation.
First
as
to
what's
in
here
then
we'll
go
to
speakers.
Then
we
can
go
to
questions.
I
turn
it
over
to
mr.
Lynn
turn
I.
Do
you
or
your
staff
going
to
provide
the.
A
B
A
C
E
So
good
afternoon
my
name
is
Deanna
tawny
and
I'm
with
our
City
Planning
Division,
and
they
were
also
here
with
my
colleague,
Rashad
Mahan,
so
we
provided
a
very
short
overview
of
the
key
elements
in
the
proposed
regulation,
as
well
as
some
of
the
city's
concerns,
and
these
matters
are
more
fully
discussed
in
the
report
and
certainly
as
part
of
questions
we
can
get
into
the
more
in
more
detail.
I
think
the
first
piece
that's
important
to
know
is
that
the
regulations
are
only
proposed
at
this
stage.
E
The
province
has
set
a
45-day
commenting
period
which
ends
February
first,
so
the
regulations
stem
from
bill
7,
which
is
the
promoting
affordable
housing
act
and
that
was
or
that
received
Royal
Assent
from
the
province
of
little
over
a
year
ago,
in
December
2016
bill
7,
if
proclaimed,
would
Allah
would
amend
the
Planning
Act
to
allow
municipalities
to
implement
inclusionary
zoning
so
turning
over.
So
just
some
key
features,
and
there
the
regulations
or
the
proposed
regulations
are
quite
dense
and
complex.
So
we
just
wanted
to
draw
your
attention
to
some
of
the
key
provisions.
E
The
regulations
provide
for
either
significant
incentives
provided
by
the
city
or
that
the
affordable
housing
would
be
secured
within
a
community
planning
permit
system
area,
in
which
case
no
incentives
would
be
required,
and
the
regulation
also
caps
the
percentage
of
affordable
housing
at
ten
percent
of
units
within
high-density
transit
station
areas
and
five
percent
outside
of
those
areas
as
well,
as
sets
an
affordability
period,
a
maximum
affordability
period
of
between
twenty
and
thirty
years.
And
finally,
the
proposed
regulation
limits
municipalities
to
only
apply
this
requirement
to
condominium
applications,
so
purpose-built
rental
developments
are
excluded.
E
So
we've
raised
a
number
of
concerns
and
comments
within
the
report.
The
first
and
most
fundamental
point
that
I
think
we
want
to
make
is
that
the
regulations
are
incredibly
prescriptive
and
really
limit
municipal
flexibility
and
decision
making.
The
second
concern
is
that
the
level
of
incentives
as
proposed
represents
a
significant
financial
cost
to
the
city
and,
at
this
stage,
is
proposed
as
forty
percent,
the
difference
between
the
market
price
and
the
city's
affordable
price.
E
In
addition,
the
restriction
form
securing
purpose-built
rental
housing
is
a
significant
concern
for
us,
as
well
as
I,
think.
The
exemption
for
purpose-built
rental
projects
is
also
something
we
want
to
continue
to
explore
with
the
province
I.
Think
over.
All
the
staffs
comments
are
that
the
proposed
regulation
is
truly
a
missed
opportunity
for
the
city.
It
does
not
allow
us
to
achieve
real
outcomes
regarding
housing,
affordable
housing,
affordability,
issues
within
our
high-growth
areas.
A
A
So
what
we'll
do
is
let's
hear
from
the
public
and
then
maybe
we'll
a
staff
and
to
go
over
their
nine
recommendations
with
us
deal
with
it.
That
way,
so
I
have
a
list
of
speakers.
First
ashang
Megan,
Sean
you're.
Here
there
you
are
so
for
those
of
you
that
may
not
have
been
here
before
committee
allows
deputations
of
five
minutes.
We
ask
you
to
please
keep
it
in
that
time,
clocks
over
there
and
after
five
minutes
your
time's
up,
hopefully
you're
finished
by
then.
A
D
It's
distressing
to
see
that,
because
it
takes
away
the
flexibility,
municipalities
need-
and
it's
also
distressing
to
see
that,
because
it's
anomalous
in
North
American
set-aside
strategies,
North
American
set-aside
strategies,
are
rarely
that
low.
They
tend
to
be
appreciably
higher.
20%
is
very
common
in
the
u.s.
in
over
a
hundred
municipalities
that
the
levels
are
above
20%
in
New,
York
City.
They
are
30%
and
more.
D
The
right
regulatory
position
is
to
have
no
province
wide
cap.
No
prong
set
asides
to
have
no
province
wide
constraints
on
how
municipalities
address
this.
The
city
recommendations
address
that
request,
but
you
do
it
kind
of
mildly.
I
would
encourage
the
city
to
be
very,
very
clear
with
the
province
that
no
cap
should
be
said
not
just
that
they
respect
the
flexibility
that
they
set.
No
cap
whatsoever
for
municipalities.
D
Similarly,
the
the
regs
ban
cities
from
making
units
affordable
for
longer
than
30
years
why
anyone
would
want
to
present
prevent
cities
from
and
and
towns
and
and
municipalities
from
providing
the
most
affordability
of
the
greatest
period
of
time
possible.
I
can't
imagine
why
anyone
would
want
to
kick
the
affordability
crisis
down
the
road
to
the
next
generation.
I
can't
imagine,
but
that's
what
these
regulations
do
in
u.s.
jurisdictions
and
across
North
America
inclusionary
zoning
policies
tend
to
have
much
longer
affordability
periods.
D
They
tend
to
have
perpetual
affordability
as
the
increasingly
common
choice
and
jurisdictions
that
had
shorter
affordability
periods
are
now
lengthening
them
through
a
variety
of
regulatory
reforms
and
the
City
of
Toronto
does
again
address
that
question
in
the
recommendations,
but
again
fairly,
mildly
and
I
would
encourage
the
city
to
ask
the
province
to
have
no
cap
whatsoever
in
the
regulations
that
they
bring
forward.
Not
only
because
a
cap
of
any
kind
isn't
not.
D
As
you
know,
anathema
to
the
municipal
flexibility
that
you
need,
but
also
because
one
of
the
things
that
the
province
says
is
that
the
duration
that
they're
looking
at
as
a
cap
is
something
that
they're
providing
because
the
City
of
Toronto
asked
for
that
cap.
That
may
very
well
have
been
a
misunderstanding,
but
I
think
it's
important
that
the
City
of
Toronto
make
it
very
clear
to
the
province.
They
do
not
want
a
cap
on
affordability
periods,
they
want
the
flexibility
to
set
their
own
caps
and
they
want
other
municipalities
to
have
the
same.
D
The
regulations
also
impose
measures
and
incentives,
essentially
payments
that
taxpayers
need
to
make
to
developers
in
order
to
get
the
developers
to
comply
with
the
law
and
the
regulation.
Those
are
not
in
the
legislation.
They
are
uncommon
in
u.s.
jurisdictions,
even
in
jurisdictions
where
they
exist
as
a
possibility.
They're
rarely
applied,
and
it's
bizarre
that
the
province
of
Ontario
would
impose
on
municipality
the
requirement
that
taxpayers
subsidize
developers
in
especially
in
overheated
development
markets
like
the
city
of
Toronto,
again
I,
think
it's
important.
D
The
City
of
Toronto
say
that
this
is
not
on
to
the
province
of
Ontario
in
part,
because
the
province
of
Ontario
is
saying
the
City
of
Toronto
asked
them
not
to
include
density
as
a
way
to
offset
cost,
and
so
they
were
forced
to
go
to
this
model,
because
the
city
of
Toronto's
request
puts
them
in
a
corner.
There's
no
evidence
that
we
need
incentives.
U.S.
D
jurisdictions,
don't
use
them
and
in
fact
the
evidence
is
that
when
you
don't
have
incentives,
the
value
of
those
units
passes
back
to
the
land
cost
which
tends
to
slow
the
inflation
of
land
prices
also
a
benefit
to
housing
markets
and
overheated
contexts
like
the
City
of
Toronto.
This
I
will.
Let
me
like
one
last
thing
in
my
last
five
seconds,
which
is
that
the
off-site
provisions
that
cap,
how
much
inclusionary
zoning
you
can
put
on
a
new
site
are
also
a
real
challenge,
and
the
city's
recommendation
on
that
we
think
is,
is
very
advantageous.
F
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
and
thank
you
for
coming
in
Sean.
If
you
can
just
maybe
elaborate
a
little
bit
on
the
comments
you
made
with
respect
to
New
York
City
that
it's
probably
30%
of
that
development
has
affordable
housing
built
into
it.
Just
may
be
generally
elaborate
on
that
with
respect
to
incentives
or
why
or
how
did
this
come
about,
and
why
is
it
being
so
successful?
There
yeah.
D
So
New
York
calls
it
inclusionary
housing
and
they
approach
their
inclusionary
housing
strategy
in
a
couple
of
ways
one.
They
recognize
that
there
is
a
lot
of
money
to
be
made
in
development
in
New
York
City,
even
though
their
development
boom
is
a
little
slower
than
ours.
There's
still
a
lot
of
money
you
made
even
in
New
York,
and
so
they
expect
the
the
benefit
of
that
development
to
pay
the
cost
of
creating
affordable
housing
and
they
differentiate
within
zones,
and
they
also
differentiate
in
terms
of
outcomes.
So
in
some
cases
they
say
look.
D
This
is
a
potentially
very
highly
profitable,
very
highly
dense
area,
around
transit
nodes
and
things
like
that,
and
so
we
can
ask
for
a
larger
percentage
of
the
development
be
dedicated
to
affordable
housing,
either
on-site
or
off-site.
In
other
cases,
they
say
you
know
what
we're
gonna
take
a
smaller
percentage,
but
we
want
a
deeper
level
of
affordability.
D
So
we'll
ask
that
you
provide
10%
of
the
units,
will
be
affordable,
but
they'd
be
much
more
affordable
than
the
ones
where
they're
asking
for
30%,
so
New
York
City
actually
has
a
really
robust
strategy
around
various
levels
of
depth
of
affordability,
various
ranges
of
set
asides
and
that's
the
kind
of
thing
that
you
can
do.
If
municipalities
have
the
flexibility
to
design
a
system
that
responds
to
their
housing
market.
D
Without
incentives
that
that
our
costs
to
the
public,
so
there
are
some
incentives
that
make
things
work
better,
fast-tracking,
lower
parking
requirements,
those
don't
cost
the
taxpayer
a
nickel
and
they
do
lower
costs
for
developers
and
those
are
sometimes
attractive
things
to
use
to
try
and
maximize
the
amount
of
affordable,
affordable
housing.
But
if
you're
waiving
development
charges
or
providing
tax
incentives
or
making
cash
payments,
that's
money
that
you
don't
have
to
provide
our
GI
units
or
support
rooming
house
availability
or
all
the
other
deeper
subsidy
or
lower
cost
options.
Inclusionary
zoning
won't
necessarily
supply.
D
D
So
it
ends
up
being
perpetual
and
even
in
the
jurisdictions
where
they
used
to
say,
like
the
earliest
jurisdictions
to
adopt
inclusionary
zoning
tended
to
adopt
fixed
periods
and
they're
getting
to
the
end
of
those
fixed
periods
and
they're,
realizing
that
they've
manufactured
an
affordable
housing
crisis
for
themselves
just
later
and
so
they're
moving
to
they're
shifting
off
of
those
strategies
to
longer-term
affordability
into
perpetual
affordability
and
the
province
of
Ontario.
Imposing
on
you
an
environment
in
which
you
will
manufacture
for
yourself
an
affordable
housing
crisis.
A
generation
from
now
makes
no
sense.
Yeah.
F
D
A
lot
of
variation
in
in
the
various
jurisdictions
that
use
inclusionary
zoning
in
a
lot
of
cases
in
order
to
achieve
Perpetual,
especially
perpetually,
affordable
rental
housing.
There
is
a
lot
of
transfer
to
municipal
agencies
or
to
nonprofits.
Those
partnerships
are
really
valuable
if,
as
the
current
regulations
tend
to
do,
you
bias
the
system
exclusively
towards
ownership
housing
by
excluding
purpose-built
rental
by
setting
up
the
off-site
provisions
so
that
they
would
exclude
nonprofit
housing
providers,
then
you,
you,
don't
address
the
most
important
challenge
in
the
city
of
Toronto's
housing
crisis,
which
is
affordable
rental
housing.
D
G
D
We
hear
this
in
in
fairness
to
to
every.
When
we
hear
this
in
casual
conversation,
we
don't
have
a
formal
statement
from
the
province
saying
this
is
the
City
of
Toronto
its
fault,
but
in
casual
conversation
with
folks
at
the
province.
We,
what
we
hear
back
sometimes
is
well.
The
City
of
Toronto
said
30-year.
Cap
made
sense.
The
City.
G
Of
Toronto
won't
let
a
few
dinners,
so,
in
addition
to
the
legislation
is
public
says,
quite
the
contrary.
It
actually
says
a
minimum
of
20
years,
so
we
actually
ask
them
to
set
minimums
and
maximums,
because
one
of
the
big
things
that
we
want
is
the
flexibility
to
be
able
to
create
an
a
bylaw
that
is
adaptable
to
the
different
regions
of
the
city.
Absolutely.
D
G
D
D
H
To
be
here
today
to
remind
you
that,
after
all,
the
conversation
around
the
regulations
come
near
to
a
close
that
the
real
work
around
inclusionary
zoning
will
still
have
to
happen,
and
that's
that's
where
we
come
in.
The
partnership
model
is
essential
to
meeting
the
goals
of
inclusionary
zoning
and
our
members
will
be
your
partner
in
the
private
sector.
The
stop
report
talks
about
how
the
regulation
speaks
to
a
4060
split
and
the
work
being
done.
H
If
it's
done
outside
of
what
I
still
call
it
a
development
permit
system,
it's
going
to
require
that
forty
percent
municipal
contribution,
our
members,
are
the
remaining
60
percent
and
that
will
be
the
responsibility
of
our
industry.
The
stop
report
has
noted
challenges
with
this,
and
I
would
attest
to
that.
