“Growth should pay for growth” has been one of the most consistent mantras from politicians and planners alike for the past few decades. In theory, the idea seems benign, even uncontroversial. Since infrastructure is needed to support housing construction and development, it seems only fair that developers and not municipalities should bear the associated costs. In practice, this has led to the explosion of what Mike Moffat from the Missing Middle Initiative calls the “alphabet soup” of fees and taxes that municipalities levy on new development – from outright development charges to community benefit charges, parkland dedications, and so on.

At the core of this thinking is the belief that new development, and growth generally, is a burden that has to be managed. While there is no denying that there are costs associated with growth, those costs have to be balanced against its very real benefits – not just to new residents, but to incumbents as well. With housing starts in free fall and construction grinding to a halt, the “free lunches” from housing development that municipalities have relied on in the past decade have come to an end. The time is ripe for us to rethink our approach entirely and recognize that we should all support growth.

Growth is good

First, it is worth considering how and why cities grow. In Order Without Design, Alain Bertaud observed that cities are primarily labour markets. In particular, he argued that the efficiency of large labour markets is the main cause of ever-growing cities. Robust job markets enable all the major amenities of the city, by bringing together people with varied but complementary knowledge and skills. This enables innovation and the creation of varied attractions like restaurants, art galleries, public libraries, and well-designed public spaces. These amenities in turn require specialized jobs and attract an even more diverse population, which drives further innovations and an interesting urban fabric.

Growth does not just benefit newcomers; it also benefits existing residents. A productive labour market increases salaries and provides more job opportunities for everyone. More urban amenities are enjoyed by all residents, new and old alike. An expanding tax base allows the city to reduce the individual tax burden and also provide more services. Increased population growth can also increase property prices, which raises affordability concerns but generally benefits incumbents.

It is also worth noting that not all population growth is from immigration. Some population growth is natural ageing as children grow up and set up their own homes but want to remain close to friends and family. Internal migration – often young people leaving smaller towns or cities to pursue job or social opportunities in bigger cities – is a positive phenomenon that encourages economic mobility and dynamism. Studies in the United States show that counties with the highest in-migration per capita experience the highest wage and business growth,¹ while young workers experience meaningful wage increases after moving to places with better jobs.²

Bertaud points out cities grow organically, in response to market forces. Therefore, attempts to control a city’s growth are usually misguided at best or destructive at worst. The only way to slow population growth is if the city becomes a worse place to live, either by becoming too expensive or losing economic value. In the worst case scenarios, population loss can lead to a death spiral, as many cities in the American Midwest and Northeast experienced in the mid-1900s.

Reducing immigration is not a good way to reduce population growth in cities. As the experience of Japan shows, stagnant population growth does not reduce the attraction of cities. In fact, it hollows out smaller towns and makes the metropolis, as the one place where people do go, even more popular. 

How do we enable growth to succeed?

Growth is not automatically good. More people does mean increased demands on existing infrastructure. The lack of proper supports – especially in housing, transportation, schools and parks - can mean a worse experience for incumbents and newcomers alike. Infrastructure needs to be built to support that growth.

The “growth pays for growth” model has imposed the costs of that infrastructure squarely on the shoulders of developers. As the Missing Middle Initiative has noted, cities across Canada, but especially in Ontario, have significantly increased development-related charges over the past decade, often at multiples much higher than inflation. These charges come in multiple guises, either as outright fees, as “community benefit charges,” parkland dedication, and so on. This is particularly acute in Toronto, which charges by far the most per apartment unit across all municipalities in Canada.³

There are several issues with this model, including the fact that a substantial amount is unspent (almost $3.1 billion in Toronto).⁴ This article focuses on two key problems: (i) the fact that the actual tax burden falls on new entrants into the housing market, and does not truly fall on developers, and (ii) that development charges prevent construction of the housing types we say we want.

First, it is common to see development charges described as a payment that “developers” have to make. This is not accurate. While developers legally must pay the charges, to the extent that they are able to pass these costs down, the effective burden of the charges falls on the ultimate purchaser of the house (either the homebuyer or renter). In this regard, development charges are like any other tax. To take one example, if the government were to increase taxes on tobacco sellers by one dollar (the legal burden), and retailers responded by increasing the prices of cigarettes by one dollar, then the economic burden of the tax is on the consumer who pays the higher price. The legal burden of the tax (who legally makes the payment) is irrelevant to the actual burden.

A common objection to reducing development charges is that developers will simply pocket the profits. This is misguided. Reducing development charges allows the market to operate to reduce rents and prices (as is happening in cities across Canada and in the United States that allow homebuilding). If development charges remain high, developers will not reduce their prices beyond the costs they have incurred. Reducing costs allows prices to fall.

Second, a common complaint is that developers fail to build enough “family-sized units” and build too many “shoebox” apartments. While part of this is in response to investor demand (or had been), the fact is that development charges make it twice as expensive to build 2+ bedrooms than to build studio units. It is hardly surprising that developers should prefer to build more studios when each unit costs $52,676 and each 2 bedroom costs $113,938. We prevent the construction of the housing types we say we want.

Source: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/9709-DC-Rates-June-26-2025.pdf

The real question, therefore, is not whether developers should “pay for growth,” it is whether new homebuyers or renters – the people who want to move into new housing – should “pay for growth.” When everybody (including incumbents) benefits from population growth, it is fundamentally unfair and harmful for new entrants to disproportionately bear the burden of these costs.

Density maximizes the benefits of growth

Cities work because – and when – they are places where people can live and work. People are the foundation of a city’s success. That success attracts more residents, who contribute to the wellbeing of all residents by being potential friends, dates, consumers, employers, workers, and taxpayers. To achieve that success, infrastructure must be built that can support and accommodate that growth. Given that population growth has broad-based benefits, support from that infrastructure should also come from the population at large.

While this means support through property taxes and other levels of government, it does not necessarily have to mean tax increases. Increasing densification around transit areas and in Toronto’s older neighbourhoods can support population growth without necessitating substantial infrastructure investments, since many of these neighbourhoods have lost population since the 1950s and already have access to substantial amenities. For example, the area around Palmerston Boulevard is near many excellent parks, schools, and transit, but has lost half its population (12,000 to 6,000) since the 1960s. These are prime areas for intensification.

Increased population and density can widen the tax base by increasing the number of property owners, reducing the overall tax burden on Toronto’s residents. Densification helps first-time homebuyers without hurting long-time homeowners. Densification near transit stations also means that population growth does not have to add to the number of cars on the road, reducing the impact on congestion while supporting transit ridership. The increased fare revenue can then feed into system improvements, creating yet another virtuous cycle of infrastructure development.

The City of Toronto is currently engaging in a review of development charges, which is expected to be brought before Council in the Spring of 2026. This is a prime opportunity for us to find ways to spread the “costs” of growth, so that we can all share in its benefits equally.

1 https://www.thirdway.org/report/stuck-in-place-what-lower-geographic-mobility-means-for-economic-opportunity

2 https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n2/v80n2p1.html#:~:text=Through%20this%20mechanism%2C%20geographic%20mobility,(with%20or%20without%20relocating)

3 https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/observer/2025/we-built-this-city-development-charges

4 https://www.missingmiddleinitiative.ca/p/why-is-toronto-hoarding-infrastructure

Posted to Bsky, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter.

Response Letter from Board of Directors

x.com/EricDLombardi/st

atus/2016203101925982235?s=20

What is an MTSA?

In 2019, the Province of Ontario introduced the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. This required cities in Greater Golden Horseshoe, including the City of Toronto, to prepare plans to allow for increased growth and population density around subway, light rail, and GO stations. These areas are collectively known as Major Transit Station Areas. Each municipality was required to submit plans for increased density around their MTSAs for approval by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing by 2022. The plans were required to meet minimum density targets depending on the type of transit station. 

The City of Toronto approved Official Plan Amendments for 134 MTSAs and submitted them to the Ministry for approval, and is drafting another 9 for future transit stations. In August 2025, the Minister approved 120 of the MTSA plans. Importantly though, the Minister also revised the plans to include higher densities than what Toronto had originally proposed, using a set of rules based on distance and current land use. 

The MTSAs will allow significant density, up to 30 storeys in Mixed Use and Apartment Neighbourhood areas immediately surrounding transit stations. But they are not just about towers. They will also allow a wider range of missing middle and midrise housing within several hundred metres of the stations, including in the low-rise Neighbourhoods, the so-called “Yellow Belt” which has long been prevented from growing. For those interested in the gritty details of the MTSA policies, they can be found on the City of Toronto’s website.

It’s a bit complicated but there are definitely more housing options here

What’s Left for Toronto to Do?

Toronto has to pass the zoning rules to implement the policies described in the Official Plan Amendments. If they do this within a year, as the mayor plans, the zoning will not be appealable and more as-of-right housing permissions will be available in major transit station areas. If the zoning is not passed within a year, it will be delayed until after the municipal election and possibly until the new Council gets up-to-speed and through their first budget, well into 2027.

As part of this process, City Planning is required to hold public consultations. At these meetings, you can learn more about the changes in your specific area and ask questions. Importantly, you can express your support for new housing options near transit, and ask that these changes pass Council before the 1-year deadline in August 2026.

How Can You Help?

You don’t need to read any background or have any special knowledge to attend the City Planning consultations. They are for learning and asking questions, so you just need to show up to one of the virtual or in-person options between January 21 to February 9, which you can find under the Meetings & Events tab on the City page or at the links below. We expect these changes to get pushback from some residents, so stating the reasons that more housing options near transit matter to you is helpful. Virtual town halls don’t always get to every speaker but you can leave questions and supportive comments in the Q&A and staff will note them down.

• Virtual city-wide town hall, Jan 21, 6:30-8:30 pm (City Registration link)

• In-person Toronto and East York Open House, Jan 27, 6-7:30 pm, West End Alternative School, 777 Bloor St W (add to your Google calendar)

• In-person Etobicoke-York Open House, Jan 29, 6-7:30 pm, Etobicoke Collegiate Institute, 86 Montgomery Rd (add to your Google calendar)

• North York Open House, Feb 3, 6-7:30 pm, North York Memorial Community Hall, 5110 Yonge St. (add to your Google calendar)

• Scarborough Open House, Feb 9, 6-7:30 pm, Scarborough Civic Centre, 150 Borough Dr. (add to your Google calendar)

• Virtual city-wide town hall #2, Feb 11, 6:30 - 8:30pm (City Registration link)

• In-person city-wide town hall, Feb 12,  6:30 -8:30 pm, City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Queen St. W (add to your Google calendar)

If you spot a volunteer in a More Neighbours shirt at one of the in-person events, feel free to say hello. We will be collecting an informal group to grab food and chat afterward.

