Whenever we submit a development application for a new project, we typically get a ton of inbounds from people who are looking to sell us something, partner in some way, or buy/rent space in the development. These can be positive connections and we have completed deals based on these sorts of inbounds.

But what is clear to me is that many people do not understand the development process and how long it takes to actually bring a new building to fruition. By the time a development application is filed, it is not uncommon for the developer to have already been working on the project for at least a year, and oftentimes longer in the case of more complicated projects.

And after the application is filed, it is not uncommon (at least in this city region) for the approvals process to take another few years. We have projects that are on year 7 and we still can't put shovels in the ground. This is a bit of a unique situation, but even still, when it's all said and done, a "typical" mid-rise or high-rise project could take 7-10 years from beginning to end. And sometimes longer.

A decade is a long time. So it's no wonder that low-rise sprawling cities with permissive land-use policies tend to have more elastic housing supply. Quicker builds. And quicker approvals.

I say all this not because I expect everyone to understand how the development process works. I'm saying it because maybe if more people knew how long everything takes, they'd be more open to streamlining the delivery process and to encouraging the construction of more missing middle housing.

Altus Group recently completed a study for BILD (Building Industry and Land Development Association) that looked at the various factors that might be contributing to housing affordability and supply issues here in the Greater Toronto Area. One area that they looked at was development approval timelines, and I thought these were two interesting charts:

What this is suggesting is that approval timelines don't seem to really vary based on project size. Whether you're rezoning for 3-50 homes or 400-500 homes, it's probably going to take you a similar amount of time. This in turn creates a strong incentivize to want to develop bigger projects. Among other things, it brings down the "number of days per unit" metric shown in this second chart.

I have spoken anecdotally before about minimum project size inflation, and here's some data to support why that is happening. But it really is too bad. We should be doing more to incentivize smaller infill projects. Our cities need development at all scales.

One of the things that cities often try and stamp out is speculation. Homes should not sit empty (enter vacant home tax). Storefronts should not sit empty (enter vacant commercial tax). And development land should not sit undeveloped. To correct this latter problem, one idea that is sometimes floated around is "use-it-or-lose-it" zoning.

The way it works today in, I believe, most cities, is that if you do a site-specific rezoning on a property -- and secure additional density -- you get those special permissions forever. If you want to wait 100 years before starting construction, you are technically entitled to do that. Of course, in the interim, no new housing is actually being created. It's all just on paper.

The idea with "use-it-or-lose-it" entitlements is that -- instead of these permissions lasting forever -- they would expire after a certain period of time, which would mean that the entire rezoning process would need to be done all over again. These take time (at least a few years) and cost money (it's in the millions). And so it has been suggested that this would incentivize developers to not sit on entitled land.

While I do understand where this line of thinking is coming from, let me make a few points:

• Generally speaking, most developers don't just sit on entitled land for fun. They need things to happen, and to happen quickly, so that value can be realized. If there is a problem of too many developers not actually building, it could be a sign that there are other market factors impacting feasibility.

• There is nothing wrong with rezoning a property and then "flipping it out" to another developer. This is often viewed negatively. But some developers only rezone properties and some developers only buy zoned sites. These can be different phases of the value chain. A rezoning can take years and millions of dollars, and so sometimes developers don't have the wherewithal or desire to do both.

• A use-it-or-lose-it approach unfairly punishes developers during market cycles and bear markets, like the one we are experiencing right now. There is no way to predict when the next global pandemic will hit, when construction costs might surge 40%, and when the fed could start rapidly increasing rates to calm inflation. Maybe waiting out the storm is all you can do.

• If you're building condominium housing in our market, you generally need pre-sales in order to secure a construction loan. Let's call it 70% pre-sold. What happens if this takes longer than expected? And what happens if you sell 50%, your site-specific rezoning expires, and then you have to restart the entire process? At this point and in this current market environment, you would likely have to cancel the entire project and reboot it.

• Timing is important. To give a specific project example, we had planned to launch condominium pre-sales for our One Delisle project in the fall of 2020. And we were ready to do that. But sentiment didn't feel right. Too pandemic-y still, and so we waited until the spring of 2021. This turned out to be the right decision. But what would have happened had we had this timing gun to our head? (Truthfully, it always feels like there's a timing gun to our head.)

• I have written about this before, but go-to-market strategies are changing in this current environment. It is taking longer to start sales and construction because, among other things, developers are spending more time trying to pin down their construction costs. Would rezoning expiries take all of this into consideration and adjust accordingly?

• Finally, if one is going to do something like force developers to pull all of their building permits within X months of receiving zoning approvals -- or else suffer the consequences -- then everything required to get there should also have a maximum timeline associated with it. In other words, cities would also need to do things like commit to issuing permits within Y months of receiving a submission -- or else. It's only fair that this cuts both ways. But just to be very, very clear, I do not think this is a good idea.

What I am broadly saying is that (1) development is a pain in the ass and (2) developers are already heavily incentivized to move quickly and make things happen. It is not uncommon for projects to take 5-10 years from site acquisition to completion. And a lot of unexpected things can happen during that time period. Hopefully losing your entitlements doesn't become one of them.