H
We're
there,
as
was
mentioned
in
my
free
beer
speaker,
were
there
ways
that
the
development
approvals
were
fast-tracked.
What
I'm
suggesting
is
that
we're
gonna
have
to
kind
of
take
a
step
back
and
look
at
what's
going
to
work
for
Toronto
and
get
over
all
the
challenges
that
are
being
spoken
about
in
many
different
ways.
What
I
do
want
to
suggest
you
is
that
we
have
to
find
a
way
to
make
it
work
so
that
we
can
have
a
true
partnership.
There's
always
going
to
be
a
risk
to
these
sorts
of
developments.
H
There's
going
to
be
uncertainty
with
what
the
market
can
accept
and
inclusionary
zoning
units,
which
again
are
really
only
one
tool
in
the
affordable
ownership.
Housing
discussion
they're
only
going
to
be
brought
forward
if
these
projects
as
well
are
successful
and
come
forward.
That's
why
I
would
suggest
you
that
recommendation
six
in
your
staff
report
is
also
important.
H
It
speaks
to
inclusionary
zoning,
be
tied
to
areas
where
zonings
been
updated
if
affordable
units
are
to
be
brought
on
stream,
it's
it's
really
in
our
collective
interest
to
make
sure
that
things
happen
quicker,
better
and
faster,
and
this
is
a
way
to
recognize
that
reality.
So
I
feel
as
though
we
all
have
some
work
to
do
as
part
of
this
picture.
The
industry
realizes
that
we're
here
there
to
do
this
as
well.
H
The
private
sector
already
does
come
to
the
table
in
various
ways
and-
and
we
know
what
the
responsible
are
going
to
be,
and
they
will
have
to
address
your
municipal
policy.
The
private
sector
will
take
on
the
related
administrative
costs
associated
to
the
development
applications
and
the
permits
and
depending
on
the
model
they'll
share
in
the
long
term.
Administrative
costs
associated
to
the
not-for-profit
housing
providers
for
these
projects
it'll
also
be
the
private
sectors,
responsibility
to
invest,
equity
and
incur
costs
to
secure
construction
financing
for
these
affordable
units.
H
So
what
I'm
trying
to
reinforce
to
you
is
as
your
partners
in
community
building
that
the
development
industry
does
have
a
skin
in
the
game
as
well.
We
come
again
we
come
to
the
table
as
your
partner
and
community
building
and
a
reminder
that
we
have
to
collectively
bring
a
set
of
balanced
solutions
forward
so
that
we
can
be
part
of
the
creation
of
good
policy.
That's
in
the
public
interest,
I
think
we
have
to
work
with
the
spirit
of
collaboration
and
creative
and
critical
thought
and
understand.
H
They're
all
limitations
on
both
ends
from
the
industry
side
of
things
and
from
our
municipal
partners
and
we're
gonna
have
to
work
together
to
make
this
work.
So
as
again,
my
message
really
today
was
as
soon
as
all
the
regs
are
done.
We
still
are
in
the
process
of
looking
at
them
and
making
some
comments.
We're
not
completely
done
that
yet
as
well,
but
recognizing
that
implementation
is
going
to
be
key
for
the
municipality
and
that's
where
we
come
in
to
see
how
we
can
make
it
work
together.
Thank
You
chair
thank.
A
H
I
A
I
read
the
regulations.
The
unit
would
sell
up
market
by
a
your
your
members
at
a
hundred
percent
to
bring
it
down
to
affordable.
You
have
to
reduce
it
by
these
regs
by
40
percent,
so
the
developer
then
sells
it
at
a
reduced
cost
because
we're
paying
40%
of
the
cost
or
the
140,000
to
bring
it
down.
What
is
a
contribution
that
the
developers
making
to
bring
the
price
of
the
unit
down
well.
H
I
would
attest
you
that
when
we
started
these
discussions
with
the
province,
there
was
always
that
discussion
about
a
partnership
model
and
how
much
does
the
province
pay?
How
much
does
the
municipality
pay?
How
much
do
the
development
we
had
said?
We
want
a
50/50
split.
Ideally,
it'd
be
great.
If
everyone
came
to
the
table
together
and
we
paid,
we
were
responsible
for
that
portion.
I,
don't
want
to
say
the
cost,
because
it
does
depend
on
the
project.
H
It
depends
on
so
many
other
things
that
play
I
can't
sit
down
to
you
right
now
and
say
to
you:
if
a
unit
is
this
much,
we
will
pay
this
much.
That
answer
we
haven't
figured
it
out.
It
will
be
a
product
of
the
municipal
zoning
bylaw,
that's
created
once
we
figure
out
that
formula.
So
that's
what
I
would
suggest
you
I
can't
tell
you
exactly
that.
It's
going
to
be
this
percentage,
we
have
to
figure
out
how
it
works
with
everything
else.
You.
A
J
A
Try
and
understand
things
like
others
in
the
room.
Would
my
colleagues
can
I
deal
with
this
I'm?
Sorry,
I've
worked
with
your
organization.
A
lot
I
think
you're
aware
that
the
great
people
come
in
to
resolve
a
lot
of
issues
we
have
but
I
go
back
and
say
cost
of
a
unit.
Inclusionary
zoning
means
that
we
wanted
as
a
regulation
the
fact
that
the
price
of
the
unit
should
come
down
to
make
it
affordable.
A
A
And
what
about
the
up
value
that
a
property
gets
when
you
take
it
at
the
current
zoning
and
the
current
official
plan
and
you
up
zone
the
property
to
get
substantial
additional
density
which
is
based
on
the
municipalities,
approval
that's
going
to
the
developer!
There's
a
lot
of
that
comes
for
some
of
that
up
zoning
and
that
value
be
put
back
into
the
unit
which
is
what's
happened
on
many
of
the
sites
where
we've
added,
because
we've
negotiated
these
through
our
affordable
housing
office.
In
our
section
37
benefits.
A
H
A
I
H
A
A
This
is
the
number
of
parking
spaces
that
I
think
work
on
my
site
now,
we're
told
to
say
well,
okay,
to
get
affordable,
housing
will
do
less
than
that,
which
means
we're
saying
people
will
buy
units
without
parking,
because
that's
the
way
we've
got
affordable
housing,
but
the
developer
would
have
submitted
the
fact
that
the
parking
should
have
been
there,
that
we
take
other
benefits
that
we
have
and
we
don't
do
those
we
don't
have
development
charges
coming
towards
those
units.
It's
not
a
deferral,
it's
a
contribution
of.
A
H
Scheiner,
this
is
a
conversation
that
is
exactly
to
my
point.
This
needs
to
be
figured
out
when
you,
you
will
see
in
a
submission
from
the
industry
that
there
has
to
be
consideration,
and
my
colleague
will
speak
to
it
of
those
offsets
that
you're
talking
about.
How
can
we
look
at
the
package
inclusively
and
say
this
is
what
the
development
industry
would
be
paying,
for.
These
are
the
contributions
that
we
already
make.
H
These
are
some
of
the
items
that
we
would
like
to
the
city
to
consider
waiving
perhaps
development
charges
perhaps
parks,
perhaps
not
perhaps
let
there.
Let
us
contribute
that
contribution
and
let's
talk
about
bringing
the
projects
on
stream
quicker.
What
my
suggestion
to
you
is
that
we
are
going
to
make
this
work
together,
but
there
has
to
also
be
a
recognition
from
the
municipality
that
it's
not
a
free
ride
for
anyone
and
there
is
going
to
be
a
cost
from
the
development
industry
as
well.
H
A
K
H
Well,
when
you
say
the
word
flexibility,
I
have
to
be
careful
because
there's
gonna
be
a
framework
that
set
out.
Could
there
be
a
framework
that
then
we
speak
about
that
makes
sense
for
toronto?
Perhaps,
but
this
is
where
I
have
to
say
that
we
haven't
made
any
formal
comments
on
the
specifics
for
the
regulations.
So
I
don't
know
what
formal
submission
we're
gonna
make
of.
K
K
Got
my
answer:
okay
now
I
want
to
pursue
what
councillor
Shriner
was
saying,
maybe
with
a
little
bit
more
specificity.
My
understanding
is,
the
provincial
regulation
says
is
that
the
City
of
Toronto
has
to
provide
some
kind
of
an
incentive
cash
or
waiving
a
fee
or
whatever.
That
is
worth
40%
of
the
difference
between
what
you
could
have
sold
the
unit
for
and
what
we're
actually
getting
the
unit
off
is
definition.
Okay,.
B
K
K
H
K
H
Is
dependent
on
the
projects
if
you
want
to
simplify
in
that
term,
we
have
to
look
at
the
formula
what
it
makes
sense
for
the
city
we
haven't.
We
haven't
done
the
math
we
haven't
had
one
of
our
members.
Perhaps
they
have
on
their
own
accord
in
our
exercise.
Yet
as
we're
preparing
to
respond
to
the
regulations,
we
haven't
done.
The
formula
we've
looked
at
the
framework.
Yes,.
K
K
H
H
K
L
K
H
H
I
imagine
this
is
what
you
are
asking
me
to
say
if
I'm
suggesting
to
you
that
we
are
going
to
be
your
partner
and
make
things
happen
just
as
though
many
developers
already
have.
There
are
units
that
we
can
point
to
where
it
makes
sense,
I'm
not
going
to
suggest
you
that
we
can
play
with
the
price
the
market's
going
to
bear
what
the
market
can
bear,
there's
going
to
be
stress
tests
in
every
direction
that
we
look
at.
K
K
H
A
H
When
we
look
at
the
cost
of
a
home,
those
are
the
payments
in
general,
the
is
what
I'm
referring
to
the
cost
of
the
unit.
There
are
various
contributors
that
go
into
it.
There
are
things
that
are
being
looked
at
to
be
subsidized.
Yes,
those
will
be
off
sites,
but
there
is
going
to
be
a
payment
for
us
to
bring
these
units
to
market.
There
are
payments.
H
F
So,
let's
imagine
that
a
three-bedroom
condo
today
is
worth
$700,000
and
the
definition
of
the
affordable
ownership
price
is
300,000.
It's
a
$400,000
difference,
so
the
legislation
right
now
assumes
that
the
city
through
different
means
that
the
legislation
provides
us
will
make
up
40%
of
the
difference,
and
the
rest
is
on
the
developer.
To
make
up
the
difference.
Is
that
how
you
read
the
legislation
you're,
paying
60%
of
the
difference
between
the
market
price
and
the
affordable
ownership
price.
F
Reason
why
I
respectfully
disagree
with
with
councilor
perks
on
this
and
he
and
he
knows
how
I
feel
about
developers
paying
the
fair
share
is
because,
as
profitable
as
the
industry
is,
there
isn't
$400,000
profit
in
a
in
a
condo
unit.
So
you
are
actually
putting
out
substantial
money
from
the
cost
that
it
costs
you
to
build.
The
condo
I
would.
F
G
Mr.
noodle,
you
would
agree
that
for
this
legislation
to
work,
we
need
we,
the
municipalities
and
Industry
neat.
This
needs
to
work
for
both
you
need
to
produce
the
units.
We
need
to
create
a
legislation
that
doesn't
hinder
the
industry,
but
so
that
you
can
continue
to
construct
us.
That's
the
only
way
we're
gonna
get
units
if
you
continue
to
produce
we
and
to
build
in
the
things
and
resonance
correct.
So
what
we
really
need
to
look
at
the
issue
is:
look
at
this
issue.
G
The
same
way
that
you
developers
look
at
it,
which
is
looking
at
the
Performa.
You
a
builder,
looks
at
the
performance,
as
does
this
make
sense.
Can
I
get
my
money
out
of
it?
Yes,
okay,
I'm
gonna
build,
so
we
need
to
create
a
legislation
and
to
understand
what
is
the
soft
spot
that
you
will
continue
to
build
and
we
are
able
to
be
a
partner
that
we
it's
gonna,
be
making
sense
that
it
makes
sense
to
create
that
legislation.
G
Correct,
yes,
I
would
say
so
if
we
had,
if
I
tell
you
that
we
had
people
looking
at
this,
that
do
this
for
a
living
and
that
have
come
back
to
us
with
numbers
very,
very
different
that
do
not
include
a
40%
contribution
for
this
from
the
city,
which
is
a
big
concern
that
we
have
with
the
legislation.
Aside
from
the
caps
that
we
we
really
like
the
minimums,
because
we
want
that
flexibility,
the
other
is
the
cost
that
it's
gonna
translate
the
way
that
the
these
regulations
are
written.
G
G
May
be,
our
definitions
should
be
to
the
province.
Just
look
at
those
kinds
of
performance,
because
40%
is
not
working
for
us,
because
we
can't
pay
$150,000.
Otherwise
we
would
just
create
an
investment
in
affordable
housing
program
like
the
province
and
the
federal
government
have
any
ways,
because
that's
what
it
is.
Why
don't
we
actually
look
at
the
economics
of
these
issue
and
create
something
that
works
for
municipalities
so
that
we
can
create
legislation
and
allow
it
to
create
legislations
and
allows
the
industry
to
continue
to
produce
and
to
flourish
and
to
develop
I.
H
Think
if
it's
going
to
work,
we
have
to
find
something
that
works
for
the
both
of
us.
Otherwise,
to
your
point,
these
units
will
not
be
built.
The
market
is
not
going
to
accept
it
and
it's
not
going
to
put
you
in
a
position
or
us
in
a
position
to
bring
anything
for
it
together.
So
do
we
need
to
find
something
that
works
for
the
city?
Yes,
that's
why
I
did
say.
After
all,
these
PR
consultations
are
done.
H
We
have
to
hammer
it
down,
you're,
going
to
be
creating
bylaws
you're,
going
to
be
doing
all
the
calculations.
There
are
already
projects
in
the
city
that
have
worked
back
to
my
point
here.
Why
did
they
work
here
in
Toronto?
Were
there
other
things
that
made
them
happen?
Were
there
fast
tracks
on
permits?