Housing Accelerator Fund background

The Housing Accelerator Fund is a federal government program where municipalities submitted applications committing to process, zoning and other reforms in exchange for federal funding. You can view Toronto’s signed agreement here and a preliminary version of their application here. Municipalities proposed multiple initiatives, but with three key points in mind:

• Initiatives should produce new housing supply, as measured by additional building permits issued above historic averages. Toronto committed to producing a total of 60,980 permits during the 3-year period of the HAF.

• Initiatives should have an impact on the housing system, not just individual projects. In general, the changes that municipalities proposed should be broad reforms or long-term commitments that would continue to accelerate housing and/or increase housing supply after the HAF program ended.

• Funding would be delivered in four separate advancements with the understanding that later installments could be withdrawn if municipalities did not meet the commitments they made. Toronto’s first advance of $177,777,490 (a quarter of the $471 million Toronto was awarded for the commitments in their agreement) followed the passage of the agreement text by Toronto City Council in MM13.27. The second and third funding advances were to be based on meeting the milestones in the agreement. The final advance would depend on meeting the building permits targets in the agreement.

What happened in 2025 - summary

As of December 31, 2025, Toronto has completed 20 of 29 milestones that were scheduled to be completed by this date. Only 13 of these milestones were completed on time. Another 6 milestones have later due dates and two of these have already been completed ahead of schedule (milestone 3.5 - the pre-development fund, milestone 6.2 - implementation of Rental Housing Supply Incentives program through first call for applications). One milestone that was listed as completed on time in 2024 was revised to completed late in 2025 because a second rezoning was needed to advance the project (milestone 5.2 - Quayside rezoning).

We had previously categorized milestones as “Not started”, “In progress” or “Complete” but, in 2025, we added an “Incomplete” category for milestone 7.3 when Toronto City Council voted against implementing a citywide sixplex by-law. This prompted a letter from federal Minister of Housing Gregor Robertson, stating that “the June 25 Council vote goes against the level of ambition that was committed to in our Housing Accelerator Fund Agreement by the City of Toronto” and asking the City to revisit measures that they could use to address the housing crisis because he could “make no compromises when it comes to the integrity of the program.”

Mayor Chow responded with her own letter, outlining a number of changes that Toronto has made to address the housing crisis. However, the majority of the items that she lists are already part of other HAF milestones. They therefore cannot be considered as replacements for the sixplex milestone since the new housing produced or accelerated by those other changes would already have been included in the commitments that Toronto made and will receive funding for.

We will examine individual initiatives in the next section, but it is worth examining the letter’s claims about housing starts here. Mayor Chow claims that “We’re getting shovels in the ground, more than anyone else in the country.” This is false, even in absolute terms, let alone when accounting for Toronto’s larger size. At the time of the mayor’s letter in July 2025, CMHC (which records starts by metropolitan area, an area larger than the City of Toronto), recorded 14,295 starts for January-July 2025 in Toronto, a 50% drop from the previous year. In the same period, Calgary had 16,601 starts and Vancouver had 15,879. The mayor is correct that the market had a downturn, which affected both private market and affordable housing projects, and Toronto is doing better than many other places in Ontario, but Ontario is lagging far behind other provinces.

In addition, the letter says “At the end of 2024, after the first year of implementation of HAF, the City of Toronto had delivered on 37.5% of the three-year target.” While this was roughly correct at the end of 2024, when Toronto had 20,999 starts, housing production worsened in 2025 and the 2024 information was already out-of-date when the mayor wrote her letter. Toronto’s Housing Dashboard lists 11,316 new homes created from Jan 1 - Nov 30, 2025. These 32,315 homes put Toronto at 53% of their target when 64% of the HAF time has elapsed (23 of 36 months), although technically the HAF measurement will be made using building permits issued rather than construction starts. This would mean that the City is behind target, which is understandable given the market downturn, but means that it is difficult to point to housing starts as an alternative reason for Toronto to receive funding instead of milestone completion.

There are, however, two changes in the mayor’s letter that are not part of existing HAF milestones that could be considered by the Minister. Firstly, while changes to Major Streets were in the HAF agreement, the initial milestone only committed to permitting 30 units in an apartment, whereas the City passed the item with an increased 60-unit cap. Secondly, the mayor supported and expanded on Councillor Myers’s July 2025 motion MM32.5 to exempt 5- and 6-plexes from development charges and parkland dedication.

In addition to the summary chart above and the breakdown in the next section, you can find analysis of individual milestones in our detailed tracker spreadsheet, which has separate tabs for tracking the milestones and summarizing the initiatives.

Progress and setbacks by initiative

In our December 2024 HAF tracker update, we evaluated whether initiatives were likely to produce new units beyond what the City had planned without HAF funds, how Toronto's initiatives compares with other cities, as well as whether changes were systemic and likely to continue to increase housing supply into the future. Those evaluations remain the same. In this update, we focus on the progress toward completing each initiative.

Although the housing market was affected by federal immigration changes and interest rates, there is a great deal of variation across the country. Starts have increased in many other provinces but Ontario remains behind. Toronto has seen cancelled projects and fewer proposals not just in the private market, but in ways that affect its own City-led housing plans. This makes it all the more important for Ontario municipalities to re-examine their policies and fulfill the commitments that they made in their HAF agreements.

Sixplexes were the most high-profile incomplete HAF milestone, but our count shows that there are 8 other milestones that are behind schedule and more at risk of not being completed. Here is a breakdown by initiative:

1. Expedite Development Review

Toronto created a new Development Review Division in an attempt to better co-ordinate the review of development applications across divisions. This appears to have been more successful than previous attempts to speed up the approvals (eg. Concept 2 Keys). The City has also implemented new electronic tools for application submission and a new file circulation tool that allows commenting across divisions was piloted starting Q2 2024 (noted in the October 2025 HAP updated Work Plan).

The mayor’s letter claimed that approval timelines are 80% faster, but this has been disputed by third-party planners. The evaluation is complicated by provincial penalties that were introduced in Bill 109 then removed in Bill 185, as well a reduced number of applications submitted in 2023 and 2024 relative to previous years. Part of the City's response to Bill 109 was to remove the ability to submit zoning and site plan applications concurrently, which decreases the time from submission to approval for site plan applications but does not necessarily improve overall time for the full application process. This also resulted in a higher rate of site plan application rejections while the system adjusted.

Applications submitted to Toronto City Planning by month. Source: City of Toronto Development Pipeline Report for 2024

Nevertheless, a BILD report found that even pre-Bill 109 approval times had been reduced from 32 to 25 months and the post Bill-109 decreases are significant enough to suggest that there have been further improvements since then. There is a concerning trend of increasing timelines for decisions in recent months, possibly the result of an uptick in submissions from the 2024 low, or possibly related to the removal of financial penalties in Bill 185. (Note that the sources for post-Bill 109 data below report the average for the entire time period from July 1, 2023 to the report date, meaning that decision times for the most recently submitted applications are even longer than this average suggests. For example, for the zoning by-law time to increase from 136 days for the July 2023 - May 2025 period to 169 days for the July 2023 - Dec 2025 period, the approval time for the 7 months between May - December 2025 would need to be much longer than 169 days.)

Decision review timelines for various applications to City Planning. Many aspects of the process changed following Bill 109, making comparisons before and after July 2023 difficult. Sources: Toronto Housing Dashboard (data from December 30, 2025) and Development Review Reports from Q2 2025, Q1 2025, Q4 2024.

In addition, the City has created a priority review stream for affordable housing, seniors housing and other priority projects so that they can get from application to construction in 12-24 months. We have observed applications in this stream that have been processed through to Council approval in about 130 days.

Finally, it is worth acknowledging the amount of useful data that Toronto has made available to track housing progress. Good public data is unfortunately rare in Canada, even at the provincial and federal levels where there are often more resources. Toronto has made its development pipeline data available through its Open Data portal. They have also created useful dashboards so that this information can be accessed more easily by the average resident (housing data, shelter data). This data does not always paint the City in a positive light and there have been numerous provincial changes and reversals that have altered data interpretation, but Toronto has continued to consistently post their data and be transparent about the effects of legislative changes, even tracking pre-application consultation times when they shifted some processes there. We cannot evaluate progress and hold governments accountable without good data and this HAF tracking report benefited from access to this information.

This is perhaps Toronto’s strongest initiative, with 6 of 6 milestones completed, all of them on time.

2. TCHC Revitalization

This initiative consists of large revitalization projects of Toronto Community Housing (TCHC) properties in Regent Park, Firgrove and Lawrence Heights that include new units. These projects are challenging, particularly in poor market conditions.

Regent Park completed rezoning last year with added density. Although the rezoning milestone was late because the rezoning had to be redone when it was discovered that the initial building footprint conflicted with existing City infrastructure, the added density and downtown location make this project more viable and more likely to advance even in a market downturn.

Unfortunately, the same is not true for Firgrove and Lawrence Heights. The Toronto Star reported that, despite a “housing ready” label, TCHC has been struggling to find a bidder to take on the full Firgrove site under the currently proposed plan. They proposed to split the site into blocks for separate bids, hoping that this would allow some parts of the project to advance initially and that the market would recover for building later on other parts of the site. Because the milestone only required the Draft Plan of Subdivision to be approved (which actually passed Council conditionally in July 2022, before Toronto’s HAF application was even submitted), its completion status is unchanged, but these delays mean that this project is unlikely to contribute new housing starts during the HAF time period.

Similarly, in December 2025, the Toronto Star reported that the City had been unable to find a development partner for Lawrence Heights because current market conditions did not support the planned revitalization. TCHC announced that it would attempt to proceed on its own under the City's new "public builder" model but has not released any additional information. The City does not have recent experience advancing projects through construction without a development partner and it is concerning that private and non-profit developers seemed to view the project as too risky to bid on as currently proposed. In addition, the project was not exempted from $800,000 in planning application fees, which had not been anticipated in the budget, which adds to the risk that this project will not advance and produce new units anytime soon.

Given this risk and the fact that the decision seems to have been made due to a lack of other options rather than because it was an economically viable option, we have not marked the milestone for selection of a development partner for Lawrence Heights as complete. This initiative therefore has 2 of its 3 milestones completed, but only 1 of them on time (and that one appears to have been done before HAF even started).

