This week, Council considered a motion by a Councillor that proposed a fundamental change to how Development Charges (DCs) are collected in the Town of Aurora. Council ultimately defeated it in a 5–2 vote — and I believe that decision was the right one for our community.
As I stated at the table, this proposed change to how development charges are collected does not improve affordability for homebuyers. In my view, it does the complete opposite. It amounts to nothing more than a shell game — and a very transparent one.
In effect, the Councillor’s proposal seeks to remove a major cost from developers and shift it onto homebuyers, saddling them with Development Charges disguised as a long‑term municipal fee.
In other words, the developer does not pay.
They do not carry the cost.
They do not carry the risk.
They collect their profit and walk away.
Meanwhile, the homeowner is left with a 25-year bill attached to their property — payable whether they stay, or sell.
That is not improving affordability. It is offloading of corporate costs onto families.
And we should not pretend this approach would lower the price of housing. There is zero guarantee — none — that a developer would reduce the purchase price by even a single dollar. All this proposal does is hide the cost, making it less visible at the point of sale while locking homeowners into decades of additional payments.
That is not responsible governance.
That is not fair to homeowners.
Council, in the majority, voted against the motion, determining that further study was not necessary, noting that external experts had indicated the approach would deliver minimal—if any—advantages for homebuyers or the municipality.
I agree with my Council colleagues. As I stated during the meeting, as Mayor, I will not support shifting developer obligations onto residents nor will I waste taxpayer dollars asking staff to write a redundant report when their advice had already been sought and given.
Council’s 5–2 vote against the motion underscores Aurora’s ongoing commitment to responsible fiscal leadership and to safeguarding Aurora’s financial stability by prioritizing residents over measures that could undermine it.
2 Responses
I filled out an online form to trade in my 95-litre Big Ugly Blue Bin (BUBB) for a 65-litre bin way back on November 26th and got an acknowledgment from Circular Materials. Since then, crickets. Is Allen Langdon and his band of mindless bureaucrats reneging on the deal to downsize BUBBs? If so, maybe we should resurrect the idea of suing Allen Langdon and Circular Materials.
The BUBBs represent a Private Nuisance: Whereby government actions create a “substantial and unreasonable interference” with a property owner’s use and enjoyment of their land, forming the basis of a nuisance claim. That is to say, the BUBBs’ interfere with the ability to park a vehicle in the garage and if placed out front (by necessity in a townhouse with no side yard), they are an eyesore. Both issues reduce both the enjoyment of the property and the value of the property.
Totally Agree with JPL, We should also have the option to downsize to the next smaller size below 65litres. That would give couples and retired folk an opportunity to handle the smaller bin without struggling and also put them in the garage. I know they are manufactured. It will also be good for people who do not have masses of recycling needs.
Why do we not have that option in this the BUBB fiasco..??