Perhaps
that
was
enough
there
there
are
going
to
be
circumstances
that
are
going
to
work
for
the
city
of
Toronto,
and
if
we
are
your
partner,
then
it
has
to
be
successful
for
both.
A
Thank
you
with
the
committee's
permission,
I'm
just
going
to
go
to
a
second
round,
so
I
get
some
clarification
because
you
say
work
as
a
partner
and
I
think
Pauly.
You
know
that
I
want
to,
but
currently
we
don't
fergal
development
charges.
We
defer
them
correct
and
we
collect
them
at
the
time
that
the
unit
may
become
at
market
unit
with
so
they're
deferred
out
for
a
long
time.
We
don't
have
that
cause
we
don't
have
to.
A
A
The
second
part:
planning
fees
right
you'd
like
me
to
fast
track,
but
if
I
have
to
give
up
the
planning
fees
in
the
application,
I
have
to
reduce
my
staff
because
by
legislation
I've
only
permitted
to
have
the
staff
that
are,
we
pay
for
the
staff
from
the
fees
that
we
charge,
which
have
to
be
commensurate
to
each
other
and
we've
been
challenged
by
that
by
the
industry
for
charging
too
much
so
I
can't
fast
track.
I'm
gonna,
slow
track.
You
because
I
don't
know
staff
to
get
anything
and
things
will
get
worse.
A
Parks
contributions
aren't
just
grass
they're,
often
used
for
infrastructure
that
has
to
go
into
place
or
repair
of
that
infrastructure.
Their
improvements.
If
we
don't
have
that,
we
can't
improve
it
for
the
intensification
and
parking
reductions,
our
based
really
the
standards
we
set,
but
every
development
has
industry.
Folks
tell
us
what's
right
and
if
we
reduce
that
people
that
buy
units
to
have
nowhere
to
park
so,
but
our
report
says
we
could
be
talking
a
hundred
and
fifty
eight
thousand
dollars
a
unit
or
a
hundred
and
fifty
eight
million
dollars
annually.
A
How
can
the
municipality
expect
to
partner
and
pay
that
and
find
this
as
a
successful
program
which
it's
not
necessarily
your
recommendation?
This
is
based
on
the
provincial
regulation,
so
I
guess
my
question
is:
do
you
think
that
we
could
survive
with
that
type
of
input
or
cost
per
unit
and
giving
up
all
those
things?
Or
do
you
believe
that
we
should
work
at
this
together
to
find
a
better
compromise
where
affordable
housing
units
can
actually
built,
because
this
regs,
in
our
opinion,
won't
work.
H
Counselor,
you
do
bring
up
very
valid
points.
That's
why,
in
my
comments,
I
was
clear
to
say:
there
are
challenges
for
the
municipality
and
we
recognize
those
challenges.
There
will
be
challenges
as
well
for
us
to
bring
these
markets
to
unit.
They
need
to
be
sold
to
councilor
blouse
point.
They
need
to
be
built,
there's
cause
for
our
industry,
there's
cost
to
the
municipality.
We
have
to
find
a
way
to
have
creative
solutions
to
make
it
work.
I
I
can't
answer
you
as
to
where
you're
going
to
get
the
revenue
from
these
other
sources.
H
A
I
A
I
A
Shouldn't
we
shouldn't
have
one:
your
organization
said:
we
don't
think
you
should
have
one.
We
appealed
in
an
hour
in
Judicial
Court
fighting
over
what
the
board
did.
So
in
due
respect.
That's
a
red
herring
that
the
province
said
the
city
could
do
because
it's
not
doable.
Now
we
can't
have
a
DPS.
We
won't
have
a
DPS
for
years,
yeah,
it
just
won't
happen
and
affordable
housing
is
needed
and
regulations
are
needed.
Now.
Counselor.
M
G
H
Not
at
all,
we
did
not
object
to
it
from
the
beginning.
We
didn't
object
to
it
from
the
city.
If
we
do
look
at
the
reasons
for
our
appeal,
we
suggested
that
perhaps
it
was
too
soon
too
fast.
The
OMB
decision
came
down,
they
won't
be.
Decisions
at
all.
The
city
of
Hatter
on
toe
had
to
do
is
create
a
bylaw.
We
were
fine
with
that.
We
could
have
ended
the
conversation
there
so
and
then
we
were
taken
to
divisional
court.
A
We're
completely
off
track
and,
unfortunately
Paul
you
seem
to
misrepresent
it
because
we've
challenged
that
on
the
core,
because
we
have
never
never
prepared
a
bylaw
before,
and
we
believe
that
although
the
OMB
was
off
on
developments
as
they
approved
it
before.
As
such
the
major
change
of
coming,
the
Planning
Act,
we
believe
they
are
way
off
now.
A
M
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
Mike
Collins,
Williams
and
I'm.
The
director
of
policy
for
the
Ontario
Home
Builders
Association
Ohba,
represents
4,000
member
companies
organized
into
a
network
of
29
associations
across
Ontario,
with
our
largest
here
in
Toronto,
known
as
build.
You
just
heard
from
I'd
like
to
open,
with
a
quote
by
Michael
shop
cot,
formerly
with
the
Wellesley
Institute
and
co-chair
of
the
housing
network
of
Ontario
on
March
24th
2011
at
the
Standing
Committee
at
Queen's,
Park
quote:
we've
developed
case
studies
of
inclusionary
zoning
policies
that
are
successfully
used
in
hundreds
of
US
cities.
M
One
of
the
keys-
and
this
addresses
specifically
the
issue
that
the
home
builders
raise
is
that,
of
course
you
don't
want
to
have
a
mechanism
that
actually
takes
the
profit
out
of
home
development,
because
then
there
won't
be
home
development.
What
you
do
is
develop
a
mechanism
that
ensures
the
developers
make
a
profit
and
the
us
ones
do
and
at
the
same
time
ensures
a
healthy
mix
of
housing.
End
quote
with
this
in
mind:
I'm
sure
the
committee
will
recognize
that
there's
no
such
thing
as
affordable,
concrete's,
affordable
lumber
or
affordable
labor.
M
The
reality
is
that
all
of
these
inputs
towards
housing
come
at
a
real
cost.
Conclusionary
zoning
is
not
a
silver
bullet
that
creates
affordable,
housing
out
of
thin
air.
It
is
a
planning
tool
that,
if
structured
properly
in
a
partnership
model
can
deliver
new,
affordable
housing.
I'd
like
to
cite
academic
research
on
inclusionary
zoning
programs
in
the
United
States
under-eyes
either
needs
to
be
measures
and
offsets
to
ensure
economic
viability
of
projects
and
to
ensure
that
we
don't
shift
the
cost
burden
to
middle-income
buyers
through
cross
subsidization.
M
A
July
2016
study
by
the
Urban
Land
Institute
found
that
almost
all
cities
in
the
United
States
offer
various
types
of
incentives
to
offset
the
economic
impacts
and
inclusion
Arizonans
depend
on
the
market
rate
development
to
be
successful,
quote
jurisdictions
will
need
to
provide
development
incentives
to
ensure
the
feasibility
of
development
projects
affected
by
an
IC
policy.
The
principal
incentives
are
direct
subsidies,
density
bonuses,
tax
abatements
and
reduced
parking
requirements
individually
and
in
combination.
These
incentives
can
substantially
enhance
the
feasibility
of
development
projects
affected
by
an
IC
policy.
M
End
quote:
I
brought
copies
of
that
reports
and
I'm
happy
to
leave
it
behind
with
committee
members,
as
well
as
a
number
of
other
academic
reports.
Here
are
some
examples
of
measures
and
offsets.
Arlington,
County,
Boston
and
most
areas
in
California
provide
density
bonuses
in
Fairfax
County,
which
is
just
outside
of
Washington
developers,
can
actually
have
unlimited
floor
area
ratio
density
with
provisions
of
affordable
housing
units.
M
If
they're
within
half
mile
of
a
transit
station
Denver
gives
a
$5,000
per
unit
cash
subsidy,
reduced
parking,
expedited
review
and
a
10%
density
bonus,
Sacramento,
waives
fees,
expedites
reviews
provides
gap
financing
and
gives
a
25%
density
bonus.
The
most
comprehensive
example
is
New
York,
which
you
heard
some
details
from
earlier.
I
will
add
to
that
in
that
New
York
has
a
voluntary
inclusionary
program
with
significant
density
bonuses,
combined
with
tax
incentives
in
exchange
for
building
affordable
units.
M
New
York
is
currently
implementing
a
mandatory
inclusionary
bahama
program
in
just
seven
geographic
areas
that
combines
the
affordability
component
with
a
significant
up
zoning
of
these
areas.
Ontario
municipalities,
however,
have
a
very
different
planning
framework
where
zoning
is
not
often
in
conformity
with
provincial
policy
properties
are
typically
under
zoned,
meaning
virtually
every
project
requires
a
long
political
process
through
rezoning.
By
contrast
in
New
York
developments
are
done
as
of
right,
meaning
there's
no
political
process
for
over
90%
of
projects,
including
the
massive
skyscrapers
you
see
going
up
in
Manhattan.
It's
air
rights.
M
There
are
simple
mathematical
calculation
to
obtain
permits
and
there's
no
negotiation
or
rezoning
discussion.
Scott
craves
scrapers
are
allowed
allocated
a
certain
amount
of
density
in
the
inclusion
of
affordable
units
results
in
a
specific
density
bonus.
It's
a
simple
mathematical
equation.
New
York
also
offers
a
421a
tax
exemption,
which
offers
property
tax
exemptions
for
up
to
20
or
25
years
for
new
rental
buildings
with
affordable
housing,
not
just
for
the
affordable
units,
but
also
for
all
of
the
market
units.
M
They
also
receive
that
tax
property
tax,
Redemption
tax
credit
status
as
the
federal,
low-income
housing
tax
credit
can
also
be
utilized
in
combination
with
the
inclusionary
zoning
product
projects.
This
kind
of
framework
was
referred
to
in
a
November
2015
standing
community
presentation
at
Queen's.
Park
with
a
cooperative
housing
federation
of
Canada
noted
of
inclusionary
zoning
programs
in
the
United
States,
that
model
uses
a
set
of
cost,
offsets
density,
bonusing,
reduced
development
charges
and
fast-tracking.
M
In
order
to
make
sure
the
development
industry
still
retains
the
capacity
to
be
a
viable
business,
it
is
imperative
that
we
work
in
partnership
to
leverage
planning
and
financial
tools
that
would
facilitate
the
creation
of
government
mandated
affordable
housing
units
without
compromising
the
health
and
affordability.
The
broader
housing
market.
Just
about
out
of
time,
I've
got
two
sentences
left.
We
believe
that
the
Isay
tool
can
be
used
in
a
partnership
model.
M
The
reality
is
when
it
comes
to
the
objective
of
building
thousands
and
thousands
of
affordable
units
is,
it
will
require
a
more
robust
framework
or
inclusionary.
Zoning
is
but
one
of
many
tools,
but
the
programs
where
significant
government
funding
is
ejected
into
the
construction
of
new,
affordable
housing
expire.
They.
F
You
mr.
chair
and
Thank
You
mr.
Collins
Williams,
for
coming
in
so
I'll.
Ask
you
just
if
you
can
elaborate
again
on
some
of
the
differences
with
respect
to
how
it
works
in
New,
York,
City,
from
a
planning
perspective
and
a
zoning
perspective
and
a
tax
incentive
perspective.
Because
I
was
under
the
impression
there
aren't
many
incentives
into
developers
in
New,
York
City.
So.
M
There's
a
combination
of
things
that
they
have
available
at
the
state
level,
the
421a
tax
exemptions
provided
through
New,
York,
State's.
Sorry,
the
what
it's
called
the
four
I
can
leave.
I
got
some
research
on
it,
so
I'm
happy
to
leave
more
details
and
numbers
on
how
that
actually
functions
it,
but
essentially
it's
a
tax
exemption
that
offers
property,
tax
relief
to
developers
and
owners
of
rental
condominium.
M
Buildings
developers
can
qualify
for
the
exemption
if
they
provide
20%
of
the
units
as
on-site,
affordable
housing
and
the
exemptions
will
last
twenty
or
twenty
five
years
and
it's
been
used
in
the
voluntary
program
where
a
lot
of
developers
have
voluntarily
come
to
the
table
to
build
the
affordable
units,
because
the
tax
exemptions
apply
not
just
to
the
affordable
units
but
also
all
of
the
market
units
in
the
building.
So.
F
M
I
said
at
the
beginning,
New
York
has
a
variety
of
different
sentence
so
with
the
property
tax
one
it's
geared
towards
the
owners
of
the
rental
buildings,
federally
there's
a
low
income,
housing
tax
credits
that
builders
of
both
ownership
or
rental
can
tap
into
and
then,
as
I
said
earlier,
that
the
the
density
bonuses
in
New
York
are
significant,
but
they
have
a
different
system
where
most
development
is
approved.
As
of
right,
so
a
developer
doesn't
have
to
come
in
with
a
rezoning
go
through
the
Planning
Department
go
through
a
political
process.
M
It's
it's
essentially
a
mathematical
equation
of
what
the
density
allowances
are
that
you're
allowed.
You
pull
your
permit
when
you
go
to
build,
but
if
you
reach
certain
affordability
thresholds,
you
get
a
bump
up
when
your
density
and
it's
just
automatic.
So
that's
where
you
see
some
of
the
very
tall
towers
going
up
in
midtown
Manhattan.
What
they
do
is
they
provide
affordable
units
either
on-site
or
off-site.
They
get
a
bonus
and
then
they're
also
able
to
transfer
density
from
sites
around
them.
M
G
M
G
G
M
A
They
don't
follow
the
same
regulatory
system
as
Ontario,
where,
although
we
may
set
a
zoning
and
then
we
set
an
official
plan
and
we
can
quite
clearly
allow
easily
a
an
amendment
to
the
zoning
to
meet
the
Official
Plan
is
quite
easy.
Most
applications,
our
members,
the
Official
Plan,
but
we
don't
have
the
last
word.