3. Protecting Rental Homes

Milestones 3.1 (report on a pre-development fund) and 3.2 (new MURA call for applications) were already completed last year.

Milestone 3.3 about establishing a Housing At-Risk Table is complicated. Last year, we reported that we couldn’t find any information about the Housing At-Risk Table beyond a mention in the 2024 Budget Documents. This year, thanks to a detailed submission from Melissa Goldstein on the Tenants’ Advisory Committee, it seems that Toronto has converted its previously-established Specialized Program for Inter-divisional Enhanced Response to Vulnerability (SPIDER) to the Situation Table for Housing At-Risk (STAR). However, Goldstein outlines the timeline and the ways in which STAR does not fulfill the City's commitment to establish a working group for a Housing At-Risk Table. Given some of the findings of the Ombudsman, particularly in the City's response to rooming house complaints, we’re inclined to agree that Toronto has not fulfilled this milestone, which is intended to provide a process to review complaints received and connect people to supports to prevent and reduce evictions. In addition, while the City has established a new renovictions by-law, we could not find evidence that they had created a new rental protection and supply team (milestone 3.4).

Finally, for milestone 3.5, Toronto put out a Call for Applications for its Community Housing Pre-Development Fund in November 2024. As noted in PH23.5, the Executive Director of the Housing Secretariat approved $16.9 million in loans for 13 projects. The City notes that it received no indigenous-led project applications (a group mentioned in the milestone for funding), but they set aside an additional $3 million in loans for such projects, so we have marked this item as complete, ahead of schedule.

Toronto has therefore completed 2 of the 4 milestones in this initiative that were scheduled to be completed by December 31, 2025 (only 1 of them on time), as well as an additional milestone that was completed early.

4. Housing Now and Transit-Oriented Communities

Toronto was struggling to get shovels in the ground on its Housing Now sites, even before the market downturn. Last year, 2 of the 3 sites that were scheduled to break ground had done so, but the third site, 140 Merton St., still has not started construction a full year later in Q4 2025. The most recent update on Housing Now notes that a softening rental and condo market may require additional benefits to get shovels in the ground. However, two other sites have started construction in 2025: 777 Victoria Park, which was delayed slightly for a minor variance at Committee of Adjustment; and 2444 Eglinton Ave. E, which the Star recently reported may be affected by delays in a land deal that was intended to fund part of the project.

In their initial submission, the City suggested that 14 sites could reach the permitting stage by September 2026. In addition to the 5 sites above, there are now 4 other projects that might advance to construction by the end of the 3-year HAF period. A proponent has been selected for 705 Warden and they were supposed to submit a Zoning By-law Amendment to add density in Q4 2025 but the Application Information Centre does not have any new documents as of December 31, 2025. The next most advanced projects are Bloor-Kipling Block 5 and Parkdale Hub, which are out for market offering, and 158 Borough, which is expected to go out for offer soon.

If all 9 of these projects break ground at their currently planned densities, they would total 6231 housing starts. However, HAF was not intended as capital funding for existing projects but to incentivize additional new units beyond existing planned projects. While many of these projects have added new units through rezoning, the majority of the units were planned prior to HAF. It seems unlikely that the City is on track to reach its HAF commitment for 3200 HAF-incentivized units from initiative 4 by the final funding installment of March 2027.

There has been good news on Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) and a more rules-based approach to transit-oriented development, similar to BC’s. In August of 2025, the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, after a long delay that was not the fault of the City of Toronto, amended and approved Toronto's MTSAs. The new MTSA policy includes increased zoning permissions that depend on existing land use designation and distance from the transit station. This is slightly more complicated than BC's approach but will incentivize additional units near transit when the City updates its zoning. The mayor announced that Toronto would pass the implementing zoning within 1 year and City Planning released a Work Plan to achieve this. Given recent challenges in passing citywide sixplexes and Neighbourhood Retail, there may be political challenges to passing the implementing zoning by-laws, but the timeline would allow the City to meet this milestone despite provincial delays. In addition, Planning is working on a relatively ambitious plan for the Marlee-Glencairn area that includes PMTSAs that are yet to be submitted for ministerial approval.

Of the 6 milestones in this initiative, 3 were due to be completed by December 2025 and 2 of those have been completed, with one of those completed on time. Unfortunately, 2 of the remaining 3 milestones related to Housing Now look unlikely to be completed during HAF.

5. Quayside

There were no new milestones related to this initiative due this year. Unfortunately, milestone 5.2, which had been marked as complete last year with a rezoning of the site in July 2024 (PH15.5), was revised when the site came back for a second rezoning in December 2025 (PH27.5). The new zoning increases the number of total units (from 2811 to 2850) and affordable units (from 458 to 553) while maintaining a high proportion of 2+ bedroom units, including affordable 4-bedrooms. A holding provision remains in the zoning until stormwater servicing conditions are met. This milestone is now marked as completed but not on time since this will likely delay the project.

Two of this initiative’s milestones were scheduled to be completed by December 2025 and 2 have been completed, but only one of these on time.

6. Rental Housing Supply Incentives

There are no new milestone deadlines for this initiative and Toronto had already completed both milestones last year even though one is not due until 2026.

One interesting update from the HousingTO Action Plan report is that, of the 15 projects awarded incentives in exchange for affordable units, two started construction in 2025. This is a demonstration that “stuck” projects can be unstuck with reductions in fees and taxes, getting shovels in the ground and new units built, including affordable housing units.

7. Missing Middle

Toronto remains behind schedule on many parts of this initiative, not because of market conditions or economic challenges, but because of political setbacks and struggles at Council to pass the new housing permissions that they committed to in their agreement. Last year, Toronto had completed 2 of the 5 milestones that were due (only 1 of those on time). In 2025, Toronto has completed 4 of the 8 milestones due (only 2 on time).

Small apartment and townhouse permissions on Major Streets (milestone 7.1), passed in 2024, with an upgrade to a 60 unit cap for apartments. In contrast, after a promising start, mid-rise on Avenues (milestone 7.2) has become quite fragmented and difficult to track, split into several Work Plan items. The first of these to pass Council was 2024.PH16.1 in November 2024 with zoning by-law updates to permit as-of-right mid-rise heights and densities on Avenues and Mixed Use areas, as well as updates to the mid-rise performance standards removing the 45 degree angular plane requirement. A new Avenues Policy that identified new Avenues was passed following a more contentious debate in February 2025, PH18.5. The zoning implementation for this policy has been split into stages for different wards, the first of which was for Wards 9 and 11 and passed Council in December 2025, PH26.4, but this item removed several areas of new Avenues from as-of-right mid-rise rezoning due to concerns about heritage, proximity to employment lands or for unclear reasons. The most recent HAP Work Plan lists future expansion of CR and Mixed Use zones on Avenues as planned for Q4 2026 or later. We have marked milestone 7.2 as complete, but not on time, given that it only required new by-laws to be proposed for implementation, but did not specify the extent of the changes to be completed, so PH16.1 fulfills this requirement.

The sixplex report and implementing by-laws for citywide permissions in low-rise Neighbourhoods (milestone 7.3) came to Council in June 2025, PH22.4. Council amended this item so that the zoning permissions applied in the 8 wards of Toronto and East York Community Council, as well as continuing the sixplex pilot in Scarborough North. While some councillors attempted to claim that the sixplex by-law was a surprise to them, that a report was sufficient without passing by-laws, or that the suburbs should be exempted, the wording in the signed agreement between Toronto and the federal government that Council previously voted on and agreed to clearly states that a by-law for implementation "across Toronto" is needed, so we have marked this item incomplete. In addition, Toronto added another restriction onto its existing multiplex permissions, implementing a bedroom cap in June 2025, despite the monitoring data showing that multiplexes were producing the larger multi-bedroom units that the City claims it wants.

Milestone 7.4, the how-to guides for garden suites and multi-tenant housing, have been marked complete but not on time, based on the information and concierge service for multi-tenant housing providers described in PH26.3, and the FAQ and summary of zoning rules and regulations on the City’s website for garden suites. A more complete guide outlining the development charge deferral process, financing options, resources for condo-ization in a single document (the City’s website format with accordion section expansion is not ideal for searching or archiving) would be useful but this item has been marked as complete.

For milestone 7.5, an updated version of the mid-rise design guidelines removed angular plane requirements but replaced them with shadow policies. A draft of these policies was published on Planning's site for mid-rise design guidelines with the intention to report back on any modifications in 2025 but this report did not happen. In addition, the City does not appear to have conducted a detailed review of its "no net new shadow" policies. They continue to state that this policy is used sparingly in areas of high intensity development like the downtown core, but indications in community consultation meetings and reports are that the City often considers maintenance of existing levels of sunlight to be a greater priority than housing. A motion to consider how the new mid-rise design guidelines that replaced angular planes would affect financial feasibility and housing construction was voted down at committee. Our members have observed multiple requests to revise applications to reduce housing for shadows outside of the downtown core and new secondary plan proposals discuss the inclusion of policies to minimize shadow impacts. Unless the City is using some alternative definition of minimize, they do not seem to be reviewing their existing shadow policies beyond the removal of angular planes. We have therefore marked this milestone as still in progress and not on time.

Council adopted the Academic Housing Strategy in April 2025 (after the deadline for milestone 7.6) in PH20.7, with direction to develop a 5-year implementation plan. There were no proposed by-laws related to parking. Although the text of the milestone discusses parking for multi-unit housing, we believe the intention was to evaluate parking requirements for multi-tenant housing for students since multi-tenant housing is the only housing in Toronto with non-visitor parking requirements. It is worth noting that there are no longer parking requirements in MTSAs and PMTSAs, which would include multi-tenant housing for students. However, this is the result of changes to the provincial Planning Act, not City action, and it does not apply to multi-tenant housing near bus routes or areas outside of MTSAs that are walking distance from post-secondary campuses. Milestone 7.6 is therefore marked as still in progress and behind schedule.

