Inclusionary Zoning

[dtkmelissa]

Given the region and local municipalities are considering adopting inclusionary zoning, I'm curious if a thread already exists on that topic? If not, I'd love to start one. 

Some background info can be found here: https://www.engagewr.ca/inclusionary-zoning

From that page: The cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge and the Region of Waterloo are looking at new approaches to deliver affordable units in projects that are built by private developers. One tool that can support affordable units within new housing stock is called inclusionary zoning.

To be successful, an inclusionary zoning program needs to strike a balance between the various policy parameters, such as how many affordable units are required and how affordable the units are.

The cities are also exploring ways to ensure that any inclusionary zoning program is financially sustainable and can operate without significant municipal subsidy, though there may be instances where incentives may be needed.

[Bytor]

Some of those questions I am conflicted as to how to answer becausde I think the Region's definition of "inclusionary zoning" is half-assed and pathetic as it doesn't include upzoning any low-density resdiential, a.k.a. "R-1" zones.

[bravado]

I still think that the true solution, which requires the most buy-in and support in council and will therefore never happen, is to allow development and densification everywhere in the city.

Inclusionary zoning seems to be another band-aid solution that will actually get enough support to pass, but won't solve the true problem that we just dont build enough housing for "the free market" to actually provide affordable housing.

This will just drive up costs for everyone since developers are not altruists...

[danbrotherston]

We can't even get al of council to agree that housing prices exist in a market.

Others...even those who are generally pro-development, don't even acknowledge that they have any power to change anything (seeing that they can only change funding).

https://twitter.com/Scott__Davey/status/...5592669185

[ijmorlan]

It’s meaningless unless it is accompanied by significant up-zoning of all residential zones, allowing multistory residential above commercial in all zones where commercial is allowed, and the elimination of parking minima, for a start.

If they won’t do the obvious things then some more complicated thing is just an attempt to look good.

[Bytor]

It’s meaningless unless it is accompanied by significant up-zoning of all residential zones, allowing multistory residential above commercial in all zones where commercial is allowed, and the elimination of parking minima, for a start.

If they won’t do the obvious things then some more complicated thing is just an attempt to look good.

And upzoning is, basically, a $0 cost and tehg fact that Davey thinks it all requires funding is perfect example of status quo causing problems.

[tomh009]

It’s meaningless unless it is accompanied by significant up-zoning of all residential zones, allowing multistory residential above commercial in all zones where commercial is allowed, and the elimination of parking minima, for a start.

If they won’t do the obvious things then some more complicated thing is just an attempt to look good.

And upzoning is, basically, a $0 cost and tehg fact that Davey thinks it all requires funding is perfect example of status quo causing problems.

Changing zoning bylaws is (kind of) zero cost at the municipal level, but it's a very long and onerous process. However, it the provincial government legislates it, it happens immediately in every municipality in the province. That's how it should be implemented (and Ford even mentioned such an ability when introducing the legislation).

And Davey did not claim that it required funding, at least not in the twitter thread linked here. (Funding would be very helpful for inclusionary zoning, though -- and the province outlawing development fees does nothing to help that.)

[danbrotherston]

And upzoning is, basically, a $0 cost and tehg fact that Davey thinks it all requires funding is perfect example of status quo causing problems.

Changing zoning bylaws is (kind of) zero cost at the municipal level, but it's a very long and onerous process. However, it the provincial government legislates it, it happens immediately in every municipality in the province. That's how it should be implemented (and Ford even mentioned such an ability when introducing the legislation).

And Davey did not claim that it required funding, at least not in the twitter thread linked here. (Funding would be very helpful for inclusionary zoning, though -- and the province outlawing development fees does nothing to help that.)

He claimed that anything he could do required money. So either he doesn't know he could do upzoning...or he thinks upzoning costs money. Even money on which is true....FWIW...I'm guessing that in his rush to take offense, he forgot about upzoning...FWIW...I did too until Melissa mentioned it.

[tomh009]

Changing zoning bylaws is (kind of) zero cost at the municipal level, but it's a very long and onerous process. However, it the provincial government legislates it, it happens immediately in every municipality in the province. That's how it should be implemented (and Ford even mentioned such an ability when introducing the legislation).

And Davey did not claim that it required funding, at least not in the twitter thread linked here. (Funding would be very helpful for inclusionary zoning, though -- and the province outlawing development fees does nothing to help that.)

He claimed that anything he could do required money. So either he doesn't know he could do upzoning...or he thinks upzoning costs money. Even money on which is true....FWIW...I'm guessing that in his rush to take offense, he forgot about upzoning...FWIW...I did too until Melissa mentioned it.

Well, he said "everything on the list" required funding. And the list, from Pitter's posth ad the list as "dignified housing, protected bike lanes, public washrooms, green spaces, community hubs, and a sense of safety & joy while navigating cities."

Most of that does require funding (whether net new or shifted from somewhere else) although "dignified housing" is somewhat unclear on whether that means just "more housing" or "affordable housing" (the latter really does need financial support).

[KaiserWilhelmsBust]

And upzoning is, basically, a $0 cost and tehg fact that Davey thinks it all requires funding is perfect example of status quo causing problems.

Changing zoning bylaws is (kind of) zero cost at the municipal level, but it's a very long and onerous process. However, it the provincial government legislates it, it happens immediately in every municipality in the province. That's how it should be implemented (and Ford even mentioned such an ability when introducing the legislation).

And Davey did not claim that it required funding, at least not in the twitter thread linked here. (Funding would be very helpful for inclusionary zoning, though -- and the province outlawing development fees does nothing to help that.)