The
last
word
on
the
Official
Plan
arrests
with
Appeals
at
the
provincial
level.
A
M
Our
members
would
always
like
the
avenue
of
appeal
in
terms
of
bringing
the
zoning
into
conformity
with
the
Official
Plan.
That
is
something
at
a
broader
public
policy
level
that
we've
supported
the
province
just
passed.
A
new
growth
plan,
which
sets
different
density
targets
for
even
growth
centres.
Municipalities
will
now
be
required
to
have
different
density
targets
around
major
transit
station
areas
to
be
delineated
in
the
Official
Plan
and
we'd
certainly
recommend
that
the
zoning
be
updated
to
match
those
density
targets.
Well,.
A
In
the
municipality
like
us,
we
don't
do
the
zoning
first,
we
do
the
Official
Plan
and
we
are
very
cognizant
of
the
zoning
and
I.
Don't
know
any
application.
That
I
can
remember
where
someone
asked
for
the
zoning
to
increase
to
meet
the
Official
Plan
and
the
city.
Wasn't
supportive
of
n
I'm?
Not
talking
about
that
I'm?
A
Talking
about
the
fact
that
our
official
plan
has
continually
been
applications
to
amend
bath
and
that's
what's
appealed
to
the
province,
and
that
becomes
an
issue
and
as
far
as
the
gross
targets
we've
met
or
exceeded,
we
are
vastly
exceeding
any
of
the
provincial
growth
targets
that
out
there.
So
we
don't
have
the
same
ability.
The
bottom
line
is:
do
we
as
North
New,
York
or
other
American
to
actually
set
the
limits
on
development
because
those
we
are
all
appealable
to
the
province
and
that's
the
way
the
system's
gone
for
a
long
time?
A
M
Somewhat
and
that's
why
I
raised
some
of
the
issues
around
the
density
bonuses,
I
think
a
lot
of
groups
have
suggested
that
density
would
be
the
fair
trade-off
for
affordable
units
by
comparing
contrast,
the
density
bonuses
that
are
given
in
New
York
and
in
California
in
that
that
might
not
be
the
appropriate
trade-off
here
in
Ontario,
because
we
do
have
a
different
system.
They
have
a
system
there
in
which
many
of
the
density
permissions
are
granted.
As
of
right,
where
we
tend
to
have
a
system
here,
applicants
will
come
in
with
proposals
that
may
meet.
M
M
A
A
A
Sorry
I
see
someone
moving
is
someone
here
from
acorn
and
Donna's,
not
here
I'll
move
on
joy,
Connelly,
Home,
Coming,
Community,
Choice,
Coalition
I
got
an
echo
over
here.
I,
don't
know
if
you
guys
hear
it
in
the
room.
They're
technical,
there's
an
echo
coming
up
and
it's
not
my
hearing,
aids
cuz
I,
don't
wear
it!
I
You
so
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak.
Sean
Maher
spoke
my
mind,
but
let
me
use
my
five
minutes
to
bring
another
perspective.
A
human
rights
perspective
to
the
discussion
I'm,
a
member
of
the
homecoming
coalition,
a
human
rights
organization
dedicated
to
ensuring
planning
practices,
promote
inclusion,
not
exclusion,
I.
Think
many
of
us
talk
about
housing
as
a
human
right.
The
federal
government's
new
national
housing
strategy
affirms
that
housing
rights
are
human
rights,
but
what
does
it
mean
in
practice?
I
I
think
the
Ontario
government
offered
a
very
good
example
back
in
March
2016
when
it
introduced
this
legislation.
Great
idea,
one
that's
been
proven
effective
in
over
800
jurisdictions
in
the
US
and
something
Toronto
has
been
asking
for.
So
what
a
disappointment
that
the
draft
regulations
that
should
be
supporting
the
legislation
are
actually
undermining
it.
You've
heard
the
problems
for
others
I'm
not
going
to
repeat
them.
Instead,
I
want
to
talk
about
how
exclusionary
the
proposed
regulations
are.
I
Last
month,
build
published
the
benchmark
price
for
a
new
condominium
in
Toronto,
seven
hundred
and
two
thousand
dollars
up
a
staggering
43%
from
the
November
2016
benchmark
price
of
493
thousand.
Who
can
afford
that
the
2016
census
tells
us
the
wealthiest
19%
of
Toronto
households
who
owned
more
than
150,000
per
year
and
most
of
them
already
owned
homes
under
the
current
reg.
I
A
measly
five
percent
of
the
units
in
new
buildings
would
be
reserved
for
the
rest
of
us,
the
81%
of
Torontonians,
who
could
for
these
prices
and
as
for
tenants
who
know
they
can
never
save
money
enough
money
for
a
down
payment.
These
regs
offer
them
nothing
at
all.
This
is
not
inclusion.
What
would
an
intruder
in
clusion
Ares
owning
regulation
look
like
well,
they
could
start
by
recognizing
that
cities
have
a
role
in
ensuring
that
people
of
all
incomes
are
included.
We
can't
just
rely
on
new
supply.
I
To
bring
down
prices,
need
the
right
sort
of
supply
to
genuinely
meet
the
needs
of
the
people
call
or
want
to
call
Toronto
home.
Second,
they
should
return
to
the
origins
of
the
Ontario
government's
own
legislation,
starting
with
the
private
member's
bill,
sponsored
with
by
MPP
Peter
Milton.
At
the
time
Milton
said,
his
bill
quote:
aims
to
restore
local
decision-making,
so
Ontario
government.
This
is
your
number
one
ask
and
then
City
Council.
It's
up
to
you.
You
don't
have
to
start
from
scratch.
I
Your
staff
have
access
to
reports,
studies,
policies
from
800
jurisdictions
in
the
United
States
I
do
agree
with
Bill
that
this
is
a
collaborative
process
in
the
u.s.
municipalities
will
work
hard
to
identify
the
sweet
spot
that
will
work
in
their
markets
and
theirs.
I
have
a
great
example
from
San
Francisco.
If
anyone
wants
to
ask
me
about
it,
it's
just
not
a
pick.
A
number
of
the
air
exercise,
5%
10%
20%.
I
It
does
involve
looking
carefully
at
the
economics
how
to
sustain
growth
while
still
promoting
inclusion,
but
it
also
involves
looking
at
the
city's
interests
from
many
angles.
Angles
such
as.
How
can
our
children
continue
to
live
in
the
city
where
they
grew
up?
Are
the
people
who
take
care
of
our
children
clean
our
hospitals,
serve
UPS,
coffee
able
to
live
in
the
city?
They
serve
one
more
thing.
As
it's
been
mentioned
before
inclusionary
zoning
is
just
one
tool:
it
works
in
hot
markets
like
Toronto
and
boy.
Oh
boy,
I!
I
Don't
want
to
wait
a
long
time
for
this
to
happen
because
we
have
a
hot
market
right
now,
but
there
are
other
things.
Toronto
can
do
and
is
doing
so.
Streamlining
the
approvals
of
new
shelters
across
the
city.
Great
initiative
well
done
preserving,
affordable
housing.
We
have
now
by
extending
rental
replacement
provisions
on
dwelling
rooms,
not
just
dwelling
units,
brilliant
rooming
houses,
the
most
affordable
housing.
I
We
have
it's
the
next
frontier,
taking
a
hard
look
at
the
yellow
belt
that
lets
houses,
get
bigger
and
bigger,
but
doesn't
even
allow
duplexes
so
fight
for
inclusionary
regs
that
promote
an
inclusive
Toronto
and
then
do
what
you
can
with
your
own
policies
to
make
Toronto
a
good
home
for
all.
Thank
you.
I
Glad
you
asked
me
what
was
interesting
about
this.
It
was
an
iterative
process
where
there
was
genuine
collaboration
between
the
development
industry
and
the
and
the
and
in
there
it's
the
mayor's
housing
office.
They've
actually
is
so
crucial
to
the
city's
well-being
that
they've
brought
it
right
in
and
give
a
central
profile
and
labor
as
citizens
groups
advocates
and
so
forth.
So
they
started
out
2006
ten
percent,
affordable
units
on
site
and
then
a
provision
or
20%.
I
2016
they
looked
again
and
they
realized
there
was
actually
still
room
to
be
able
to
do
some
negotiation
14%
on
site
23%
in
lieu
and
then
here's
the
Kosrae
note
on
the
other
side,
they're
council
members,
who
said
you
know
what
this
is
not
good
enough.
We
want
18%
on
site
30%
in
lieu
and
when
they
did
that
they
went
from
generating
a
thousand
fifteen
hundred
units
per
year
to
none
development
stop
death.
So
there
was
a
sweet
spot
10%
to
low
30%
to
high
and
they
were
able
to
find
that
collaborative
that
spot.
K
That
suggests
to
me
and
I,
want
to
see
if
I'm
learning
properly
from
your
example
is
that,
rather
than
have
the
province
set,
province-wide
numbers
and
just
say,
this
is
how
it's
gonna
be,
and
any
change
in.
It
would
therefore
require
a
regulatory
change,
and
we
all
know
how
quick
clack
goes.
We
should
instead
allow
municipalities
to
have
flexibility,
so
they
can
establish
a
process
like
the
one
you
described
and
constantly
be
revising
to
match
existing
circumstances.
That
affair,
like
interpretation
of
what
you
just
tried
to
teach
me,
it's.
I
A
L
You
so
hello,
members
of
the
planning
and
growth
management
committee,
including
my
own
city,
councilor
and
I
by
Lao.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak
today.
My
name
is
Joanna
moon
and
I'm,
a
community
worker
at
the
Dale
Ministries
in
Parkdale.
The
Dale
is
a
faith-based
organization
with
a
long
history
in
the
park,
Dale
neighborhood.
We
welcome
all
people,
especially
those
who
are
marginalized
in
to
full
participation
in
the
life
of
the
community.
L
L
One
friend
found
housing
in
Scarborough
and
would
walk
three
plus
hours
back
to
Parkdale
to
come
to
the
dáil
and
other
communities
that
he
called
home.
I
am
here
today
on
behalf
of
myself,
my
community
and
my
co-workers,
Aaron
Oxford
and
Megan
Gillard,
to
express
our
concern
about
the
regulations
surrounding
the
recently
proposed
policy
tool
for
implementing
inclusionary
zoning.
L
L
If
inclusionary
zoning
was
made
to
apply
to
rental
developments
and
the
percentage
of
affordable
units
is
raised,
20
percent
or
the
cap
is
removed,
as
has
been
mentioned,
my
friends
may
stand
a
chance
of
staying
in
the
diverse
and
lively
village
that
is
Parkdale.
A
deputation
was
read
on
behalf
of
the
dáil
at
a
committee
meeting
on
November
14th
2017
with
regards
to
the
luxury
condo
development
at
King
and
Aafrin.
If
this
had
been
a
rental
development
and
strong
inclusionary
zoning
had
been
in
place
before
this
development
was
approved.
L
More
than
100
of
my
friends
in
Parkdale
could
have
been
in
the
running
for
an
affordable
unit.
Can
you
imagine
if
the
100-plus
people
that
come
to
the
Dales
community
meal
every
Monday,
we're
told
that
they
could
have
an
affordable,
high-quality
housing
option
right
in
their
beloved
neighborhood?
This
dream
could
become
a
reality
if
you
choose
to
implement
inclusionary
zoning
that
includes
rental
developments
and
removes
the
cap
on
affordable
units.
That
would
be
an
incredible
legacy
to
leave.
Thank
you.
A
N
Afternoon,
it's
it's
like
deja
vu.
Most
of
the
people
here
saw
my
slide
presentation
from
yesterday,
so
I
apologize.
If
you've
already
seen
this
I'm
Darryl
with
the
Greater
Toronto
Apartment
Association
we're
an
association
of
apartment
building
owners
and
managers.
Members
have
about
150,000
units
of
purpose-built
rental
in
the
GTA
most
of
those
in
the
city
of
Toronto.
N
N
Something
you
saw
yesterday,
this
is
the
city
stat
sheet
on
how
the
city
grows.
It
speaks.
It
lists
the
number
of
rental
units
that
came
online
by
year
for
the
last
seven
or
eight
years.
It's
an
average
of
twelve
hundred
units
a
year
of
purpose-built
rental,
and
this
is
again
you
saw
this
yesterday.
If
you
were
there,
this
is
a
longer
sheet
that
shows
the
last
twenty
years
of
openings
of
purpose-built
rental
in
the
City
of
Toronto
averaged
out
at
about
eight
hundred
and
thirty
units
a
year.
So
I
guess
the
point.
N
Is
we
don't
build
very
many
of
them
we'd
like
to
build
more
of
them?
It
really
has
to
do
with
economics.
The
current
situation
is,
it
doesn't
make
financial
sense
to
go
forward.
Any
additional
strain
to
the
pro
forma
will
put
more
of
these
potential
prospective
buildings
on
hold
or
cancelled.
Yesterday
I
was
speaking
about
increased
DC's
in
a
magnitude
of
doubling,
and
my
fear
is
that,
with
that
size
of
an
increase
on
a
per
door
basis,
a
lot
of
this
stuff
in
the
proposal
pipeline
will
evaporate
again.
N
N
Lots
of
our
buildings
are
entirely
affordable
by
the
definitions
used
by
the
city
and
CMHC
depends
on
where
you
are
in
town,
which
neighborhood
which
pocket,
but
the
only
way
do
we
we
get
more
rental,
is
by
being
less
prescriptive,
reducing
the
financial
and
increasing
the
financial
incentives
that
make
it
happen
this
and
the
DC's
and
all
the
other
things
don't
do
any
of
that.
However,
the
city's
open-door
programs,
but.
A
N
In
regards
to
inclusionary
zoning,
the
provincial
reg
bill,
seven
exempts
purpose-built
rental
from
inclusionary
zoning
and
I
read
the
report
that
was
just
published
yesterday,
the
one
before
this
committee
and
it's
recommending
that
the
cities
submit
a
letter
to
the
province
requesting
that
that
exemption
be
removed.
