On Monday the province of Ontario posted a draft regulation intended to establish a framework for inclusionary zoning. It builds on a bill that passed last year allowing municipalities – should they choose – to require affordable housing in new developments and redevelopments.
Below are some, but not all, of the things that are being considered in the draft regulation. Some of these items were recommendations made by the development industry through the Ontario Home Builders’ Association (OHBA) and the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD).
- The total number of affordable units or gross floor area dedicated to affordable housing units would not exceed 5% of the total units or 5% of the total gross floor area (excluding common areas). This number increase to 10% in high density transit station areas.
- The affordable period would be a minimum of 20 years but no greater than 30 years.
- There may be opportunities to provide the inclusionary zoning units off-site.
- The policies would only apply to developments / redevelopments with 20 or more units.
- The affordable component could not be used to determine community benefits under Section 37. Section 37 would also not apply if the proposed development (with IZ) is in a location where a development / community planning permit is used.
- Municipalities would be required to offer incentives to help offset the IZ cost burden, but only if the development is not subject to a development / community planning permit. The incentives could include a waiver or reduction in application fees, parkland dedication fees, development charges, and so on. These offsets are very important to the industry and the affordability of the market rate units. But interestingly enough, increases in height and/or density are not being contemplated as a possible incentive or financial contribution.
- The financial contribution would be based on the following formula: (A - B) x 0.4. A is the total sum of the average market price for all of the affordable housing units and B is the total sum of the affordable price for all of the IZ housing units. In other words, the intent is that municipalities would be required to offset 40% of the costs associated with providing the affordable units.
Click here for the rest of the draft regulation. The OHBA also published this media release following the draft. They like the “partnership model” but were advocating for a 50/50 public/private cost share on all government-mandated units.
If you’re looking for more reading on inclusionary zoning, check here, here, and here.
Photo by Omair Khan on Unsplash
The Guardian has just published a fascinating article about the reprivatization of property in Warsaw. This is the process by which previously nationalized property is returned to pre-communist owners, or their heirs.
Not surprisingly, the government gets a lot of these sorts of claims, though many of them are clearly bogus. Between 2007 and 2017, Warsaw City Hall estimates that 447 properties, representing about 4,479 dwellings units, were reprivatized.
For some, all of this is restitution for widespread expropriation during the communist era. But for others, it quite simply means eviction.
The story at the beginning of the article – about a family who is immediately evicted from their apartment and has their belongings thrown out – seems almost hard to believe. One would think that there would be more sensible transition policies in place.
Another negative has to do with the uncertainty that this creates in the market. Why would you buy and/or invest in a property if there was any inkling that it could be taken away from you? You wouldn’t.
Click here to read, ‘They stole the soul of the city’: how Warsaw’s reprivatisation is causing chaos. If any of you are familiar with the Warsaw property market, please do leave a comment below.
The Toronto Real Estate Board (Canada’s largest real estate board) and the Competition Bureau have been fighting for years over whether TREB’s housing market sales data, including realtor commissions, should be publicly available online.
The Competition Bureau, as well as many forward thinking realtors, believe that gatekeeping historical sales data is stifling competition and innovation. It is. But TREB has been arguing – for a number of years I might add – that it is genuinely concerned about consumer privacy.
On Monday the province of Ontario posted a draft regulation intended to establish a framework for inclusionary zoning. It builds on a bill that passed last year allowing municipalities – should they choose – to require affordable housing in new developments and redevelopments.
Below are some, but not all, of the things that are being considered in the draft regulation. Some of these items were recommendations made by the development industry through the Ontario Home Builders’ Association (OHBA) and the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD).
- The total number of affordable units or gross floor area dedicated to affordable housing units would not exceed 5% of the total units or 5% of the total gross floor area (excluding common areas). This number increase to 10% in high density transit station areas.
- The affordable period would be a minimum of 20 years but no greater than 30 years.
- There may be opportunities to provide the inclusionary zoning units off-site.
- The policies would only apply to developments / redevelopments with 20 or more units.
- The affordable component could not be used to determine community benefits under Section 37. Section 37 would also not apply if the proposed development (with IZ) is in a location where a development / community planning permit is used.
- Municipalities would be required to offer incentives to help offset the IZ cost burden, but only if the development is not subject to a development / community planning permit. The incentives could include a waiver or reduction in application fees, parkland dedication fees, development charges, and so on. These offsets are very important to the industry and the affordability of the market rate units. But interestingly enough, increases in height and/or density are not being contemplated as a possible incentive or financial contribution.