Part of milestone 7.7 was completed when the City released its plans for pre-approved garden and laneway suites for studios and 2-bedrooms in July 2025. However, it has made less progress on simplified design guidelines, other than the mid-rise guidelines already accounted for in milestone 7.5. An update of low-rise and townhouse guidelines initially scheduled for Q1 2024 is listed in the latest Work Plan update as "Q4 2026 or later." In addition, Council is looking at going backwards in some parts of the city, considering new guidelines that will limit as-of-right multi-unit low rise or make construction harder in parts of the city: they voted to develop new design guidelines in Guildwood for “preserving the special character” of the village in response to “recent development proposals” (consultations were held in 2025); a proposal to amend the garden suites by-law on Craven Rd, although this has been delayed several times; and a character study on Palmerston Rd. The City has created new urban design guidelines for tall buildings in selected areas, like Downsview, but we are not aware of more general updates to the tall building guidelines. Milestone 7.7 is therefore marked as still in progress.

The architectural plans and construction assembly plans for the 72 Amroth missing middle pilot were released after its rezoning approval in November 2024. Milestone 7.8 has therefore been marked as completed on time.

8. Apartment Infill

The apartment infill initiative was initially split into two milestones: one for an interim report and one for a final report. However, the proposals from the preliminary report were later split into two phases. Phase 1 passed Council in June 2025 (PH22.5) without an interim report, and consisted of 3 items, two of which have the potential to expand housing supply. The first allowed apartment buildings in the R and RA zone with more than 100 units to convert certain common interior spaces into a maximum of 5 new apartments as-of-right. The second change permits townhomes in the RAC zone, a change which applies to 0.5% of Toronto's total land.

The remaining items that were proposed in the preliminary report around planning tools and larger-scale apartment infill are listed as future work in this report and make up Phase 2. Although the October update to the HAP Work Plan lists the final report for Apartment Infill as completed, the link goes to another item and there was no apartment infill item at Council after PH22.5 (except PH26.2 Growing Space for Trees, which makes apartment infill more challenging). It is possible that PH22.5 has been marked as a final report and the interim report was eliminated, but its title does not indicate that it is a final report and there is a significant future work section with the previously-identified Phase 2 items that would likely need to be completed in order to incentivize the 600 new permits that were expected to result from this initiative during the 3-year HAF period (the changes in Phase 1 are too minor for this).

We have therefore counted PH22.5 as the interim work needed to fulfill milestone 8.1 and anticipate the future work in Phase 2 of the Apartment Infill item as the final report that will be needed to complete milestone 8.2.

Final thoughts

Toronto’s HAF progress has been mixed. Improvements in development review times and data availability are bright spots. However, the TCHC revitalization, as well as the Housing Now and Quayside affordable housing projects demonstrate that, while the City can advance projects through rezoning and planning approvals, they still struggle to get shovels in the ground. This is particularly concerning since these initiatives were intended to deliver a large number of Toronto’s promised HAF units.

There are promising possibilities for the final year of the HAF program. The development charge deferrals and reduced property taxes in the rental housing supply program, together with provincial and federal tax reductions, are allowing some rental projects to move forward. If the provincial and federal governments deliver on their promises for infrastructure funding and incentives to cut development charges, this program could be expanded or converted to a broader development charge reduction that doesn’t require a separate application process. The major transit stations area rezonings have the potential to transform neighbourhoods around transit stations, opening up more housing options with new as-of-right permissions, but need to pass Council in an election year. The watered down sixplex item and the delays and carveouts in rezoning for mid-rise on Avenues, as well as individual councillor moves to carve out exceptions for garden suites or introduce more complicated and restrictive design guidelines, are not promising signs of political courage at Toronto City Council.

This HAF tracker evaluated City initiatives, some of which involved the renaming of existing programs, limited public information, or transformation of items into multiple phases. We have done our best to track progress with this volunteer effort. If you believe that we have missed or misinterpreted something, please contact us at volunteer@moreneighbours.ca.

We've excerpted a few select lines but go read Hana's entire piece and consider subscribing to her new substack, Infill.

Architecturally, Palmerston Boulevard has “neighbourhood character” in spades. But character is about more than buildings and trees. It’s also about the people that inhabit and make up the life of the community. And on that front, the character of the neighbourhood is aging and shrinking. Between 1961 and 2021, the population of the surrounding areas declined by 60%.

Now, “neighbourhood character”-based arguments are ostensibly about architecture but are often really about a fear of change, even a minor one. In this case, though, Palmerston Boulevard has a look and feel that is widely regarded as, quite simply, lovely. 

But thinking of the past as we look to the present and future brings certain important questions to mind. The priorities of the 1904 by-law are quite clear, namely fire safety and public health. What are our priorities today?

By refusing the application, the Committee chose to prioritize those concerns and problems over any sort of felt need or urgency around addressing the City’s housing shortage.  

Caitlin Budhram

1. Introduction

Municipal governance evolves with the communities it serves. Bylaws are regularly updated to reflect shifting demographics, social trends, and emerging challenges. From modernizing zoning to aligning with new environmental standards, these changes help ensure local policies stay relevant and responsive to community needs. The Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) handles matters involving planning and development, environmental and heritage protection, property value and compensation, municipal fiscal issues, and other related concerns. The OLT was established on June 1, 2021, according to the authority granted under Section 2 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021.

The OLT's broad jurisdiction and limited capacity have led to significant delays in adjudication, a situation that urgently calls for immediate and systematic improvements. The volume of appeals directed to the OLT reflects deeper issues in municipal planning and permitting processes, highlighting the need for systematic improvements well before cases reach the OLT. As of March 2024, the OLT had 1,490 pending cases, representing an 8% increase since 2021, and failed to meet its targets, issuing only 35% of decisions within 30 days. This underperformance not only indicates the Tribunal’s inefficiency but also directly impacts local planning goals, leading to development delays and eroding trust in its ability to support local planning objectives. For instance, a delay in a zoning decision can stall a housing project, affecting the community's housing needs. The decisions of the OLT have a significant impact on the future of our communities, and it is crucial that these decisions are made in a timely and efficient manner.

2. Historical Context and Evolution of the Tribunal

From OMB to OLT: A Legacy of Centralization

What began as the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in 1906 has evolved into the OLT, yet despite many name changes and structural tweaks, the core mandate remains the same: a centralized, unelected body with the final say on local planning decisions. A longstanding concern associated with the OMB, one that has persisted and, some argue, intensified under the OLT, is the perception that developers receive preferential consideration. This is partly because their proposals often align closely with provincial planning goals, such as increasing housing supply and intensifying development. Meanwhile, municipalities tend to advocate for local interests in the adjudication process, reflecting the will of communities across Ontario (fairly or unfairly).

Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) (1906–2018):  

The OMB, initially established in 1906 as the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board, is one of the oldest administrative tribunals in the province of Ontario. It was created to oversee railways and municipal affairs. In 1932, it was renamed the OMB as its mandate shifted more fully to municipal and planning matters rather than railway regulations. Over time, the OMB evolved into a quasi-judicial board with the authority to adjudicate planning disputes and override local council decisions on zoning and planning matters. This placed the OMB at odds with municipalities and residents, who criticized the Board for prioritizing developer interests and provincial planning goals over local autonomy. While these concerns are not universally accepted as valid, they played a significant role in driving subsequent reforms to Ontario’s land-use planning system. From these concerns about democratic accountability and fairness in land-use decisions, the OMB was ultimately dissolved in 2018 as part of broader efforts to reform Ontario’s land-use appeal system. 

Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) (2018–2021):

The LPAT was established by the Liberal Government under Premier Kathleen Wynne on April 3, 2018, through the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act (Bill 139), replacing the OMB to provide a more defence-based, municipal-oriented appeal body.  The Local Planning Appeal Act 2017 created the LPAT. The LPAT’s scope included appeals on official plans, zoning by-laws, subdivisions, heritage, and more, as well as inheriting and reorganizing jurisdiction over numerous statutes. The LPAT shifted away from de novo hearings, which were hearings granted by the Courts to start cases anew, to a two-stage appeal process requiring conformity with municipal official plans and consistent application of provincial policies.

Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) (2021–present):

The LPAT was short-lived. In 2019, the Progressive Conservative government under Premier Doug Ford passed Bill 108 (More Homes, More Choice Act), rolling back many of the LPAT’s constraints and reintroducing de novo hearings, expanding appeal rights, and weakening municipal control. On June 1, 2021, the LPAT was merged with five other tribunals to form the OLT via the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 (Schedule 6 of Bill 245, Accelerating Access to Justice Act, 2021). This act amalgamated the LPAT, the Board of Negotiation, the Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, and the Mining and Lands Tribunal. The government framed this consolidation as a move to “get housing built faster” and “depoliticize the process,” aiming for greater efficiency by removing overlapping tribunals. In practice, this amalgamation has made land-use planning less transparent by obscuring the decision-making process, due to the merging of tribunal mandates, and has contributed to an increased backlog of proposed development projects. 

According to the Auditor General’s 2023 report, key planning decisions, such as zoning changes and Minister’s Zoning Orders, have increasingly bypassed standard consultation and planning processes. While this has reduced frivolous appeals and encouraged municipalities to resolve issues with developers before cases are brought to OLT, it has also limited public input and oversight and reduced the flexibility of municipalities to address valid local concerns. The report also highlighted that the OLT does not always reflect local priorities, raising broader concerns about accountability and the tribunal’s role in shaping Ontario’s urban landscape. The OLT, with its broad jurisdiction over planning and development, environmental and heritage protection, property value and compensation, and municipal fiscal issues, plays a significant role in shaping the physical and social fabric of our communities. These criticisms highlight the systemic issues within the OLT that need to be addressed for a fair and efficient planning process to occur.

3. Understanding the Current OLT Process

The OLT, as an appeal body under the Planning Act, plays a crucial role in shaping Ontario's urban landscape. When a municipality fails to decide on a proposed amendment within a specific timeframe or when a decision is contested by a developer or community group, the matter can be appealed to the OLT.  The process begins with a case management conference to identify key issues and timelines. This may include mediation before proceeding to a formal hearing. At a hearing, parties present evidence, usually through expert witnesses, and the Tribunal assesses whether the proposed amendment aligns with the Provincial Policy Statement, provincial plans (e.g., Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan), and the applicable regional municipality's official plan. The OLT has the authority to approve, modify, or reject the amendment, and its decisions are binding. However, these decisions have been criticized for their lack of consideration for local priorities, leading to development delays and favouring well-resourced applicants over community groups.