Our
feeling
is
that
the
province
included
that
exemption,
because
they
didn't
want
to
do
anything
to
reduce
the
precious
few
new
purpose-built
rental
units
that
we
create
each
year.
They
know
that
this
will
have
an
effect,
a
negative
effect
on
the
pro
forma
and
would
cause
cancellations
of
projects.
N
N
The
open
door
program
that
the
city
initiated
just
a
year
ago
is
successful.
It's
in
its
infancy
but
I
think
it's
growing,
I
think
with
the
right
furthering
incentives.
We
can
make
that
sort
of
the
prototype
to
to
create
more
affordable
housing.
The
simple
request
is
that,
as
Michael
from
the
Ontario
home
builders
mentioned,
there's
certain
opt-in
programs
at
the
city
of
New
York
is,
as
you
successfully
my
recommendation
or
the
industry's
recommendation.
Is
you
create
an
opt-in
for
purpose-built
rental?
N
K
First
of
all,
I
just
want
to
ask
a
question
about
this.
Chart
I've
seen
you
short
before
yes
and-
and
your
point
is
that
for
some
reason,
we're
not
building
rental
I'm
curious,
why
you
picked
the
year
1997
Oh,
it's
20
years!
It's
that's
on
years!
Well,
coincidentally,
it's
also
the
year
that
mike
harris
repealed
the
rent,
the
rent
control
act
and
replaced
it
with
a
tenant,
Protection
Act
and
said
that
any
building
built
any
rental
building
built
after
1991
was
not
subject
to
rent
control.
K
K
So
if
the
thing
stopping
you
from
building
wasn't
rent
control-
and
it's
certainly
not
the
lack
of
demand
for
housing,
because
a
lot
of
demand
for
housing
and
certainly
not
the
fact
that
the
City
of
Toronto
makes
it
impossible
to
build
anything
because
we're
building
enough
to
accommodate
I
think
it's
40,000
new
residents
in
the
city
of
Toronto
every
year.
What's
the
thing?
That's
stopping
it!
It's.
N
K
N
Remote
the
costs
are
about
the
same.
You
know
if
you're
gonna
build
a
condo
versus
an
apartment,
identical
in
terms
of
height
and
density
and
all
that
purchasing
of
the
lands.
The
same
yeah,
hard
costs
and
soft
cost
for
construction
are
relatively
the
same.
It's
the
business
model,
so
in
a
for
sale,
product
70%
of
the
units
are
pre-sold
at
a
at
a
set
price.
The
developer
knows
what
they're
gonna
get
upon
completion.
They
can
reverse
engineer
the
math.
They
know
what
they
need
per
square
foot.
N
Our
cost
to
build
per
square
foot
are
the
same.
We
when
we
look
at
that
versus
what
we
need
to
take
construction
financing.
We
don't
pre,
sell
anything.
So
the
developer
basically
goes
to
a
lending
institution
and
says:
I
need
money
to
borrow
to
buy
the
land.
Then
I
need
money
for
construction
financing
and
draw
from
that
and
then
pay
off
like
a
traditional
30-year
mortgage
once
the
building
is
open
and
substantially
filled.
We
don't
think
we
can
generate
enough.
You
can
rent
per
square
foot
to
make
that
happen.
K
K
Gonna
try
you're
like
when
you're
buying
light
like
if
I'm
a
rental
builder
I'm
looking
to
buy
a
piece
of
land
right,
I
have
a
business
model
and
I
need
a
certain
return
return.
The
other
guy
bidding
on
that
land
has
a
business
model
that
gets
him
a
better
return
faster.
So
he
can
afford
to
pay
more
for
the
land
and
pushes
me
out
no.
N
I
ain't
had
a
fair
way.
To
put
it.
No
so
the
example,
one
of
my
colleagues
would
appeared
before
the
committee
yesterday
I
think
he
presented
and
left
his
spreadsheet
for
you
to
analyze.
That's
that's
an
example
of
a
project
or
two
projects
by
one
developer,
where
the
land
is
infill,
they're
putting
land
in
at
zero
cost.
They
didn't
compete
with
anyone
to
buy
this
land.
Those
those
slim
margins
are
when
the
land
is
free
and
they
still
couldn't.
N
K
Aside
I
understand
all
of
that,
but
but
there
are
people
who
are
making
money,
buying
land
and
building
housing
in
the
City
of
Toronto
and
I.
Think
what
I
heard
you
say
at
the
start
is
their
business
model
is
gets
a
better
return
than
the
business
model
of
a
guy
doing
rental.
No
I
thought
is
I.
Think
I
heard
you
say.
N
Almost
exactly
those
words
I
think
I
said
they're
business
models
too
different
and
in
our
business
model,
when
we
take
all
those
combined
costs
and
construction,
everything
put
them
all.
Together
we
get
a,
we
get
a
density
and
height
yeah.
You
know
how
many
units
we
can
build.
We
divide
that
by
square
footage,
I
understand
we,
so
we
just
can't
make
that
number
work
at
Glendale
guys
can
apparently
okay,
it's
it's
a
different
model.
They're
selling
it
they're,
not
they
don't
need
to
hold
on
to
property
for
40
years
to
pay
down
a
more
okay.
N
A
A
Basically,
yes,
you
go
to
build
a
condominium
building
you
design
it
and
then
you
sell
it
and
then
you
build
it
and
you've
got
your
built
in
profit
and
you
walk
away
from
it
and
then
the
question
comes:
how
can
the
people
buying
the
unit's
then
afford
to
buy
them
and
rent
them
and
make
a
profit?
So
am
I
correct
in
my
assumption
that
I
may
buy
that
unit
for
$500,000
and
I
may
put
a
deposit
down
on
it,
which
is
a
portion
of
that
as
an
investment
finance.
The
rest
I
cover
my
financing.
A
A
O
A
N
A
N
N
But
the
thing
is:
there's
also
a
cap
on
on
rental
increases
in
Ontario
91.
So
it's
not
like
any
other
business
where
you
can
raise
costs
or
you
can
raise
your
revenue
based
on
to
cover
off
your
expenses
that
increase
this
one
has
ever
increasing
expenses,
but
there
is
some
containment
of
income
based
on
the
rent
guideline.
Well,.
A
A
Let
me
ask
you
the
question,
then
the
intention
with
inclusionary
zoning
is
so
we
have
a
policy
where
we
can
actually
have
affordable
housing
units
built
in
or
rental
units
built
into
it
and
have
policies
that
will
be
in
place
to
help
reduce
the
cost
of
those
units,
even
if
it
was
10%
of
a
rental
building.
So
those
10%
of
the
buildings
would
be
at
a
lower
rent
than
the
market
rent.
So
I
don't
understand
why
you
don't
want
to
be
part
of
the
flow
and
have
those
benefits.
That's.
N
Exactly
what
the
open
door
initiative
is,
we
already
have
a
program
in
place.
That's
pretty
new,
where
you
can
apply
it
for
affordable
and
build
affordable
rental
units
and
get
incentives
from
the
city
in
terms
of
walk,
a
walk
from
DC's
property
tax,
and
things
like
that
I
think.
If
you
were
to
take
that
relatively
new
program
and
expanded,
we
could
create
more
units.
If
four
projects
were
the
owner
of
the
door,
the
developer
could
opt
into
them
instead
of
being
overly
prescriptive,
which
may
have
unintended
consequence
of
chasing
away
projects.
I.
A
N
A
A
A
F
Thank
You
mr.
chair
thanks
Darrell
for
coming
back
in
I'm.
You
know:
I
I
want
to
be
polite
with
respect
to
your
your
responses
to
us,
but
there's
there's
a
vagueness
to
some
of
the
questions.
My
colleagues
are
asking
which
I
think
you
know
the
answers
to
and
for
some
reason
it's
coming
up.
Pretty
vague
I'll
tell
you
that!
Well,
let
me
ask
you
a
question
and
you've
said
that
the
industry
between
rental
and
and
and
purpose-built
condos
are
different
than
they
are.
N
F
Right
so
any
condo
over
$400,000
there's
massive
amounts
of
HST
straight
off
the
bottom
line
from
a
developer's
profit.
Okay,
you,
as
a
someone
building
a
rental.
You
don't
pay
that
HST,
it's
a
flow-through
for
you!
So,
instead
of
it
being
something
that
the
development
community
has
to
pay,
it's
not
a
flow-through
for
you,
folks,
it's
a
flow-through,
so
you're,
looking
at
millions
and
millions
and
millions
of
dollars,
you
don't
have
to
pay,
because
it's
a
flow-through.
F
N
F
N
N
N
Is
cut
and
paste
from
the
city's
Planning
Department
it's
the
top
chart
was
generated
in
April
of
2017.
That's
the
last
five
years
of
completions
of
purpose-built
rental
in
the
City
of
Toronto
sixty
three
hundred
over
five
years,
and
this
is
I-
think
the
Planning
Department
will
come
out
with
an
update
in
April
of
2018,
okay,
so
and
and
the
sheet
the
sheet
that
I
had
is
a
combination
of
City
Planning
and
at
the
bottom
I've
cited
that
CMHC
provided
the
data
from
20
1997
to
2007.
N
N
F
N
F
So
you've
just
said
it:
the
industry
is
changing,
the
market
is
changing,
so
in
the
last
two
to
three
years,
it's
become
a
really
good
business
model
to
bring
rental
to
the
city.
It's
become
very
profitable.
Has
it
not
isn't
that
why
so
many
people
are
now
coming
out
of
the
woodwork?
Irrespective
of
these
rent
controls
and
saying
we're,
gonna
build
more
rental
there?
Are
they
doing
it
because
they
just
have
nothing
to
do?
What
are
they
doing
it
because
they
want
to
make
money
at
it?
Well,.
N
They're
doing
it
because
that's
what
they
do
it,
the
lining
up
of
lowest
interest
rates
and
what
they
can
get
per
square
foot
on
rents
are
very
important,
but
the
in
the
discussion
I've
had
with
my
members,
is
if
the
DC's
double
or
any
other
things
that
are
prescriptive,
such
as
this
changed
the
pro
forma
they're
gonna
have
to
walk
away
and
that's
what
how
each
showed
you
yesterday
and
that
that
is
a
project
where
both
projects
are
land
at
zero,
so
anything
anything
that
changes
that,
as
you
showed
yesterday.
Well,
okay,.
F
So
just
one
more
question:
how
does
someone
such
as
myself,
how
can
I
buy
a
condo
and
afford
to
rent
it
out
and
I,
bought
it
at
market
which
meant
someone
had
to
buy
the
land?
Someone
had
to
pay
the
development
charge
they
to
do
all
that
stuff.
I
buy
the
condo
I
rent
it
out,
but
you
can't
do
the
same
thing,
except
unless
your
land
is
free.
How
the
hell
is
that
work?
You.
N
Know
the
numbers
show
it
doesn't
work,
it's
not
working
the
pro
forma.
If
okay
Blizz
about
my
questions,
let
me
just
summarize
it
this
way.
If
we
could
make
money
doing
it,
we
would
have
been
doing
it
consistently
for
the
last
forty
years.
This
table
that
I
showed
you
the
last
20
years
of
nothing.
So
if
it
was
as
profitable,
as
you
say,
how
can
we
haven't
built
any.
P
A
P
She
felt
it
was
important
for
her
in
deputation
to
be
heard.
She
couldn't
get
out
of
something
today.
So
I
said
that
I
would
happily
do
it
for
her,
because
she
feels
very
passionate,
she's,
a
housing
worker
here
in
Toronto
and
I'm,
a
community
worker
here
in
Toronto
myself,
so
I'm
going
to
read
what
she
wrote.
I
am
here
today
to
object
to
the
proposed
inclusionary
zoning
regulation
by
the
ministry
of
municipal
affairs
and
housing.
As
you
know,
there
is
a
housing
crisis.
P
I
would
like
to
look
at
what
some
of
the
regulations
the
province
proposes.
One
regulation
is
more
than
five
percent
affordable
housing
units
in
developments
of
20
units
or
more
ten
percent
in
high
transit
areas.
My
concern
is
how
this
will
work.
So,
according
to
this
regulation,
can
developers
can
developers
go
as
low
as
1%?
Why
is
this
regulation
in
place
when
everyone
knows
there
is
a
housing
crisis
and
it
is
the
worst
time
in
history
to
look
for
affordable
housing
minimum
would
be
10
or
30%
higher.
P
The
next
regulation
does
not
protect
affordability
and
new
rental
developments.
This
is
what
I
don't
understand
why
there
are
those
people
who
can't
even
afford
a
mortgage
to
buy
a
condo,
and
you
are
limiting
the
new
regulations
to
only
condos.
The
next
regulation
limits
affordability
period
from
20
to
30
years.
Why
is
there?
A
cap
is
affordable
housing
going
to
decrease
after
30
years,
affordable
housing
has
to
be
permanent.
The
last
regulation
municipalities
have
to
compensate
for
40%
of
the
costs
of
making
the
affordable
units.
P
If
this
is
implemented
with
the
City
of
Toronto,
be
in
collusion
with
developers
to
keep
the
number
of
new
affordable
units
as
low
as
possible
to
keep
the
cost
low.
Why
would
the
Ontario
government
implement
this
type
of
cheap
inclusion,
inclusionary
zoning,
and
why
is
the
city
at
their
mercy
just
like
Parkdale,
the
city
agreed
with
the
developers
to
build
a
luxury
condo
for
the
sake
of
growth.
Parkdale
was
once
a
last
refuge
for
people
with
very
low
incomes.
I've
seen
the
changes,
I
see
these
expensive
shops
opening
up.
P
It's
funny
how
the
richest
people
get
the
most
beautiful
places
in
Toronto.
They
get
a
view
of
the
lake
of
all
the
places
to
build.
Why
not
displace
low
to
very
low
income
people
from
this
area?
It's
what
works
right.
All
of
these
new
developments
being
built
in
Toronto
are
excluding
individuals
on
low
to
very
low
income.
Individuals
have
to
be
very
creative
when
it
comes
to
finding
housing.
