271 Holladay Dr

Last night at Public Planning, I listened carefully to the comments made by all sides. Our residents, the applicant, and my council colleagues around the table…. And yet, I can’t help but think that this specific issue before us – Town Council deliberating the development application for 271 Holladay Drive – speaks to the urgent need for local municipalities to have greater autonomy over land use planning decisions.  If you listen to comments from the CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association regarding the Province’s recently announced, “taskforce on housing affordability”, it would seem that the province, real estate and development industry think that we – council, residents, community members – shouldn’t have any say in this decision.  That any development that “increases availability” should just be greenlit regardless of whether it meets a local municipality’s official plan or community vision.

Now, the application that was before us is an example of why we as a municipality should have the autonomy over local planning decisions. The application proposes a 6-story purpose-built rental on a main artery… At first blush this sounds good. It meets all the asks of the Province… Intensification, rentals, and increased supply which the Province believes will provide more affordability….. But when we look at this from a local level, we have an application that is proposing double the density and double the Height of what was envisioned through our Towns zoning bylaw.   There are other locations that are zoned for this purpose and this density. …But not here.

Further, while the application does propose rentals we have heard they will be boutique rentals….So are the rentals affordable housing? Doesn’t appear so.  Frankly, what does “affordable” mean?  I have yet to hear an applicant provide a clear description of what they mean by that term.  If we were to approve this application – change the zoning and allow overdevelopment… development that does not conform to our Town plans… How does that benefit our community….. This proposed increase in height and density will do little if anything in providing affordable housing in our Town or an appropriate development for our community…

I couldn’t support this application in its current form and Council agreed as the decision to send this application to a future Public Planning meeting was unanimous…. I am hopeful that the applicant has heard this Council loud and clear and will take this time to work with the municipality and the residents to achieve an application that is in keeping with our Towns vision and provides a benefit to our community

As a final comment, given the province and development industry’s focus on “shovels in the ground”, local Councils will see more and more applications like this – that ask for increased density in areas not zoned for it rather than simply building where it is zoned for it. Municipal councils see planning at the ground level, we know what our Towns and cities need, and we have developed Official plans to achieve that. Increasing availability of housing through overdevelopment, does nothing to increase affordability of housing and it does nothing to increase accessibility of housing. Houses aren’t widgets. You can’t achieve economies of scale by simply adding more. Soundbite solutions won’t solve our affordability crisis. Our communities need pathways to homeownership that are community focused, and community led.

 

Share this post
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
Email

4 Responses

  1. In my opinion, affordable housing should be based on a 40 hour work week at minimum wage. These are the folks that need housing and they need it on a major transit line. Forget pathways to home ownership. We are well past the point where everyone will be able to own a home , but they certainly should be able to rent suitable accommodation.

  2. When Highland Gate was proposing housing to replace the Clublink golf course I asked the town planner, at a public meeting, if affordable housing was on the agenda. He replied, with the mayor and all councillors present, that the Town considered the proposed condo building near Golf Links and Yonge to be affordable housing. No councillor, including Mr. Mrakas objected to that assessment. Likely these condo units will be around 800 sq ft and cost $1m each when they are built. It is refreshing to see the approach taken now. But how will this work when local residents and councillors will object to new low cost affordable units in their neighborhood?

  3. Lynn Webb makes a great comment, affordable is the need of young people, the elderly and those on low incomes who are being forced to pay exorbitant rentals to thousands of property speculators who leverage their position to purchase large numbers of apartments for gain whilst the young can’t find a home for less than $1m in Aurora because of this. In most countries this is managed by high taxation on 2nd and subsequent properties to stop ‘property greed’ happening as they recognize the impact. I have young employees under 30 who have 4-5 properties all leveraged and charging $2,500 month rental, how is that socially acceptable, it is taking up available property and $30,000 per year rental isn’t affordable. Well done to the town for raising the issue as far too many developments across Canada are being green lighted due to poorly defined criteria.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe

If you’d like to keep in touch with the Mayor and receive updates, please add your e-mail.

Recent Posts

Aurora’s Economic Growth

Over the past 4 years, this Council, under my leadership, has moved forward a number of key projects and initiatives that continue to grow our economic base which has shown real dividends! Aurora is already home to powerhouse corporations such

Read More »

Aurora’s Finances

Over the next few weeks, I will share information about some of the key issues we have managed during the past 4-year term. Given the significant impact taxes have on our day to day lives, I thought I would start

Read More »