4. Key Criticisms and Systemic Insufficiencies

Despite the OLT’s stated purpose of delivering fair and efficient land use decisions, the OLT is criticized for its complex bylaw framework and prolonged decision times, which result in costly delays.  The Ontario Land Tribunal’s persistent delays have significant financial implications for municipalities, which may face substantial fines or penalties when projects are delayed or left incomplete due to prolonged adjudication timelines. These costs place additional strain on local governments and taxpayers, underscoring the need for a more efficient and accountable tribunal process. Delays are also detrimental to the development industry, including non-profit organizations and community housing providers, as they increase costs and uncertainty for new housing projects. This can jeopardize the viability of affordable housing initiatives and hinder progress on urgently needed developments. At the same time, planning and community engagement processes are rarely fully democratic in practice, as they tend to privilege those with the time, resources, or motivation to participate. This amplifies the voices of those opposed to development while overlooking the broader public, many of whom remain neutral or disengaged from the issue. 

Although the Conservative government restructured the OLT to improve efficiency, delays in the OLT are still widespread. Due to ongoing backlogs and procedural complexity, hearings frequently stretch over months or even years. The process can be challenging, especially for non-experts adjudicating cases, making it less transparent and more prone to inconsistent outcomes. The amalgamation of five previously independent tribunals has resulted in the loss of specialized expertise, as matters once handled by experienced adjudicators in areas such as urban planning and environmental science are now decided without the same level of subject-matter understanding. 

While the OLT’s mandate is to uphold provincial planning policy, the absence of expertise in urban planning that was previously present under the LPAT can hinder its ability to assess cases with the nuance required for complex local contexts. This means municipalities and developers are required to assume the financial burden of hiring expert witnesses. Combined with delays in adjudication and the sheer volume of appeals, the OLT has become a bottleneck in the planning system.  The situation points less to the OLT’s overreach and more to the upstream challenges: inconsistent municipal planning, inadequate public engagement, and a lack of early-stage resolution mechanisms that push too many cases into an already overloaded appeal system.

5. Case Studies or Examples

Bayview Cummer Neighbourhood Association et al. v. Toronto (City), OLT Case No. OLT‑22‑004678

Background:

The City of Toronto sought to address urgent homelessness needs by constructing a three-storey modular supportive housing building at 175 Cummer Avenue. The proposed development consisted of 59 self-contained units and was designed to provide stable housing with accompanying support services. In June 2022, the City Council passed Zoning By-law No. 818-2022 to permit the project.

Process:

Following the passage of the by-law, three groups, the Bayview Cummer Neighbourhood Association, LiVante Holdings (Cummer) Inc., and Voices of Willowdale Inc. (which were granted non-appellant party status), filed appeals under Section 34(19) of the Planning Act. They challenged the project's compatibility with the surrounding area and questioned the adequacy of consultation. The OLT reviewed the case and ultimately found that the project met the policy objectives of the Planning Act and conformed to the City’s Official Plan. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, confirming the zoning by-law.

Outcome:

The OLT ruling cleared the path for construction to proceed. However, the appeal process delayed the project by nearly two years, during which time costs escalated from an initial estimate of $14 million to approximately $36 million. No penalties or cost orders were imposed on the appellants, despite the financial and human consequences of the delay.

The Catch:

The delay deferred critical shelter access for people experiencing homelessness, despite the urgent need for supportive housing. The case highlights how procedural appeals, even when ultimately dismissed, can result in massive public costs and prolonged human suffering. It highlights the importance of resolving planning disputes involving essential public infrastructure in a timely manner.

Empire Communities v. City of Thorold, OLT Case No. OLT-22-002825

Background:

Developers MilSki Inc., Shane Webber, and Italo Marandola proposed a 40-unit apartment building on the former Riganelli’s Bakery site in Thorold, Ontario. While aiming to bring new housing to the area, the project met opposition from residents who felt the development was out of character with the existing neighbourhood. Meanwhile, the City of Thorold had recently passed Zoning By-law 60-2019, a comprehensive update intended to modernize local planning rules and align them more closely with provincial policy direction.

Process:

In 2019, the City’s Committee of Adjustment deferred its decision on the proposal, citing concerns about the lack of sufficient information, particularly regarding parking. Developers responded by appealing to the OLT. Several other parties, including Empire Communities, Lily Ruggi, and Shane Webber, also filed appeals related to aspects of the new comprehensive zoning by-law. The appeals led to a lengthy adjudication process. Ultimately, on May 23, 2024, the OLT issued an order partially allowing Empire Communities' appeal, permitting amendments to the residential zoning provisions and definitions.

Outcome:

The Tribunal approved specific modifications to zoning provisions and authorized the City Clerk to make these changes official. However, the appeal was only partially resolved: other matters remain under appeal, with no final decision expected until after a status update scheduled for October 1, 2024. In the meantime, the drawn-out process incurred substantial legal and administrative costs for the City.

The Catch:

The drawn-out appeal process delayed both zoning clarity and the delivery of needed housing. Despite modest gains in zoning reform, unresolved portions of the appeal continue to stall planning certainty for other developments. The case illustrates how fragmented and prolonged OLT processes can disrupt municipal planning goals, create financial burdens, and frustrate both developers and residents seeking predictability in land use decisions.

6. Broader Implications for Planning and Development

The OLT represents a centralized appeal mechanism, where a provincial body has the final say on local land use decisions. In other words, the OLT has unified control over all decisions related to land use planning, environmental protection, and other matters. The OLT enforces province-wide planning priorities, as outlined in its mandate, including intensification, housing supply, and transit-oriented development. This creates a more “predictable” environment for developers and investors by applying a standardized interpretation of planning rules. 

This centralization causes tensions with municipalities whose local governments shape development based on community needs, neighbourhood character, and infrastructure realities. Municipalities contend that effective planning must reflect place-based realities and incorporate local input, even if that input is not always representative of broader public sentiment. The growing volume of appeals to the OLT, however, signals systemic challenges. In many cases, delays and disputes arise not from the tribunal itself, but from upstream weaknesses in planning and permitting at the municipal level. Poor coordination and inconsistent decision-making during the early stages of municipal and provincial land-use planning often leave unresolved conflicts that end up before the OLT’s appeal body, which was never intended to manage such a high volume or complexity of disputes.

This dynamic raises essential questions about the structure of Ontario’s planning regime: Should it continue to rely on a top-down approach to accelerate housing delivery and enforce provincial goals? Or should greater effort be made to strengthen municipal planning capacity and resolve issues before they escalate to the OLT?  The answer has implications not only for the pace of housing construction but also for the efficiency, transparency, and responsiveness of Ontario’s broader land use system. Striking the right balance will require improving local planning processes and the appeal mechanisms intended to support them.

7. Reform Proposals and What Comes Next

The OLT must be held more accountable, not only to the public but also to the municipalities and stakeholders affected by the delays in its decisions. The 2021 amalgamation aimed to streamline operations, but in practice, it has reduced the depth of planning expertise and has not led to meaningful improvements in efficiency. Increasing the housing supply should create more substantial incentives for municipalities to collaborate with developers in meeting their housing delivery targets and avoiding unnecessary delays. Lengthy appeals to the OLT should be a last resort, not a routine outcome. The OLT is currently overwhelmed and cannot manage the volume of appeals it receives, a problem that hinders both timely development and the broader planning system. While performance targets already exist, the Auditor General has found that the OLT persistently fails to meet them, which contributes to costly backlogs and prolonged uncertainty for municipalities, developers, and communities alike. 

To help make decisions within the intended 30- or 90-day timelines, a targeted set of reforms is needed. To improve outcomes, the provincial government should increase the core funding of the OLT to ensure it has adequate staff and adjudicators. Expanding the pool of qualified adjudicators and offering competitive and stable appointments would help address chronic capacity issues. In addition, a triage case management system should be introduced to assess and prioritize cases early, allowing simpler cases to be resolved quickly and directing more resources to more complex appeals. Establishing a dedicated fast-track system for non-profit and affordable housing projects, where delays jeopardize urgently needed developments, will help reduce costs associated with delays. Together, these reforms would not only improve the speed and integrity of land planning use, but they would also help the OLT meet its statutory obligations. 

To address these structural challenges, the OLT should implement procedural reforms that enhance predictability and transparency. One proposal is to implement a standardized legal test for adjudicators that would require them to clearly outline how public input, municipal planning decisions, and trade-offs are considered in each ruling. This helps restore confidence in the process while reducing the likelihood of appeals rooted in unclear or inconsistent reasoning. It is equally essential to increase deference to municipal decisions where appropriate. If a municipality has followed planning policy and conducted community engagement, adjudicators should be required to justify any departure from the local outcome. Doing so would reduce unnecessary appeals and encourage better-quality decisions earlier in the planning process, which is a key factor in accelerating housing delivery. 

Tribunal Watch Ontario is a non-partisan public-interest organization founded in early 2020 by academics, former tribunal members, and legal professionals to monitor Ontario’s adjudicative tribunals and advocate for reforms. Their mission is to safeguard tribunal independence, transparency, expertise, and timely, accessible justice through competitive, merit‑based appointment processes. Structured with a steering committee, advisory council, and tribunal-specific working groups, they publish analyses, propose policy reforms, and provide public education, all while refraining from intervening in individual cases. 

Tribunal Watch Ontario has proposed establishing the Adjudicative Tribunal Justice Council as an independent oversight body, similar to the Ombudsman and Auditor General. The Council would report to the legislature and be empowered to oversee the recruitment, appointment, evaluation, and reappointment of tribunal chairs and members, as well as develop policies and provide research-based recommendations to support the fairness, independence, and effectiveness of Ontario’s adjudicative tribunal system. Such a body could help ensure the OLT operates with the expertise and accountability necessary to support timely housing decisions and reduce costly gridlock in the appeals system.

8. Conclusion

While it is sometimes necessary to go through the land-use adjudication process, the current structure of the OLT lacks transparency, consistency, and public confidence. Under the Progressive Conservative government, the Tribunal has become increasingly centralized and inefficient, with unclear timelines, poor adherence to its schedules, and an overwhelming backlog. These delays not only stall much-needed housing but also result in fines for municipalities, costs that are ultimately borne by the public.

The fact that so many projects end up before the OLT is itself a sign of failure in the municipal planning process. When cities delay approvals, ignore provincial policy, or resist intensification, they push projects into an appeals system that was not intended to manage the volume it currently handles. In this context, an OLT that rules in favour of development are not the problem; it is part of the solution. When the Tribunal consistently applies planning rules and prioritizes housing delivery, it creates an incentive for municipalities to approve good projects early and avoid costly, time-consuming appeals.