Take,
for
example,
someone
living
on
ODSP.
P
They
get
four
hundred
and
eighty
nine
dollars
for
went
rent,
so
they
need
to
look
for
a
room
that
costs
four
hundred
and
eighty
nine
dollars.
Of
course,
this
is
impossible.
Reality
is
that
rooms
now
cost
$800.
The
next
step
for
someone
to
finding
housing
maybe
is
to
try
and
find
assistance
through
the
Toronto
traditional
transitional
housing
allowance
program
of
$400,
so
in
combination
with
the
rent
they
can
afford
to
rent
a
place
for
849
dollars,
which
seems
reasonable
now
factor
in
the
rental
housing
market.
P
Let's
look
an
example
of
an
ad
for
housing
on
the
Internet,
eight
hundred
and
fifty
all
included
hydro
gas
heat
water,
high-speed
Internet.
If
you're
paying
all
cash
in
advance
for
four
months,
then
we
will
give
five
percent
discount.
If
you
pay
six
months
with
cash
in
advance
and
seven
percent
off
prefer
one
single
person,
short-term
or
long-term
is
fine.
You
won't
be
disappointed
minimum
six
months
up
to
one
year.
If
you
need
short
term
price,
will
be
different,
$30.00
key
deposit.
P
This
is
just
one
of
the
many
ads
that
create
barriers
for
low
income
earners
to
obtain
housing
and
to
look
at
a
unit
in
an
apartment.
Building
some
property
management
companies
require
require
you
to
submit
a
to
twenty
four
hundred
deposit
for
first
and
last
month's
rent,
ODSP
or
o/w
does
not
give
money
for
for
a
rental
application
deposit.
On
top
of
the
rent,
you
might
also
have
to
pay
an
apartment
insurance
of
twenty
three
dollars
a
month.
P
On
top
of
this,
you
might
have
to
pay
hydro
around
through
43
a
month,
just
so
to
sum
up:
the
cost
to
rent
1200,
rent
$23
apartment,
surance,
$43
hydro,
for
a
total
of
one
thousand
two
hundred
and
sixty
six
dollars
for
someone
who
receives
eight
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
from
ODSP
and
the
TTH
AP
program.
Odsp
ando
w
does
not
pay
for
rental
applications.
Upfront
landlords
are
not
willing
to
rent
to
person
who
has
to
receive
checks
from
two
different
sources
for
a
single
person
and.
P
If
a
person
wants
to
share
to
get
creative
in
finding
housing,
then
maybe
they
can
find
another
person
to
live
with.
Imagine
asking
a
landlord
to
rent
to
you
when
there
is
going
to
be
four
different
sources
of
funding.
Not
all
housing
requires
money
up
front,
but
I
predict
the
above
scenario
spent
spending
out
two
landlords
who
own
houses:
okay,.
F
Q
Q
Don't
even
get
me
started
on
the
kind
of
putting
this
out
just
before
the
holiday
season,
when
knowing
the
public
or
media
would
have
been
paying
attention,
and
so
too
miss
Wynn
and
your
wily
cabal
I
do
salute
you
now
brass
tacks,
I'm
gonna
say
some
things
here.
The
lot
of
the
boys
in
my
business
don't
want
erred
in
public,
but
frankly,
I'm
tired
of
saying
one
thing
in
the
club
over
a
bottle
of
goose
burning.
$100
bills
then
haven't
eat
humble
pie
when
I
come
and
talk
to
people
like
you,
so
here's
the
truth.
Q
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
we
in
the
develop
industry
run
this
province.
We
run
this
town
and
there
ain't
nothing.
You
can
do
about
it.
You
are
looking
at
a
hot
and
sexy
juggernaut
of
capital
whose
engine
runs
on
building
condos.
Now
either
you
can
get
on
this
pulsating
locomotive
or
you
can
get
pulverized
by
it
into
a
filthy
little
pile
of
pinko
commie
excrement
I
mean
what
are
you
people
doing?
Q
You
want
to
curb
what's
happening
in
this
great
city,
whenever
I
put
up
a
tower
or
my
brother's
over
at
lifetime,
Lam
Omni
urban
capital,
tryto
Concorde,
adex
great
Gulf,
that
neighborhood
changes
from
a
slimy
little
larva
into
like
a
really
sexy
butterfly
with
like
a
great
boob
job.
Take
this
little
rat
hovel
of
Parkdale,
for
instance,
filled
with
bums
druggies
ethics,
dirt
hippies
and
artists,
or
The
Grapes
counselor,
Georgia
mammal
Edie.
Sir.
F
Q
Be
honest,
this
whole
song
and
dance
of
5%
exclusionary
zoning
won't
change
jack
in
the
city.
It's
a
meaningless
gesture,
given
the
need.
People
are
literally
dying
on
the
streets
and
we're
talking
about
reducing
condos
to
the
average
median
price
of
$700,000
over
80%
of
the
population
could
never
afford.
I
mean
what
kind
of
dog
and
pony
show
were
you
indulging
in,
because
look.
Q
The
new
Canadian
Dream
in
the
city
is
about
working
hard
making
money,
so
you
don't
have
to
live
around
people
that
make
you
feel
uncomfortable
in
icky,
I,
think
Martin,
Luther
King
said
it
perfectly
when
he
declared
I
look
forward
to
the
day
when
people
will
be
judged
not
on
their
condo
facing
the
lake
or
not,
but
rather
content
and
diversification
of
their
investment
portfolio.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
let's,
let's
move
on
as
you're
tearing
I
think
on
behalf
of
all
the
parties.
He
seemed
to
have
named
there
as
developers,
and
we
know
how
many
of
them
work
with
the
city
and
a
very
respectful
I
would
suggest
that
those
that
are
listening
here
do
not
ascertain
that
that
individual
I
hesitate
to
use
the
word.
Gentlemen:
AXI
represented
many
of
those
organizations
which
most
of
us
know
here,
such
as
Tridel
or
concord
or
others
who
are
wonderfully
respected
within
their
communities
and
do
work
in
a
cooperative
manner
with
the
city.
A
F
F
J
Thank
you
so
much
for
including
me
in
this
public
meeting
I
recognize
that
this
is
a
unique
opportunity
to
depute
it's
encouraging
that
the
city's
hands
are
not
tied
and
that
there
are
those
out
there
who
are
willing
to
reckon
with
provincial
policy.
That
is
not
written
with
the
average
person's
ability
to
survive
in
mind.
J
We
need
to
think
critically
about
development,
language
and
such
as
the
person
who
just
spoke
he
makes
it
seem
as
though
this
policy
should
be
written
by
a
developer.
We
need
dialogue
and
not
to
be
treated
with
condescension.
The
housing
crisis
will
not
be
solved
by
building
condos
that
do
not
directly
incorporate
unique
community
needs.
There
is
no
doubt
this
is
a
city-wide
housing
crisis,
but
there's
also
an
intensified
housing
crisis.
In
my
neighborhood
it
has
come
to
my
awareness
that
a
councillor
has
mentioned.
J
It's
a
housing
crisis
when
a
condo
is
built
at
King
and
a
friend
in
a
neighborhood
with
zero,
affordable
units
included.
It's
a
neighborhood
housing
crisis
when
people
are
paying
seven
hundred
a
month
rent
and
when
they
move
out
landlords
are
charging
charging
nineteen
hundred
a
month.
Twenty
percent
of
the
population
in
Toronto
has
an
income
below
Statistics
Canada's
low
income
measure
after
tax.
In
my
neighborhood
this
is
much
higher,
and
so
this
lends
credence
to
a
lot
of
the
discussions
today
around
needed
flexibility
in
this
policy
deeply
affordable
housing
means
those
living
on
shelter.
J
Allowance
rates
can
afford
housing
price,
those
on
fixed
incomes,
those
who
make
minimum
wage
inclusiveness
and
equitable
opportunity
to
housing
create
social
infrastructure.
This
is
shown
in
places
like
the
Vancouver
downtown
East
Side
development
plan,
where
they
are
creating
density
over
time
by
a
creation
of
new
social
housing
units
secured
market
rental,
housing
and
new,
affordable
home
or
ownership
in
concert.
Canada
is
falling
behind
the
rest
of
the
world.
Toronto
needs
to
invest
in
housing
security.
J
Inclusionary
zoning
is
the
opportunity
to
set
the
tone
for
what
deeply
affordable
housing
means,
and
this
needs
to
mean
actually
being
inclusive,
not
metaphorically.
The
current
proposal
is
not
inclusive.
As
a
friend
of
mine
said,
the
development
industry
Grinch's
heart
needs
to
grow
a
few
times.
The
industry
is
in
the
industry
is
an
adversarial
because
they
are
prioritizing
profits
over
people.
Development
profit
needs
to
be
sacrificed
in
order
to
solve
a
housing
crisis.
J
J
But
when
you
focus
on
the
lowest
income
quarter,
people
who
need
the
city's
help
the
most
there
is
a
structural
income
gap
exacerbating
by
housing
an
affordability
of
up
to
20,000
additional
income
needed
per
year
in
the
lowest
income
just
to
afford
rental
housing.
This
is
unacceptable.
Therefore,
I
asked
city
councillors
to
not
approve
the
provinces
proposal
as
a
tres,
no
cap
on
percentage
of
affordable
housing,
minimum
50
percent
and
20
percent
in
high
transit
areas,
no
taxpayers
subsidizing
developers,
affordable
units
need
to
include
rentals
revised.
J
The
condo
only
rule
to
include
developments
under
20
units.
A
significant
proportion
of
new
housing
is
occurring
here.
Working
together
does
not
mean
development,
profits,
inclusionary
zoning
means,
including
everyone
inclusionary
zoning
means,
including
those
who
have
the
right
to
remain
in
the
city
they
want
to
live
in
and
to
not
get
pushed
out.
Thank
you.
B
B
J
J
J
A
J
A
That
online,
the
closest
I
could
get
to
the
face
of
the
individual
that
was
there
and
the
Chad
Ham
name
was
the
picture
of
a
dog
that
was
a
closest
I
found
here.
There
wasn't
any
other
in
Toronto
anywhere
from
B
s,
developments
in
particular
B
and
s,
but
the
end
yes,
yes,
developments,
so
please
you've
got
your
five
minutes.
Alright,.
O
Thanks
for
organizing
this
session,
like
many
of
us
here,
I'm
disappointed
in
our
province
for
having
taken
so
long
to
legalize
inclusionary
zoning
for
many
years
before
many
years
behind
the
cities
on
this
continent
that
face
comparable
crises
of
affordability
and
everlaw,
we
have
lost
a
lot
of
time.
We've
got
a
lot
of
time
to
make
up,
for
the
price
of
an
average
house
in
Toronto
has
risen
more
than
twice
as
fast
as
the
average
income
for
over
two
decades.
O
Today,
my
generation
feels
much
less
secure
about
our
future
in
the
city
and
many
of
us
who'd
like
to
raise
a
family
here
if
you're
less
comfortable
about
the
prospect.
Last
year,
almost
half
of
the
tenants
living
in
Toronto
put
more
than
a
third
of
their
income
towards
rent
a
growing
portion
of
spending
more
than
a
half.
This
is
dangerous
for
our
social
fabric
and
bad
for
our
economy.
O
Just
this
November
I
was
here
at
City
Hall,
with
a
delegation
of
residents
from
Parkdale
who,
after
being
extensively
consulted,
declared,
we
were
collectively
horrified
with
the
proposal
to
erect
a
700
unit
luxury
condominium
in
our
back
yard.
It's
clear
as
day
these
units
will
not
serve
the
vast
majority
of
our
neighborhood
and
will
lead
to
a
ripple
effect
of
increasing
vulnerability
for
most
of
us,
and
so
we
requested
that
you
would
demand
a
substantial
number
of
these
units
would
be
set
at
a
price
within
reach
of
the
average
Parkdale
resident.
O
O
The
whole
tone
and
content
of
this
document
is
not
framed
around
empowering
municipalities
to
resist
rising
unaffordability,
it's
explicitly
dedicated
to
restricting
their
ability
to
do
so.
The
nub
of
those
so-called
inclusionary
regulations
is
the
except
expressly
forbid
municipalities
from
asking
for
more
than
5%
of
the
unit's
being
developed
to
be
affordable,
the
sole
exception
being
10%
limit
optional
in
areas
that
are
very
profitable,
develop
on,
because
large
amounts
of
public
invested
in
transit
infrastructure
exists
there.
So
across
North
America
scanning
this.
O
It's
it's
standard
practice
for
inclusion,
inclusion,
Aires,
owning
to
guarantee
around
15
to
30%
of
Units
set-aside
is
affordable,
considering
how
far
out
of
whack
our
income
to
price
of
shelter
ratio
has
been
allowed
to
grow.
I
think
5%
is
way
too
low
and,
let's
all
be
clear
about
this,
we
need
to
define
affordable
units
to
be
30%
of
someone's
income
going
towards
their
shelter
and
that's
a
ratio
that
the
CMHC
and
the
province
claim
to
agree
on,
and
it
seems
reasonable
to
demand
that
that
the
affordable
units
live
up
to
this
definition.
O
Another
concern
many
of
us
have
is
that,
while
virtually
all
the
inclusionary
zoning
regulations
in
north
america
ask
the
developer
to
pay
out
of
their
own
profits,
this
draft
joining
sips
40%
of
the
costs
on
to
municipalities
themselves,
which
is
baffling
to
me,
and
I
think
you
should
fight
for
the
right
to
request
the
developers
pay
in
full
for
all
the
units.
I
believe
we
should
also
demand
that
inclusionary
zoning
apply
to
any
development
with
10
or
more
units.
This
is
common,
including
common
practice
across
North
America
for
inclusionary
zoning
and
for
good
reason.
O
Many
of
our
neighborhoods
experience
a
for
experiencing
affordability
crises,
seldom
get
any
development
with
more
than
20
units,
and
yet
this
they
still
need
the
tools
to
fight
for
up
over
to
Bill.
So
we
should
reject
the
minimum
of
20
units
proposed
by
the
province.