- The financial contribution would be based on the following formula: (A - B) x 0.4. A is the total sum of the average market price for all of the affordable housing units and B is the total sum of the affordable price for all of the IZ housing units. In other words, the intent is that municipalities would be required to offset 40% of the costs associated with providing the affordable units.
Click here for the rest of the draft regulation. The OHBA also published this media release following the draft. They like the “partnership model” but were advocating for a 50/50 public/private cost share on all government-mandated units.
If you’re looking for more reading on inclusionary zoning, check here, here, and here.
Photo by Omair Khan on Unsplash
The Guardian has just published a fascinating article about the reprivatization of property in Warsaw. This is the process by which previously nationalized property is returned to pre-communist owners, or their heirs.
Not surprisingly, the government gets a lot of these sorts of claims, though many of them are clearly bogus. Between 2007 and 2017, Warsaw City Hall estimates that 447 properties, representing about 4,479 dwellings units, were reprivatized.
For some, all of this is restitution for widespread expropriation during the communist era. But for others, it quite simply means eviction.
The story at the beginning of the article – about a family who is immediately evicted from their apartment and has their belongings thrown out – seems almost hard to believe. One would think that there would be more sensible transition policies in place.
Another negative has to do with the uncertainty that this creates in the market. Why would you buy and/or invest in a property if there was any inkling that it could be taken away from you? You wouldn’t.
Click here to read, ‘They stole the soul of the city’: how Warsaw’s reprivatisation is causing chaos. If any of you are familiar with the Warsaw property market, please do leave a comment below.
The Toronto Real Estate Board (Canada’s largest real estate board) and the Competition Bureau have been fighting for years over whether TREB’s housing market sales data, including realtor commissions, should be publicly available online.
The Competition Bureau, as well as many forward thinking realtors, believe that gatekeeping historical sales data is stifling competition and innovation. It is. But TREB has been arguing – for a number of years I might add – that it is genuinely concerned about consumer privacy.
But perhaps not surprisingly, TREB has already said it would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada and apply for an order staying the release of the above data until this new appeal gets decided.
So there’s still more fighting to take place. Nevertheless, I do have a few thoughts.
The claim by TREB that they are deeply concerned about consumer privacy is nonsense. Call up any realtor in this city and they’ll tell you and send you whatever historical sales data you want. This is about maintaining an information asymmetry that forces more consumers to connect with agents.
But as many sensible realtors have already explained publicly in the media, if gatekeeping information is such a critical component of the value that TREB members bring to clients – and the board is certainly clinging to it – then realtors and/or the industry have a serious problem on their hands.
Time to evolve.
I would also argue that our current archaic setup distorts the market. There’s simply too much friction associated with accessing good sales records and so the result is greater opacity in the market. Say all you want about the efficacy of realtors, more friction = less engagement. Free the data and empower members to leverage and build on top of it.
In my view, this is a positive step forward. But it still feels like a small one. I’m actually surprised by how long this status-quo battle has been going on. Hopefully it gets wrapped up soon so everyone can get on with what matters most: innovating.
Photo by Fernando Reyes on Unsplash
But perhaps not surprisingly, TREB has already said it would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada and apply for an order staying the release of the above data until this new appeal gets decided.
So there’s still more fighting to take place. Nevertheless, I do have a few thoughts.
The claim by TREB that they are deeply concerned about consumer privacy is nonsense. Call up any realtor in this city and they’ll tell you and send you whatever historical sales data you want. This is about maintaining an information asymmetry that forces more consumers to connect with agents.
But as many sensible realtors have already explained publicly in the media, if gatekeeping information is such a critical component of the value that TREB members bring to clients – and the board is certainly clinging to it – then realtors and/or the industry have a serious problem on their hands.
Time to evolve.
I would also argue that our current archaic setup distorts the market. There’s simply too much friction associated with accessing good sales records and so the result is greater opacity in the market. Say all you want about the efficacy of realtors, more friction = less engagement. Free the data and empower members to leverage and build on top of it.
In my view, this is a positive step forward. But it still feels like a small one. I’m actually surprised by how long this status-quo battle has been going on. Hopefully it gets wrapped up soon so everyone can get on with what matters most: innovating.
Photo by Fernando Reyes on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