The OLT must become more reliable and accountable to restore public trust and improve housing outcomes. The OLT must apply its rules consistently across the board, and schedules must be respected and followed promptly to avoid delay. Municipal governments must be encouraged to engage proactively with builders, rather than obstructing projects only to face appeals and delays later. With support from watchdogs like Tribunal Watch Ontario and continued pressure from housing advocates, Ontario has an opportunity to reform its planning system so that it works better for everyone, not just those with the loudest voices, but for the many people still waiting for an affordable and a ccessible place to live.

9. Bibliography

Books & Book Chapters

Bond Wileman, K., Ivri, R., Nastasi, L., & Pressman, D. (2018). Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. In Tribunal practice and procedure (pp. 115–134). Emond Publishing.

University of Toronto Press. (n.d.). Changing neighbourhoods: Social and spatial polarization in Canadian cities. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/50/monograph/book/104374

Web Articles & Reports

Davies Howe LLP. (n.d.). And then there was Bill 23 (Part 3): New powers for the Ontario Land Tribunal. https://davieshowe.com/and-then-there-was-bill-23-part-3-new-powers-for-the-ontario-land-tribunal/

Government of Ontario. (n.d.-a). Ontario proposing changes to Ontario Municipal Board to improve efficiency and accessibility. https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/42049/ontario-proposing-changes-to-ontario-municipal-board-to-improve-efficiency-and-accessibility

Government of Ontario. (n.d.-b). Ontario Land Tribunal. https://olt.gov.on.ca/the-ontario-land-tribunal/

Government of Ontario. (n.d.-c). Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/21o04

Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. (2023). 2023 annual report. https://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/annualreports.html

Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. (2024). Value-for-money audit: Ontario Land Tribunal. https://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en24/pa_ONlandtribunal_en24.pdf

Sherr Law Group. (n.d.). Why municipalities should amend by‑laws regularly. https://sherrlawgroup.com/why-municipalities-should-amend-by-laws-regularly/

Tribunal Watch Ontario. (2024, January). Statement on the Ontario Land Tribunal: A gradual erosion of access to justice. https://tribunalwatch.ca/2024/tribunal-watch-ontario-statement-on-the-ontario-land-tribunal-a-gradual-erosion-of-access-to-justice/

Tribunal Watch Ontario. (2024, March). The Adjudicative Tribunal Justice Council: A proposal for 2024. https://tribunalwatch.ca/2024/the-adjudicative-tribunal-justice-council-a-proposal-for-2024/

Tribunals Ontario. (2019). Annual report 2018–2019. https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/sjto/2019_11_19-Tribunals_Ontario_Annual_Report.html

Villarosa, A. (n.d.). From OMB to LPAT: Changes in land use decision‑making in Ontario. Columbia Journal of Tax Law Bulletin. https://www.jtl.columbia.edu/bulletin-blog/from-omb-to-lpat-changes-in-land-use-decision-making-in-ontario

Case Law & Tribunal Decisions

Ontario Land Tribunal. (2024, May 23). Order OLT‑22‑002825: Appeal by Shane Webber regarding City of Thorold Comprehensive Zoning By‑law No. 60‑2019 [PDF]. City of Thorold / Ontario Land Tribunal. https://www.thorold.ca/en/city-hall/resources/Planning/602019-Zoning-By-Law/OLT-22-002825-MAY-23-2024-ORD.pdf

Ontario Land Tribunal. (2024, January 2). OLT‑22‑004678: Decision issued January 2, 2024 [PDF]. Ontario Land Tribunal. https://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/OLT-22-004678-JAN-02-2024.PDF

Lansbergen, B. (2022, December 12). Ormond Street developer wins case at Ontario Land Tribunal. ThoroldToday. https://www.thoroldtoday.ca/local-news/ormond-street-developer-wins-case-at-ontario-land-tribunal-6232577

*****

Caitlin Budhram is completing the final year of her Master of Public and International Affairs degree at Glendon College, York University (Toronto).

Canada’s housing crisis, we were told, had finally been met with resolve. For a brief period, it seemed politicians had grasped the scale of the disaster unfolding across our cities: housing unattainable for the young, out of reach for families, and unavailable even to those with stable jobs. But the moment is slipping. Governments, caught up in the multi-crisis of the moment, appear to be losing momentum—and without continued, coordinated action, we risk trading short-term policy wins for long-term instability: economic, social, and political.

The illusion that we have turned a corner is comforting—and dangerous. Yes, prices have cooled from their pandemic highs. Inventory is sitting longer on the market. But this is a mirage. Rents—even for single rooms—are rising again, new housing starts are vanishing, and the pipeline of future supply is drying up. We are not solving the crisis; we are pausing just long enough to ensure it returns—worse than before.

YIMBYs (yes-in-my-back-yard advocates) have spent much of the last week pointing to Toronto as an example of ambition faltering. City Council recently declined to implement a city-wide sixplex zoning reform—despite having committed to exactly that under its Housing Accelerator Fund agreement with Ottawa. That decision, they have argued, should carry consequences. The former federal Minister of Housing had suggested it would. The current Minister has yet to indicate what actions, if any, will follow. For now, no government appears eager to press the issue or offer the political cover others need to advance bolder reforms.

The sixplex example underscores a broader risk: that the status quo—exclusive zoning, local vetoes, political risk aversion—is reasserting itself. And with it comes the quiet re-normalization of a fundamentally unjust housing system, one that locks entire generations out of the life they were promised: a place to live near work, a home to raise a family, the hope of building equity.

Even if immigration were to slow or halt entirely—a fantasy in its own right, given the economic and demographic house of cards it sustains—homes would still remain out of reach in urban regions where opportunity is concentrated. We are not just failing to house the future—we are fraying the foundation of a cohesive, mobile, and hopeful society.

The risks are not theoretical. A contraction in housing construction is already underway. Layoffs in the trades are looming. When demand inevitably returns—and it will—we will face a diminished capacity to respond. Prices will spike, investor speculation will accelerate, and public frustration will intensify.

And when voters begin to feel that the leaders they trusted have not delivered—even those clearly committed to more housing—they may look elsewhere. The risk is not just electoral—it is cultural. We are already seeing the early signs of polarization in housing discourse. If we continue to fall short, that frustration could take on sharper, more divisive forms.

This is not merely a question of housing—it is a question of national resilience.

The federal government still has a narrow window to act. Expanded support for apartment construction through the Apartment Construction Loan Program could keep parts of the sector alive. A national public builder—coordinated, funded, and empowered—could cut through the molasses of local permitting and deliver housing at scale. Modular construction could modernize an industry stuck in the 20th century. Follow-through on intergovernmental agreements could reinvigorate municipal reform efforts.

But even these bold ideas come with trade-offs. Innovation must not displace traditional workers in a fragile labour market, or we risk inflaming the very populism housing reform is meant to pre-empt. Reform must be smart, inclusive, and clearly communicated. But most of all, it must be bold.

It may be unfair that so much responsibility is being placed on the shoulders of a single order of government, but Ottawa sought a strong mandate to act boldly after the April election, and hopes for municipal and provincial action are wearing thin. If Ottawa concludes that housing can wait—that other priorities, from defence to diplomacy, should come first—it won’t just be shelving a policy file. It will be shelving a generation. And that generation will feel the impacts.

They will scale back their ambitions. They will postpone families. They will move away—or tune out. Some may become disillusioned in ways that challenge the very cohesion our politics depend on. Yes, we have already heard about these trends. No, we do not understand what it means to have the dial turned all the way up.

Whatever political capital is being conserved today by deferring hard decisions may hold little value when the cost of inaction comes due.

Now is the time. Reform delayed is opportunity lost—and instability invited. Canada’s housing crisis is not just about supply and demand. It is a test of whether this country can still solve hard problems—or whether we have simply lost the will.

*****

Tristan is an expert in Toronto's government, uniquely specialized in understanding the political dynamics of land use planning and housing approvals. He has fifteen years of public policy, communications, and project management experience.

NIMBYism hits centre stage in the Fringe production Stealing Home, a hilariously poignant play that will make anyone who's been to a community consultation laugh or cry.

The play begins with four walls announcing themselves as parts of what could be a modular home. But they’re not a home. They’re sitting in storage, costing Torontonians thousands of dollars a year in storage fees because of project delays, reminding us of the costs of NIMBYism. 

The idea for Stealing Home came to playwright Annie Massey from a comment made by an East York resident more than four years ago, when he claimed that the local parking lot was "the heart of the community". Annie said, “I almost fell off my chair, I'd never heard anything so funny, I decided to write the play from the point of view of the parking lot — who definitely does not want to be dug up!” 

The personified parking lot sits on the edge of the stage, beaming with pride as the neighbourhood takes an interest in its pothole-ridden surface. However, that love only lasts as long as it takes until a more “favourable” single-family home is proposed to sit on its site. 

Massey says, “Although Stealing Home is fictional, it draws most heavily on the neighbourhoods of Willowdale and Cedarvale and their responses to supportive housing. Although the characters include a porch pirate, the play asks the question: Who really are the thieves? Who is stealing the homes?”

The play highlights how the current system allows the loudest voices in a community to “steal” housing from those who don't have access to the same political capital while Mayor Wibble and Councillor Wobble dodge responsibility. Residents' resistance to change is prioritized over the most vulnerable individuals.

We watch as Norma Fairly-Affluent quickly learns to navigate a political system, guided along by mentors who have done this before, to stop “undesirable people” from destroying the neighbourhood character she's fought so hard to build. 

Meanwhile, porch pirate Pete stays camped out in the parking lot. While he steals Amazon packages from the neighbours, they’re actively trying to steal housing that could be provided to him and others in similar circumstances. His character brings the issue to a human level, showing the people who could be housed in this community are already there and being ignored.  

Without giving any spoilers, the two projects that this play is inspired by have differing endings from each other. The Cedarvale and Willowdale supportive housing projects were proposed at the same time — Cedarvale is now home to 59 new residents while in Willowdale,  construction has just started, 4 years behind schedule. The project was opposed by local residents at both the municipal and provincial levels, resulting in endless appeals that caused project costs to soar by $22 million. 

Whether or not the play reaches the NIMBYs it pokes fun at, it will hopefully convince everyone else of the absurdity of their protests and continue to encourage the counter movement of YIMBYism across the city.

Stealing Home will run until July 13th at Alumnae Theatre Mainspace. For more information on show times and to buy tickets, check out https://fringetoronto.com/fringe/show/stealing-home. 