Finally,
it
should
be
stated
explicitly.
You
should
not
have
to
forgo
your
use
of
section
37
to
use
inclusionary
zoning.
This
forces
you
to
choose
between
maintaining
local
infrastructure
and
maintaining
affordability.
O
I
recommend
you
eject
this
impossible
trade-off
and
demand
the
right
to
use
both
tools
simultaneously,
while
you,
when
you
see
fit
frankly,
our
councillors
have
very
little
power
at
present
to
make
our
city
more
affordable
and
this
draft
read
legislation.
Hardly
changes
that
I
do
think.
Now
is
the
time
to
force
the
issue
and
initiate
a
loud
campaign
to
give
municipalities
more
power
to
rein
in
the
price
of
shelter.
For
many
in
the
city,
this
draft
legislation
mandates,
95%
of
units
developed,
will
be
unaffordable
and
that's
a
pretty
spineless
start.
F
F
R
So
I
guess
I'll
start
off
by
just
trying
to
comment
on
my
support
for
particular
recommendations
in
a
few
requests
for
revisions.
Recommendation
for
should
definitely
oppose
the
cap.
However,
I
would
recommend
that
there
be
a
push
up
on
the
requested
minimum.
A
potential
discussion
on
a
minimum
from
a
community
perspective.
I
think
we
would-
and
we
would
expect
something
more
like
15
by
under
standards,
constraints
and
I'd
leave
the
that
to
experts
of
the
city
to
respond
to
on
recommendation
to
the
inclusion.
Arizona
must
impact
all
residential
developments,
inclusive
of
ownership
and
rental
projects.
R
There
is
a
need
for
net
new,
affordable
ownership
and
before
rental
units
to
keep
our
communities
inclusive.
The
proposed
regulations
inadvertently
discriminate
against
Ontario
Ontarians
in
need
of
affordable
housing
who
are
either
ineligible
or
do
not
want
home
ownership
as
an
option,
and
then
one
last
comment
on
a
recommendation
in
the
staff
report
on
recommendation
8
on
the
provision
of
offsite
units
and
a
limitation
on
50%
of
the
unit's.
Only
50%
of
those
offset
units
being
inclusionary.
R
Zoning
related
I
think
that,
from
the
perspective
of
community
nonprofit
sector,
this
would
would
be
I
would
would
make
it
very
hard
to
produce
specific
types
of
housing
that
would
target
higher
needs,
tenants
and
specific
target
groups
and
to
potentially
get
the
advantages.
The
city
needs
in
terms
of
meeting
the
need
for
supportive
housing
and
other
specifics,
specific
types
of
housing
so
to
empower
the
nonprofit
sector
to
participate
in
the
provision
of
this
housing.
I
think
that
really
needs
to
be
revised,
and
so,
but
in
general.
R
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
hard
work
on
the
staff
report
from
the
Toronto
staff.
I
was
actually
like
very
proud
that
we
have
such
smart
people
working
at
the
city
to
read
it
and
then
I'd
like
to
spend
the
rest
of
my
time
just
talking
about
why
this
is
so
important
and
I
put
this
slide
up,
because
you
have
this
cool
technology,
but
really
it's
about
will
will
Toronto
be
an
inclusive
City.
R
My
name
is
Joshua
Martha
said
before
I
worked
for
a
community
organization
called
the
Park
dong
neighborhood
Land
Trust,
which
is
very
interested
in
the
issue
of
an
inclusive
City.
A
diversity
in
an
affordable,
City,
the
devel
manager
she
spoke
today,
but
I'd
like
to
just
assert
that
development
industry
is
change
in
our
city
and
it
is
not
doing
that
in
a
way.
That's
providing
housing
to
all
Torontonians
and
I
grew
up
in
Parc
des
Lynam.
Now
32,
like
many
other
Millennials
I,
do
not
see
a
path
to
ownership
of
all
of
my
friends.
R
Furthermore,
in
South
Park
Dale,
where
ninety
percent
of
residents
are
renters,
working-class
and
middle-class
renters
alike
are
continuously
struggling
to
hold
on
to
their
housing.
The
sad
reality
of
most
renters
in
the
city
is
that
if
we
lose
our
current
apartments
and
the
rent
controls
that
are
linked
to
our
leases,
we
will
likely
not
find
rents
we
can
afford
within
our
communities.
So
we
are
faced
with
the
question
of:
do
we
stay
in
Toronto?
Do
we
stay
in
our
communities?
R
Many
of
my
fellow
Park
tell
residents
spoke
about
our
horrific
experience,
trying
to
engage
the
city
process
around
a
development
application
at
Dufferin
and
King,
where
703
luxury
condominium
units
were
proposed
with
not
one
affordable
unit.
It
was
interesting
to
have
councillors
agree
with
our
analysis
that
we
have
a
need
in
Toronto
for
affordable
units,
and
you
know,
there's
a
need
for
more
inclusive
planning
decisions,
but
that
your
hands
were
tied
by
provincial
policy.
R
It
seems
to
me
that
the
inclusionary
zoning
was
potentially
a
light
at
the
end
of
the
tunnel
where
we
might
have
the
city
might
have
a
tool
to
be
able
to
make
inclusive
planning
decisions.
However,
the
Planning
proposal,
as
we
currently
read
in
the
and
the
regulation,
doesn't
seem
to
meet
this
to
accomplish
this.
R
So
while
the
staff
report
is
wonderful
and
I,
thank
the
staff
for
it,
I
want
to
actually
sincerely
request
that
the
city
city
councillors
in
the
mayor
take
a
more
concerted
effort
to
engage
the
province
to
facilitate
a
redrafting
of
these
regulations.
In
its
current
form,
this
policy
will
bind
the
city
from
implementing
the
inclusive
planning
policy
and
decisions
that
residents
want
and
need
so
I,
just
I
just
again.
R
A
C
C
I
was
handed
a
bunch
of
folders
and
told
to
organize
a
forum
on
inclusionary
housing
and
I've,
been
studying
this
and
have
been
advocating
for
it
ever
since
that
time
and
was
really
glad
to
see
the
province
could
finally
come
up
with
a
plan
which
has
been
completely
derailed
by
the
regulations
and
I
fully
support
the
the
city's
attempts
to
basically
say
come
on.
You
guys
give
us
the
power
to
do
what
we
need
to
do
based
on
our
local
conditions.
C
Yes,
New
York
has
a
voluntary
program
that
has
incentives.
It's
also
proved
to
be
ineffective,
which
is
why
there's
now
a
mandatory
program
without
incentives
right
I
mean
that
was
that
was
a
way
that
they've
gone
with.
That
gave
you
a
long.
You
know,
I
said
stated
that
you
know
jurisdictions
will
need
to
provide
developing
incentives
and
a
list
of
direct
subsidies.
Direct
bonuses,
tax
abatements,
reduce
parking
centers
but
neglected
to
give
you
the
last
line
of
that
paragraph,
which
is
each
incentive,
has
strengths
and
limitations
that
derive
from
the
local
real
estate
market.
C
Okay.
So
it
you
know
that
you
you,
you
may
or
may
not
need
an
and,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
to
quote
the
conclusion
of
this
report.
It
says
in
very
strong
development
environments
in
brackets,
substantial
amounts
of
new
construction
and
rehabilitation,
steady,
rent
and
price
growth
and
low
vacancy
rates
sound.
Like
any
municipality,
we
know
I.
C
See
policies
can
yield
development
of
new
workforce
housing
units
without
subsidy
or
other
development
incentive
from
the
local
jurisdiction.
This
is
the
same
report
that
they
quote.
There's
and
there's
I
would
encourage
you
to
read
this
report.
There's
tons
of
good
things
about
how
to
do
pro
formas,
how
land
land
costs
affect
various
things
nobody's
ever
said
that
these
affordable
units
might
not,
under
certain
circumstances,
actually
be
provided
to
the
market
below
the
cost.
That's
not
the
question.
The
question
is
overall:
is
the
development
sustainable?
Is
there
enough
surplus?
C
That's
not
talk
profit
because
we
don't
use
that
word.
Is
there
enough
surplus
in
the
other
units
to
cover
the
fact
that
the
affordable
units
are
being
potentially
sold,
will
low
cost?
The
attempt
to
do
the
4060
split
is
an
attempt
to
make
sure
that
there's
you
know
there's
that
that
that
that
everything
is
made
whole
that
there's
no
loss
as
a
result
of
doing
this.
So
you
know
I
mean
basically
that's
the
way
we're
going
tonight.
C
You
know
go
back
to
what
joy
said
to
you
guys
earlier
I
mean
there's
hundreds
of
jurisdictions
that
can
be
looked
at
and
you
know
we
don't.
We
don't
claim
that
all
of
them
are
are
as
effective
as
any
other
and
there's
no
cookie
cutter
and
there's
some
that
are
doing
well
in
some
that
are
them,
and
if
we
look
at
best
practices,
what
are
the
ones
that
are
doing
well?
How
do
they
compare
to
Toronto
in
terms
of
their
development
regimes,
and
things
like
that?
C
A
C
I,
don't
think
I
would
make
any
other
I
I,
basically
I
quite
agree.
I
mean
I
have
been
until
recently.
I
was
on
the
board
of
the
social
planning,
Toronto
and
so
I've
been
through
the
process
at
social
planning
Toronto,
but
then
that
sort
of
resulted
in
what
Shaun
had
to
stay
here
you
know
first
thing
and
I
think
the
main
thing
the
main
takeaway
I
have
from
what
Shaun
had
to
say
and
what
we
have
talked
about
is
just
you
know,
be
more
positive
about
your
capacities.
C
To
do
this,
and
and
really
be
very
aggressive
about,
I
mean
I
think
that
the
the
direction
you're
moving
in
and
all
of
the
recommendations
is
exact,
because
basically,
what
you're
saying
is
don't
do
this
to
us?
Let
us
figure
it
out
right
and
then,
and
and
in
some
cases
you
just
perhaps
need
to
be
a
little
bit
more
assertive
than
that
and
call
on
the
community
is
well.
You
know
if
you,
when
you
start
going
to
clean
spark
and
things
like
that
around
this,
you
know
call
on
the
community
of
people
who
support.
C
You
know
I
support
the
municipality
and
the
community
being
able
to
do
this
being
able
to
figure
out
how
to
do
it
that
there
isn't
any
need
to
do.
This
I
mean
it's
completely
out
of
line
the
states
in
the
United
States,
don't
prescribe
to
the
municipality,
so
they're
gonna
do
inclusionary
zoning.
They
just
give
them
the
power
to
do
so.
Well,.
C
A
A
I
would
have
a
second
question.
I
would
ask.
You
is
I
feel
that
the
committee
supports
these
recommendations.
One
of
the
issues
I'm
considering
is
asking
then
that
council
send
these
recommendations
off
to
the
mayors
and
chairs
of
all
the
surrounding
miss
applies
across
the
province
and
ask
them
to
support
them.
If
we
do
that,
is
it
something
that
you
and
your
folks
incurred,
encourage
those
organizations
to
support
as
well,
because
a
joint
response
from
all
the
municipalities
of
a
similar
nature
might
very
well
finally
get
the
ear
and
the
thoughts
province
of
the
province.
C
Chancellor
Lee,
the
social
planning
Toronto,
has
been
working
with
our
partners
throughout
the
province
to
try
to
get.
We
have
I
think
about
60
or
70
various
kinds
of
housing
related
organizations
that
have
now
signed
on
to
a
letter
which
basically
says
all
of
these
things.
This
morning
there
was
a
an
op-ed
piece
in
the
Toronto
Star
I.
Think
Gore
I
think
that,
but
councillor
perks
was
one
of
the
co-authors
of
that
I.
Think
those
kinds
of
things
are
absolutely
the
thing
to
do.
C
The
regional
planning
commissioners
of
Ontario
have
consistently
called
for
inclusionary
zoning
you.
If
they
can,
you
know
if
you
can
get
them
to
make
a
joint
statement
along
with
their
mayors
and
councils.
It
would
I
think
it
would
go
a
long
way
to
convincing
the
province
that
they
have
to
reconsider
these
regulations
and
and
provide
municipalities
with
the
capacity
to
do
what
they
need
to
do
in
order
to
get
you
know,
lots
of
good,
affordable,
housing
and
long
term.
You
know
I
mean
the
New
York
City
program
is
perpetual.
C
You
know
the
two
three
four
five
generations
down
the
road
as
long
as
those
buildings
are
standing
they're
going
to
be
affordable.
You
know,
yeah
I
mean
I
like
the
open
doors
policy,
except
it's
got
a
it's
got
a
time
limit
to
it
all
we're
all
we're
doing
is
we're
transferring
the
the
affordability
crisis
to
the
next
generation.
You
know,
what's
that
you
know.
That's!
That's
maybe
good,
for
you
know
I'm.
You
know
it
might
be
good
for
the
the
young
people
who
are
living
in
my.
C
G
C
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
for
coming.
I
do
not
have
any
other
deputies
on
the
lists,
so
we
will
come
back
now
before
we
go
to
questions
of
staff.
Is
it
preferable
that
the
staff
review
quickly
each
of
the
recommendations
they
have
and
then
we
see
if
there's
any
further
questions
after
that,
because
I
you're,
okay
with
them
all
the
way
there
are
there
any
questions
of
staff
that
you
wish.
G
E
G
B
Through
the
chair,
that
would
be
one
approach,
but
the
province
has
issued
bill,
seven,
which
has
received
Royal
Assent.
It
just
hasn't
been
proclaimed
so
I
think
starting
from
scratch
and
going
back
to
the
snow
of
Toronto
act
with
delay
the
process
the
bill
itself.
We
don't
as
have
a
concern
with
it
is
the
regulation
that
causes
great
concern.
Okay,.
K
I'm,
trying
to
you
know,
acknowledge
staffs
independence.
The
what
the
first
deputy
we
had.
Mr.
maja
said
that
the
a
provincial
spokesperson
in
conversations
said
to
him
that
the
City
of
Toronto
had
advocated
that
there
be
a
cap
on
the
percentage
of
affordable
housing.