Is the province actually outlawing development fees though? I've seen many articles saying that, but when I read notes from Bill 23 is says that they are requiring increases to be phased, and that development fees on affordable housing are banned.

[Bytor]

Changing zoning bylaws is (kind of) zero cost at the municipal level, but it's a very long and onerous process. However, it the provincial government legislates it, it happens immediately in every municipality in the province. That's how it should be implemented (and Ford even mentioned such an ability when introducing the legislation).

I'm not talking about changing zoning bylaws at all. Not a whit.

Zone boundaries and an individual zone's type are are not set by bylaws. The only thing the bylaws do is describe the zone types and their requirements and restrictions.

Saying this area in a neighbourhood is R-3, that area is R-4, and the area over there as R-5 is done by a committee following certain policies and guidelines but is essentially arbitrary.

All that is necessary here is to direct that committee to redesignate all R-1, R-2, R-3, & R-4 zones as as R-5, and all RES-1, RES-2, & RES-3 zones as RES-4, and to never use those lower level zone types ever again.

And Davey did not claim that it required funding, at least not in the twitter thread linked here. (Funding would be very helpful for inclusionary zoning, though -- and the province outlawing development fees does nothing to help that.)

Davey literally said that the reason they aren't doing the things is because of lack of funding. It was literally the last sentence of his tweet.

And development fees unnecessarily increase the cost of housing. In the current situation where so many people have having difficulties affording housing those extra, the people who can least afford those extra costs end up being the ones who pay them. A better idea would be to just raise property taxes in general and share that burden equally across all of us, especially since both a denser city and lower housing costs benefits all of us, not just the people moving into those new buildings.

[ijmorlan]

And development fees unnecessarily increase the cost of housing. In the current situation where so many people have having difficulties affording housing those extra, the people who can least afford those extra costs end up being the ones who pay them. A better idea would be to just raise property taxes in general and share that burden equally across all of us, especially since both a denser city and lower housing costs benefits all of us, not just the people moving into those new buildings.

Um, you can certainly argue around the edges about development fees, but there is absolutely no reason why I should be paying for new parks, roads, schools, and utility servicing for a new development, nor why the people moving into new development should not have to pay.

To the extent that public services are required in order for new development to exist, it’s perfectly reasonable to charge the new developments for the expansion of said public services.

I wouldn’t be surprised if development charges in older areas of the city were too high; after all, the services all exist already. On the other hand, as the city densifies, eventually sewers will have to be replaced with bigger sewers (for example) so it’s not unreasonable to collect a bit of money from each new development as it occurs so the money will be there when the replacement is needed.

[danbrotherston]

And development fees unnecessarily increase the cost of housing. In the current situation where so many people have having difficulties affording housing those extra, the people who can least afford those extra costs end up being the ones who pay them. A better idea would be to just raise property taxes in general and share that burden equally across all of us, especially since both a denser city and lower housing costs benefits all of us, not just the people moving into those new buildings.

Um, you can certainly argue around the edges about development fees, but there is absolutely no reason why I should be paying for new parks, roads, schools, and utility servicing for a new development, nor why the people moving into new development should not have to pay.

To the extent that public services are required in order for new development to exist, it’s perfectly reasonable to charge the new developments for the expansion of said public services.

I wouldn’t be surprised if development charges in older areas of the city were too high; after all, the services all exist already. On the other hand, as the city densifies, eventually sewers will have to be replaced with bigger sewers (for example) so it’s not unreasonable to collect a bit of money from each new development as it occurs so the money will be there when the replacement is needed.

Lets be fair ijmorlan...anyone who doesn't live in the suburbs has been paying for these things for the suburbs for decades....

I think DCs on greenfield development should be kept, DCs on urban redevelopment should be ditched and taxes should be levied based on some more progressive value rather than property value.

But of course Davey can only do a few of those things...

What really got me about his comment is he (probably feigned) taking offense. He couldn't even imagine that he could change something like zoning. He just reflexively took offense. He proves himself exactly the kind of status quo leader that the comment was about--a non-leader with no vision...and in a single comment proved that the comment was exactly about him.

[bravado]

And development fees unnecessarily increase the cost of housing. In the current situation where so many people have having difficulties affording housing those extra, the people who can least afford those extra costs end up being the ones who pay them. A better idea would be to just raise property taxes in general and share that burden equally across all of us, especially since both a denser city and lower housing costs benefits all of us, not just the people moving into those new buildings.

Um, you can certainly argue around the edges about development fees, but there is absolutely no reason why I should be paying for new parks, roads, schools, and utility servicing for a new development, nor why the people moving into new development should not have to pay.

To the extent that public services are required in order for new development to exist, it’s perfectly reasonable to charge the new developments for the expansion of said public services.

I wouldn’t be surprised if development charges in older areas of the city were too high; after all, the services all exist already. On the other hand, as the city densifies, eventually sewers will have to be replaced with bigger sewers (for example) so it’s not unreasonable to collect a bit of money from each new development as it occurs so the money will be there when the replacement is needed.

I think that if the public was forced to equally pay for new public goods, we would make better decisions. Even if you don’t use a park or road, it’s still public property and we might make more sustainable investments if everyone was actually invested in their creation.

I don’t see this as any different than paying for a new hospital or school I might not end up using. It’s owned and paid for by everyone…

[tomh009]

He proves himself exactly the kind of status quo leader that the comment was about--a non-leader with no vision...and in a single comment proved that the comment was exactly about him.

He's an individual council member, a representative of his constituents but no more a leader than our local MP is. An individual member of {council, legislature, parliament} cannot set direction or implement strategy.

At least he is not actively trying to block progress.