The membership of More Neighbours Toronto is disappointed in City Council’s failure to legalize sixplexes across the City of Toronto. We call upon Federal Housing Minister Robertson to strongly consider its implications for the remainder of its allocated Housing Accelerator Funds (HAF).

The City of Toronto is in crisis. Housing costs,for ownership and rent, remain prohibitively high to most Torontonians. Housing starts are falling with 65% fewer starts from March 2024 to March 2025. Many Toronto neighbourhoods are shrinking in population with 56 of Toronto's 140 neighbourhoods having fewer people living in them in 2016 than in 1971. Just a handful of neighbourhoods are tasked with integrating the bulk of the city’s population growth. Young families are leaving and businesses are struggling to attract and retain workers. These are signs of a city that is not ready for the future. 

Legalizing sixplexes across the city would not have solved the housing crisis Toronto finds itself in, but it would have shown that the City is willing to make progress towards addressing it. And yet, these reforms were severely reduced in scope and Council chose the path of delay, inaction and retreat. We are disappointed that Mayor Olivia Chow did not show clear leadership and stand up for this reform with the full spectrum of tools available to her, including Strong Mayor powers. Instead, the moment was squandered and a political calculation was made that only allows sixplexes in less than a third of the city’s residential zoning.

We were surprised to hear councillors publicly diminish the engagement of More Neighbours Toronto members during the consultation process. Our organization exists precisely to amplify the voices often excluded from traditional planning processes – young residents, renters, and future Torontonians who are too often left out of the conversation. Our volunteers showed up, in person and online, just like the city claims to desire in local democracy. Dismissing their contributions sends a troubling message to those trying to engage with civic processes for the first time: that their input doesn’t matter. That is unacceptable.

Council’s failure puts Toronto at risk of losing millions in federal funding through the Housing Accelerator Fund. These dollars were awarded based on the city’s commitment to expand housing permissions, including legalizing sixplexes. We do not believe the City deserves that money if it fails to keep its promises. 

However, we encourage the federal Housing Minister Robertson to allow the Mayor to make a counteroffer – such as a commitment to successfully advance a citywide sixplex vote before the end of 2025, or another bold new action that makes up for this failure.

Toronto’s residents deserve a city that grows with them – not one that shuts them out. Council’s decision sends the wrong signal. It tells those who want to build, live, and thrive in this city that their needs come second to outdated rules and entrenched interests. That must change.

For more information, please contact More Neighbours Toronto at media@moreneighbours.ca

Download a pdf version of this press release.

On 337 Palmerston Boulevard sits a building that might seem unremarkable to the casual passerby. Built in 1914, it is slightly taller than the nearby buildings, but not dramatically so. Located near College Street and one kilometer from Bathurst Subway station and near College Street, at least six households are lucky to call it home. 

Figure 1: 337 Palmerston Boulevard Source: Google Maps

This same building, in the exact same spot, would be illegal to build today. City rules say that buildings like these “do not fit with the neighbourhood” character, mandating that only detached or semi-detached houses can be built. Attempts to construct buildings like these - which enable more households to live in these areas – are often met with vociferous opposition that at worst deters construction entirely, and at best increases costs and makes the homes smaller and more expensive. 

This is not an isolated example. Across Toronto, these buildings, otherwise known as sixplexes, are effectively illegal in about 75% of its residential spaces. With incremental housing development banned across the majority of its land, Toronto’s immense population growth has been concentrated in just a few areas of the city – leading to the “tall and sprawl” urban form that we see today. Between 2016 and 2021, Ward 10 (Spadina-Fort-York) saw more population growth than the former municipalities of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and East York combined. In the same time period, some Toronto neighbourhoods experienced population loss, even as the city as a whole grew by 69,640 residents. 

Source: Open Data Toronto

These parts of Toronto are not lacking in infrastructure – after all, they served larger populations just ten years ago. Many have excess school capacity. Incremental growth in density – embodied in the type of buildings seen in 337 Palmerston or 239 Dovercourt – is precisely the type of change needed to spread out population growth and ensure that Toronto as a whole can continue to accommodate more families and households. More neighbours means more customers for businesses and more contributors to property taxes, helping to build the strong Toronto we need today. 

More Housing, More Options

Toronto City Council has recognized the need for change. In Spring 2023, Council directed staff to explore permitting sixplexes in Ward 23 – Scarborough North. Staff found that allowing six dwelling units within a multiplex would be a “balanced and incremental increase” that would help make housing more affordable, reduce pressures to sprawl, and contribute to gentle intensification. These buildings are often indistinguishable from the surrounding single-detached homes, but provide more options for families, couples, and singles. 

Figure 2: Another sixplex at 239 Dovercourt Road Source: Google Maps

Other cities have led the way. On 1 Jan 2024, Edmonton enacted a zoning reform that allowed up to eight units per lot across the city. The reform has led to a substantial (30%) increase in housing approvals, with a noticeable improvement in infill and multi-unit housing as opposed to suburban sprawl. Toronto’s reform is less ambitious – six units rather than eight – and Edmonton’s example shows that we should not be afraid of change. 

Environmental Defence, one of Canada’s leading environmental nonprofits, has recognized that the “existing low-density, use-segregated character of most existing Ontario ‘neighbourhoods’ [which is] caused by … exclusionary zoning” not only makes housing more expensive, it also jeopardizes Ontario’s farmland and greenbelt by contributing to sprawl. Because single-detached homes require more hard infrastructure per home than multi-family homes to service, these zoning rules worsen municipal finances. Permitting multi-unit residences is one of the most effective actions we can take to address these issues.

Change is coming – but we must fight for it

On June 12, the Planning and Housing Committee will consider a zoning reform that will allow sixplexes across the city, and a second item proposes to update existing multiplex permissions. This will face opposition from some neighbourhood groups who might say that the buildings “do not fit,” or that the infrastructure cannot support the increased density, or that Toronto can delay change with more studies or consultations. 

These arguments should be rejected. As Mayor Chow says, "There is no time to waste." At a time when housing starts in Toronto have fallen 65% year-over-year, Council should move forward by allowing Torontonians to build more of the efficient and needed housing that can already be found around Toronto. This is a prime opportunity to allow homes that move away from the “tall and sprawl” model, by allowing more options in more neighbourhoods. Council must not only permit six units citywide, it should also support further tuning of zoning definitions, development charges, and height restrictions that ensure new sixplex homes become a reality in our neighbourhoods, not just on paper. 

Join us!

Your voice matters. If Council only hears from those opposed to more homes, they will believe that most Torontonians are against these reforms.  If you believe in a future for Toronto with more options for more people, join your voice with ours in support of the sixplex plan at the Planning and Housing Committee. You can sign onto the Newmode petition here, depute at City Council on 12 June, and call or email your councillor to express support. Every step counts!

Many Toronto policymakers claim to want more nonprofit or small developers engaged in building housing, and object to the dominance of investors and capital in housing development. Given this goal, one would imagine that Toronto’s land-use planning regime should be geared towards scaling up non-profit housing. However, the opposite is true. As this blog will explore, Toronto’s labyrinthine and burdensome regulations in fact deter nonprofit and smaller developers from getting started in the first place and makes it harder for them to build homes, even when they try. The end result is a system in which only well-connected and capitalized builders have the resources needed to navigate the bureaucracy.

Non-profit and social housing are disproportionately affected by regulatory burdens

A multitude of groups and agencies have listed the main barriers to housing supply in Ontario, particularly development fees, land-use rules, and regulatory uncertainty. Environmental Defence – hardly a pro-corporate organization – has a comprehensive study showing that planning laws, building codes, tax rules, and service charges is one of the most important barriers obstructing the development of mid-rise apartment buildings. It recognizes that these barriers increase the cost of building high-quality, mid-rise apartments, and further that these high costs make it politically unviable for governments to invest in non-market homes.

The latter point is crucial. Regulatory costs are incurred before any homebuilding even starts, so they must be borne until the homes can be sold (which may take years). The more difficult it is to obtain approval, the more upfront capital one must have to even start the development process. In this regard, one common talking point is that regulatory reform is a “giveaway” to large developers. In fact, the opposite is true. Large corporate developers have the resources to hire the staff (consultants, lawyers, and engineers) needed to conduct studies and navigate planning rules, pay fees and taxes, and keep operations running while seeking approvals for projects (which typically take about 32 months). Smaller or nonprofit developers, on the other hand, do not have a capital cushion, and have less capacity to retain engineers or lawyers on their payroll. They have to rely on external consultants to engage in the multitude of studies required by Toronto planning, such as looking at shadow or wind or traffic impacts. This means that smaller projects are disproportionately burdened.

Looking at a few recent projects will make the point clear:

Figure 1: 685 Queen Street West rendering. 9 years and $11 million for 26 units.

1.  At 685 Queen Street West, the City spent $11 million and 9 years to build 26 fully affordable units at Riverdale Co-op. $5 million was spent waiving development fees, taxes and charges, and an inordinate amount of time was spent negotiating the approvals process. At this cost of $423,076 per apartment, it will cost the City 16.8 billion dollars to meet the target of 42,000 units set out in the HousingTO 2020-2030 Action Plan. To put this figure into context, this is slightly less than the entire City of Toronto budget in 2024 ($17.1 billion).

Figure 2: 72 Amroth Avenue rendering

2.  At 72 Amroth Avenue, the location of the Beaches–East York Missing Middle pilot project, CreateTO spent $631,000 on consultant fees alone to advance Official Plan and Zoning By-Law amendments, for a simple six-story project with 34 units. In other words, the City’s own agency spent more than half a million dollars on external consultants to navigate the City’s own rules. For non-city sponsored projects that do not have a city councilor championing it, the process would be even more lengthy and onerous.

Figure 3: 150 Eighth Street rendering

3.  At 150 Eighth Street, the Canadian Heller Keller Centre is spending $44 million to construct 56 affordable units for members of the deaf-blind community. Even with the City’s Open Doors program, which was supposed to accelerate approval timelines and waive fees, the organization still encountered numerous headwinds from the City. There were numerous requirements, such as the requirement to conduct studies at a cost of $30,000 to identify underground utilities for tree-planting, that inflated costs and made it more difficult for the project to succeed.

These are relatively simple projects – small multi-residential projects with a few dozen units – that should have been absolutely unobjectionable and been supported throughout the planning process. The City had the power to make these projects as-of-right and simplify the approval process. Instead, much-needed housing was blocked, delayed, and watered down. The end result is that construction that costs too much and takes too long, making meaningful scale impossible – instead, we have a smattering of small projects that will barely scratch the housing need. Even if all levels of governments were to increase funding for social housing, more money will not be useful if it is simply spent on navigating the City’s rules.