Has
the
City
of
Toronto
or
any
representative.
The
City
of
Toronto,
to
your
knowledge
ever
said
that
to
the
province
of
Ontario
through.
S
Understand
now,
council,
council
perks
the
conversation
with
the
province
as
best
as
I
can
describe
it
to
you
was
to
have
the
regulation
to
reflect
the
city's
own
practices.
City's
own
practices
with
respect
to
affordability
periods
starts
at
20
years.
There
was
never
any
conversation
above
capping
it,
but
providing
it
so
that
it
complemented
the
regulation
would
complement
what
we
already
do.
I.
K
A
A
S
Flexibility
and
discretion
for
the
municipality
we're
running
a
number
of
current
housing,
affordability,
programs.
We
have
certain
policies
in
the
context
of
the
province
coming
back
and
giving
a
regulation
to
the
city
that
we
could
work
with.
We
could
then
revisit
and
look
at
what
else
we
might
do
and
how
we
might
align
programs.
We
deliver
but
you're,
getting
our
best
advice
in
this
report.
Okay,
now
the
financial.
A
S
The
challenge
with
this
particular
regulation,
though,
is
that
you're
boxed
in,
if
you
will
in
agreements
potentially
that
involve
a
lot
of
luxury
housing
and
one
of
the
standards
and
programs
that
we
run
is
that
we
have
modesty
standards
if
you
will,
where
we
agree
and
incentivize
the
development
industry,
both
the
nonprofit
and
the
private
and
the
co-operative
side.
But
in
this
particular
program
you
would
be
forced
into
at
least
50%
of
the
units
in
buildings
that
are
luxury
and
you
would
be
forced
to
pay
a
component
to
actually
buy
those
inclusionary
units.
A
E
The
through
the
Official
Plan
policies,
we
have
a
large
site
policy
that
requires
20%
of
the
increased
units,
be
affordable
housing.
We
also
have
a
number
of
different
secondary
plans.
For
instance,
the
central
waterfront
secondary
plan
requires
20%,
affordable
rental
housing
and
we've
been
achieving
that
on
a
consistent
basis.
So.
A
B
A
A
This
is
a
big
step
backwards
that
the
it's
ok,
I'll,
just
feel
good
I
mean
it.
This
is
a
huge
step
backwards
that
all
the
good
work
that
we
thought
we
were
going
to
get
isn't
going
to
be
there,
that
the
recommendations
that
are
in
place,
at
least
from
my
perspective,
are
a
hindrance
to
be
able
to
move
forward.
You
look
at
things
like
development
charges
and
the
city
contributing
them
instead
of
getting
them
back,
as
we
didn't
know,
doesn't
work.
A
We
we're
debating
that
yesterday
and
can't
afford
to
continually
give
away
development
charges
of
major
projects.
Where
now
we
can
recoup
them
to
give
away
parks
in
the
funding
for
parks
which,
in
many
areas
of
city,
we
have
we're
trying
to
policies
in
place
to
enhance
the
Bark's,
and
this
goes
backwards,
because
the
more
people
that
move
into
a
community,
the
more
that
you
need
those
parks-
and
this
just
says-
to
give
it
up
that
talks
about
parking
standards
which
are
always
an
issue
of
debate,
anyways
with
a
development.
A
But
we've
been
flexible
and
actually
built
a
building
with
no
parking
and
get
in
some
areas
of
the
city
and
the
suburban
areas.
The
parking
is
required
because
people
don't
have
the
same
access
to
public
transit,
so
they
want
a
spot
for
their
car
for
weekends.
A
week
daisen
giving
it
up
really
is
a
penalty
on
the
person
that
may
end
up
in
that
unit
later.
A
The
the
funding
model
here
doesn't
work
and,
in
my
opinion,
it
was
put
together
to
not
work
and
for
something
that
can't
succeed
and
and
most
of
all,
where
I
don't
agree
with
our
colleagues
from
the
apartment
industry,
I'd
say
absolutely
apartment
buildings
should
include
affordable
housing.
The
issue
is
the
way
that
we
assist
in
that
and
can
assist
and
have
been
successful
in
assisting
and
for
those
people
from
the
industry
that
come
forward
and
say
you
can't
do
it
and
say
to
you
as
a
municipality,
you
don't
know
how
to
do
it.
A
A
We
have
been
able
to
achieve
great
developments
with
wonderful
community
benefits
of
all
types,
getting
communities
to
support
them
and
getting
very
good
returns
out
of
those
sites
and
financial
returns
to
provide
annual
dividends
back
to
the
city
and
at
the
same
time
we
have
achieved
affordable
housing
in
those
units,
both
rental
and
ownership
units,
both
of
them
there
and
been
extremely
successful
over
700
units
in
the
last
year
and
a
half
that's
phenomenal
and
the
average
cost
the
average
cost
to
the
Development.
Corporation
is
running
about
$20,000
a
unit
on
these
projects.
A
A
A
But
then
we
have
to
deal
with
the
policies
that
you
have
to
have
in
place
to
intensify
the
city,
and
we've
done
a
pretty
good
job
of
that,
even
under
the
current
regime,
where
we
don't
have
the
in
decision
and
we
repealed
and
the
provinces
failed
on
that
to
the
point
where
their
system
is
so
broken.
They
had
to
finally
fix
it,
but
we
also
develop
properties
because
we
have
a
real
estate
and
development
corporation
and
we've
done
that
too.
A
So,
don't
tell
us
at
the
provincial
level
that
can't
be
done
and
don't
tell
us
from
the
development
industry
whether
it's
purpose-built
for
sale
or
rental.
It
can't
be
done.
We
have
a
hundred
rental
units
going
in
up
at
Wilson
and
Wilson
Heights
and
counts
of
pasture
Knights
area
subsidized,
affordable
units
at
the
same
time,
a
hundred
ownership
units.
It
can
be
done,
it
should
be
done
and
we
are
doing
it
now.
A
We
need
our
provincial
partners
to
make
sure
that
the
industry
understands
that
and
they
come
forward
to
do
it
as
well
with
us
in
partnership,
in
a
manner
that
we
can
deliver
what
residents
of
the
city
need.
They
need
affordable
housing
to
meet
the
standards
that
people
have
of
lower
incomes
and
we
need
affordable,
housing
and
affordable
rental
to
meet
the
middle
standard
as
well.
K
So
I
think
today
was
an
important
moment
in
the
history
of
the
city
of
Toronto's
work
on
the
issue
of
housing.
We
have
never
before
called
a
special
meeting
like
this
told
staff.
You
know
I
know
you're
busy,
but
you
have
three
days,
write
a
report
and
and
give
them
the
public
an
opportunity
to
come
down
and
respond
to
a
piece
of
provincial
legislation,
something
we
just
never
do
and
I
think.
K
As
a
number
of
the
deputy
said
it's
the
kind
of
thing
we
need
to
do
and
do
more
of
this
is
a
moment
when
everyone
in
Toronto
who
pays
any
attention
to
the
issues
about
how
we
are
building
the
city
and
what
the
future
of
the
city
will
be
and
who
will
be
in
our
city
has
come
together
and
said.
There's
a
crisis:
we've
had
some
of
the
leadership
of
the
affordable
housing
movement
in
the
City
of
Toronto,
come
forward
and
basically
read
us
the
riot
act.
This
is
a
crisis.
K
This
is
something
you
must
do.
We've
taken
the
extraordinary
step
by
Lao
has,
as
our
deputy
mayor
of
you
know,
writing
directly
to
the
province
on
on
an
issue
like
this
I
mean
that
takes
tremendous
political
courage
to
step
out
ahead
of
council
coming
to
a
decision
and
saying
no,
only
my
role
is
deputy
mayor
I
need
to
speak
out.
Councillor
Layton,
it
was
mentioned,
organized
an
op-ed
being
written
with
signatories
from
Toronto
Ottawa,
Hamilton,
London
and
Kingston.
K
This
is
becoming
a
province-wide
movement
to
point
out
just
how
terrible
this
regulatory
framework
that
the
province
of
Ontario
has
done,
and
it's
not
going
to
stop
here.
It's
not
going
to
stop
here
because
there's
a
structural
problem
that
we
need
to
address
an
address
sharply
and
address
aggressively,
as
we
were
asked
to
do
right
now
and
I'm
very
sorry
to
the
members
of
the
industry
who
came
here,
but
right
now
we
are.
We
are
sitting
on
a
gold
rush.
K
K
Anyone
who
comes
and
tells
me
it's
too
difficult
and
I
can't
don't
constrain
me
I
mean
no.
No,
just
no.
We
have
literally
established
a
financial
system,
true
CMHC,
which
I
believe
currently
under
writes
half
a
trillion
dollars
in
mortgages
for
the
banks,
a
land
development
system
where
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
and
the
rest
of
the
provincial
regulatory
regime
says
open
for
business
and
a
banking
system.
That
is,
you,
know
the
envy
of
the
world
in
terms
of
its
stability,
I
get
developers
coming
in
from
all
over
the
world
and
they're,
not
telling
me.
K
K
Our
deputy
mayor,
saying
no
no
I,
have
to
speak
out
on
this
members
of
council,
not
just
from
Toronto
but
from
around
the
city,
housing
activists,
local
community
activists.
That
partnership
has
lots
more
work
to
do,
because
if
we
don't
do
that,
this
work,
not
just
on
this
inclusionary
zoning
piece,
but
getting
back
to
a
place
where
public
governments
invest
in
creating
housing,
that's
affordable
again
until
we
get
that
partnership
going.
We
are
not
building
a
city
that
people
can
live
in.
We
are
building
a
city
that
some
people
can
live
in
and
that's
not.
K
G
You
I
want
to
start
by
thanking
staff
and
thanking
all
the
advocates
that
are
here
and
and
and
thinking
the
committee
as
well
I
mean
this
discussion
has
started
a
few
years
ago,
maybe
2015-16
after
14
votes
that
Toronto's
council
had
asked
the
province
to
have
inclusionary
zoning
done.
This
government
passed
the
legislation
and
staff
and
I
met
with
the
majority
of
council.
That's
what
actually
led
to
the
submission
that
was
done
in
2016
that
you
also
have
as
part
of
your
report
and
that
honestly,
we're
maintaining.
That
position
were
we're
very
consistent.
G
If
one
thing
that
the
province
can
say
is
that
we've
been
very
consistent
since
this
conversation
started
in
2016,
we've
been
saying
the
same
thing
over
and
over
again
and
offering
our
assistance
to
the
province
over
and
over
again
to
show
em
how
it
work,
how
it
works,
how
it
is
applied
to
bring
in
people
from
the
sector
to
bring
in
people
that
understand
performance
to
create
a
legislation
that
can
be
implemented
and
produce
units
and
I
think
the
sector
has
been
very
consistent
as
well.
We've
they've
been
there
since
the
beginning.
G
G
Come
out
of
these
discussions,
so
I
think
there's
there's
a
level
of
disappointment
and
everybody
that
has
been
involved
for
the
last
two
years
in
these
conversations
and
that's
why,
at
the
same
time,
there's
the
frustration
that
this
appointment
is
felt
in
some
of
these
conversations,
because
the
need
is
so
great
for
this
legislation,
the
need
is
so
great
to
create
a
legislation
that
we
all
agreed.
Nobody
wants
to
hinder
the
development
industry
because
we
need
them
to
produce
industry.
We
need
them
to
produce
units,
but
we
know
we've
seen.
We've
done
the
studies.
G
G
We
showed
them
to
the
province
that
it
can
be
done
so
I'm,
hoping
that
with
a
strong
statement
from
Council
with
the
work
that
we
continue
to
do
with
the
advocacy
community
that
we
can
have
the
regulations
and
a
legislation
that
will
allow
us
to
do
the
work.
That
still
needs
to
be
done,
and
that's
what
I
was
trying
to
tell
the
the
chair
of
this
committee
this.
What
is
in
front
of
us
is
just
our
input
for
the
regulations.
We
still
have
a
lot
once
this
is
done.
G
We
still
have
a
lot
of
work
to
do
to
bring
down
those
regulations
to
our
local
mark
in
the
city
and
it
still
work
to
be
done.
I
have
full
confidence
in
our
stuff
because
they're
getting
ready
for
that,
they've
been
getting
ready,
they're
doing
the
studies
and
we're
all
gonna
have
to
do
this
work
together
as
council,
but
I
think
we're
well
well
headed
into
that
direction.
G
If
we
have,
if
we
are
given
the
right
package
that
allows
us
the
flexibility
to
respond
to
the
different
needs
and
different
circumstances
of
the
housing
market
in
the
city
and
eventually
with
the
market,
we
don't
want
to
be
running
up
to
the
province
every
time
the
market
changes
and
we
need
to
adapt
to
it.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
we
can
work
with
our
partners,
the
nonprofit
sector,
the
housing
sector,
to
respond
to
the
needs
to
always
be
able
to
take
to
find
that
sweet
spot.
A
Okay,
I,
don't
see
any
other
speakers.
We
have
the
staff
recommendation
here
before
we
vote
on
it
and
meeting
and
I
think
from
all
of
us
on
the
committee
and
from
all
the
members
of
council
a
very
special
thanks
to
the
staff
of
the
city
within
housing
and
in
planning
that
have
done
a
phenomenal
job
of
getting
this
report
out
in
front
of
us
and
all
the
work
it
takes
to
circulate
it
internally
to
get
it
right,
but
getting
it
done
and
getting
it
here.
A
So
we
can
actually
transmit
to
council
a
report
with
the
justification
and
the
recommendations
that
are
required
and
take
this
position
in
time
to
be
able
to
meet
the
deadlines
that
the
province
has
set.
So
this
is
not
one
person
or
one
department,
its
cross-section
and
all
of
you,
I
think
it's
planning
legal
I
know
gets
involved,
affordable
housing
as
it
gets
involved
really
from
all
of
us.
Our
sincere
thanks
to
you
for
doing
a
wonderful
job,
so
we
can
do
our
part
of
the
work
here.