Whenever we submit a development application for a new project, we typically get a ton of inbounds from people who are looking to sell us something, partner in some way, or buy/rent space in the development. These can be positive connections and we have completed deals based on these sorts of inbounds.

But what is clear to me is that many people do not understand the development process and how long it takes to actually bring a new building to fruition. By the time a development application is filed, it is not uncommon for the developer to have already been working on the project for at least a year, and oftentimes longer in the case of more complicated projects.

And after the application is filed, it is not uncommon (at least in this city region) for the approvals process to take another few years. We have projects that are on year 7 and we still can't put shovels in the ground. This is a bit of a unique situation, but even still, when it's all said and done, a "typical" mid-rise or high-rise project could take 7-10 years from beginning to end. And sometimes longer.

A decade is a long time. So it's no wonder that low-rise sprawling cities with permissive land-use policies tend to have more elastic housing supply. Quicker builds. And quicker approvals.

I say all this not because I expect everyone to understand how the development process works. I'm saying it because maybe if more people knew how long everything takes, they'd be more open to streamlining the delivery process and to encouraging the construction of more missing middle housing.

Altus Group recently completed a study for BILD (Building Industry and Land Development Association) that looked at the various factors that might be contributing to housing affordability and supply issues here in the Greater Toronto Area. One area that they looked at was development approval timelines, and I thought these were two interesting charts:

What this is suggesting is that approval timelines don't seem to really vary based on project size. Whether you're rezoning for 3-50 homes or 400-500 homes, it's probably going to take you a similar amount of time. This in turn creates a strong incentivize to want to develop bigger projects. Among other things, it brings down the "number of days per unit" metric shown in this second chart.

I have spoken anecdotally before about minimum project size inflation, and here's some data to support why that is happening. But it really is too bad. We should be doing more to incentivize smaller infill projects. Our cities need development at all scales.

One of the things that cities often try and stamp out is speculation. Homes should not sit empty (enter vacant home tax). Storefronts should not sit empty (enter vacant commercial tax). And development land should not sit undeveloped. To correct this latter problem, one idea that is sometimes floated around is "use-it-or-lose-it" zoning.

The way it works today in, I believe, most cities, is that if you do a site-specific rezoning on a property -- and secure additional density -- you get those special permissions forever. If you want to wait 100 years before starting construction, you are technically entitled to do that. Of course, in the interim, no new housing is actually being created. It's all just on paper.

The idea with "use-it-or-lose-it" entitlements is that -- instead of these permissions lasting forever -- they would expire after a certain period of time, which would mean that the entire rezoning process would need to be done all over again. These take time (at least a few years) and cost money (it's in the millions). And so it has been suggested that this would incentivize developers to not sit on entitled land.

While I do understand where this line of thinking is coming from, let me make a few points:

• Generally speaking, most developers don't just sit on entitled land for fun. They need things to happen, and to happen quickly, so that value can be realized. If there is a problem of too many developers not actually building, it could be a sign that there are other market factors impacting feasibility.

• There is nothing wrong with rezoning a property and then "flipping it out" to another developer. This is often viewed negatively. But some developers only rezone properties and some developers only buy zoned sites. These can be different phases of the value chain. A rezoning can take years and millions of dollars, and so sometimes developers don't have the wherewithal or desire to do both.

• A use-it-or-lose-it approach unfairly punishes developers during market cycles and bear markets, like the one we are experiencing right now. There is no way to predict when the next global pandemic will hit, when construction costs might surge 40%, and when the fed could start rapidly increasing rates to calm inflation. Maybe waiting out the storm is all you can do.

• If you're building condominium housing in our market, you generally need pre-sales in order to secure a construction loan. Let's call it 70% pre-sold. What happens if this takes longer than expected? And what happens if you sell 50%, your site-specific rezoning expires, and then you have to restart the entire process? At this point and in this current market environment, you would likely have to cancel the entire project and reboot it.

• Timing is important. To give a specific project example, we had planned to launch condominium pre-sales for our One Delisle project in the fall of 2020. And we were ready to do that. But sentiment didn't feel right. Too pandemic-y still, and so we waited until the spring of 2021. This turned out to be the right decision. But what would have happened had we had this timing gun to our head? (Truthfully, it always feels like there's a timing gun to our head.)

• I have written about this before, but go-to-market strategies are changing in this current environment. It is taking longer to start sales and construction because, among other things, developers are spending more time trying to pin down their construction costs. Would rezoning expiries take all of this into consideration and adjust accordingly?

• Finally, if one is going to do something like force developers to pull all of their building permits within X months of receiving zoning approvals -- or else suffer the consequences -- then everything required to get there should also have a maximum timeline associated with it. In other words, cities would also need to do things like commit to issuing permits within Y months of receiving a submission -- or else. It's only fair that this cuts both ways. But just to be very, very clear, I do not think this is a good idea.

What I am broadly saying is that (1) development is a pain in the ass and (2) developers are already heavily incentivized to move quickly and make things happen. It is not uncommon for projects to take 5-10 years from site acquisition to completion. And a lot of unexpected things can happen during that time period. Hopefully losing your entitlements doesn't become one of them.