In addition to explicit costs, land-use rules also impose indirect costs through time and uncertainty. Every month spent obtaining approvals is a month in which housing is not being built, but the organization still needs to pay its staff, operating expenses, and interest on loans. Costs also increase over time with inflation, and federal or provincial funding is often time-limited. Uncertainty is also costly as organizations are required to invest time and money into applications that often require lengthy and expensive modifications, without any clarity that the project will be approved.

We cannot know how many social housing projects are so deterred by these obstacles that they never even get started in the first place. For projects that do get started, one effect of the approvals process is to reduce the number of homes built – for example in the previously mentioned project at 685 Queen Street, the original proposal was for 80 units, which was then negotiated down to 26 units during the planning process. Fifty-four families lost out on affordable housing, when we should have been finding ways to increase the number of units built at lower costs.

Process is not free

All policies have trade-offs. In some instances, such as with health or safety regulations, extra costs are worthwhile as they involve essential building elements that should not be compromised. However, many of Toronto’s land-use rules are not about addressing the needs of the people who will actually live in the housing, but are aimed at meeting psychological or aesthetic needs, often on dubious grounds. A clear example of this process are policies requiring minimal net shadow. There is no objective metric that demonstrates how shadows are harmful, and people can reasonably differ on the appeal of shadows. Nevertheless, Toronto planning requires all homebuilders to engage in shadow studies and spend time and money addressing shadow impacts. Buildings that have to contort themselves to meet Toronto’s shadow guidelines, often with a “wedding cake” structure), are more expensive and harder to build.

Figure 5: Angular plane requirements reducing the number of homes. Source: Ryerson University Planning Group 720, 2021

Even assuming that shadows are negative, those harms are totally outweighed by the harms of high rents or nonexistent housing. A further issue with these rules is that many of them are either subjective, such as the need to conform to “neighborhood character,” or based on arbitrary considerations, such as setback and separation guidelines based on theories about the “ideal” distance between buildings. Subjective guidelines add to uncertainty and require expensive studies to address their concerns, while rules about setbacks and tower separation reduce the usable area of a plot of land, making the per unit cost more expensive.

Toronto’s planning rules are replete with requirements like these that while on their own may appear benign or easy to meet, cumulatively represent a burden on homebuilders that make housing construction costly and lengthy. Addressing the total weight of these burdens is necessary if we want to see social or non-market housing thrive at scale. Reform can be effective – Los Angeles tripled the amount of affordable housing in development in 13 months after it set a rule that as long as a project is 100% affordable and meets a basic set of criteria, it must be approved by the planning department within 60 days. This was accompanied by a California-wide “density-bonus” that allowed developers of 100% affordable housing projects to exceed local zoning laws. For-profit developers used the law to build tens of thousands of affordable homes, at no extra cost to the taxpayer. Developers even scrapped “luxury” apartment projects entirely, re-submitting the plans as 100% affordable housing.

Getting to “yes” instead of finding ways to say “no”

It is time for Toronto Planning (and by extension, Council) to ask itself what it wants to achieve. If the goal is to maximize the amount of housing available, particularly social or nonmarket housing, then its rules and processes should be directed towards achieving this goal. Instead of finding ways to say no to housing, let us find ways to say yes.

Note: This page and scorecard were updated on April 18, 2025, to reflect the platforms that were released as of April 16, 2025.

Canada’s Economic and Social Challenge: Housing Affordability and Availability

In early April 2025, we released our federal housing platform, with suggestions of policies that we want to see from federal election parties. We outlined six categories that address various areas in which the elected federal government can and should take action to address the housing crisis. As housing affordability and availability remain top-of-mind for Canadians, and as we head to the polls, this score card offers a comparative analysis of how Canada’s major political parties — Canada’s New Democratic Party (NDP), the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), the Green Party of Canada (GPC) and the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) propose working towards achieving better housing outcomes. 

By evaluating the depth, feasibility, and ambition of each party’s platform, our analysis highlights strengths, and shortcomings, and areas for improvement in the federal housing policy landscape.

Election Day is April 28, 2025 and you can vote at your local polling station beforehand. For more information, visit Elections Canada.

Methodology

The process of grading platforms is an nonpartisan evaluation of what a given political party has proposed. We recognize that i.) there is subjectivity in the interpretation of platforms and the choice of our grading categories and, ii.) party platforms may not align exactly with our suggestions, however the spirit, intent and impact of a platform, especially when implemented as policy, should align with the goal of better housing outcomes across Canada. Given these caveats we welcome any corrections from parties if we have missed or misinterpreted published information.

As of April 16, 2025, Canada’s New Democratic Party (NDP), the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), the Green Party of Canada (GPC) and the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) have released key platform promises on housing. This evaluation does not include promises discussed at the April 16, 2025 Federal Leaders Debate. We evaluated these four party platforms based on six categories:

1. Lead the Conversation
2. Pay for Results
3. Reduce Bureaucratic Gatekeeping
4. Disincentivize Bad Behaviour
5. Non-Market and Social Housing
6. Immigration and Housing

We gave each category a grade, and then combined these to assign an overall grade. Parties platforms that explicitly mentioned elements of a given category coupled with fulsome and intentional implementation plans scored highest per category. Additionally, credit was given to platforms that contained the spirit of a desired outcome. Party platforms that did not adequately address, if at all, a criteria within a given category scored lowest. 

Overall, the parties somewhat address elements of each category; however, no platform fully balances vision with execution. We acknowledge that election platforms differ from policy statements and therefore may not contain high levels of details. However, for the most part we would appreciate more detailed implementation plans.

• NDP (Grade: C+): Strong moral commitment to housing equity, especially in non-market initiatives. However, a lack of clarity on implementation and regulatory complexity weaken their platform’s practicality.                                                                                                                         
• CPC (Grade: B-): Strong on setting the housing agenda and proposing assertive tools to garner results. However, they fall short on social housing and implementation detail, with some policies risking inefficiency or unintended consequences .
• GPC (Grade: D+): Advocates for ambitious goals but provides little operational detail. Their limited engagement across key categories prevents them from being competitive in the current housing debate.
• LPC (Grade: B+): Offers a decent housing strategy in most categories, especially in non-market housing and regulatory reform. Their track record tempers optimism, but new leadership may signal real change.

What follows is a scorecard and a detailed analysis of the party platforms relative to each category. 

Detailed Scorecard

Lead the Conversation

Housing remains one of the most pressing challenges facing Canadians today. In this section we assessed how effectively each federal party is shaping and advancing the national housing conversation. Strong leadership in this area isn’t just about volume—it's about proposing coherent solutions, setting a clear vision, and engaging key players across all levels of government. While some parties are loud on the issue, fewer offer credible pathways forward. 

The Conservatives have taken a prominent role in raising housing as a national issue. Their emphasis on affordability has kept the issue in the public eye, and they were the first to propose cutting GST on new homes under $1.3 million—prompting the Liberals to follow suit. However, despite strong rhetoric, their platform lacks depth and innovation, falling short of initiatives like the original National Housing Strategy. Their proposed mechanism of tying federal funding to municipal results might spur action but risks alienating stakeholders and may not foster the collaborative environment needed for long-term solutions.

As is a broader trend in our analysis, the Greens received a lower score due to the limited detail in their housing platform. While they state the intention to “get back to building housing,” they do not outline how they will overcome barriers or coordinate efforts across provinces and municipalities. Without a clear plan to drive action, their contribution to the conversation remains minimal.

The Liberal Party has made visible efforts in recent months to position housing as a central national issue, underscored by their campaign slogan “it’s time to build.” Their pledge to double the rate of residential construction over the next decade signals ambition—but also raises questions about feasibility. While a new party leader does mark a potential shift in direction, it’s difficult to separate this from the party’s ten-year record in government, where action often lagged behind rhetoric. This tension between renewed ambition and past inaction impacted their score in this category.

The NDP has consistently emphasized affordable housing and has proposed building 3 million homes by 2030—or 600,000 per year. They promise cooperation with provinces and municipalities to achieve this goal. However, the lack of specificity on implementation, aside from cutting development charges and encouraging prefabrication, weakens their credibility. Many of their housing promises read more like slogans than actionable plans.

Pay for Results

All major political parties that released campaign proposals seem to recognize the importance of addressing Canada’s housing crisis by tying federal funding to housing outcomes. This shared acknowledgment marks a promising foundational step, demonstrating a basic understanding of supply-side solutions. However, while the rhetoric is present, a common shortfall across the board is the lack of detailed implementation strategies or clear accountability mechanisms. Additionally, we would have appreciated robust strategies for Indigenous, rural, and remote housing—some of the most underserved communities in Canada.

While tying federal funding to housing outcomes is a common theme, the approaches of these proposals vary widely. The Conservatives propose direct conditionality, the Liberals and NDP lean on incentives, and the Greens lack any substantial tie-in altogether. 

The Conservatives emphasize performance-based incentives and direct conditionality, proposing to tie federal infrastructure funding to a 15 percent annual increase in housing starts. Municipalities that exceed these targets would be awarded a “super bonus,” an approach designed to reward rapid development. However, the platform fails to explain how this bonus would be calculated or enforced and lacks critical details on performance monitoring and equitable application across municipalities. Furthermore, it assumes all municipalities have the same capacity to grow, which could unfairly penalize those with geographic or infrastructural limitations. Although the Conservative platform is appealing to market-oriented reformers for its accountability framework, it notably lacks a focus on the mechanisms required to ensure these outcomes are met.

The Liberals propose an incentive-driven strategy, relying heavily on investment through the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF). Their platform includes public reporting of municipal housing outcomes and a resurgence of the Multiple Unit Rental Building (MURB) tax allowance (a tax incentive intended to spur construction of rentals by shifting behaviour to favour home building over buying). While the Liberal Party set an ambitious goal of building 500,000 homes per year, this figure is presented without supporting evidence or a detailed implementation roadmap. Their emphasis on reducing zoning regulations is also presented without specificity, weakening the credibility of this commitment. Moreover, while the platform encourages municipalities to adopt pro-housing reforms, there are no strong enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance. This approach, while transparent and well-intentioned, relies heavily on policy and planning instead of delivery and accountability and may falter in implementation.

The NDP Party takes an equity-focused stance, emphasizing affordability, tenant protections, and non-market housing development. Their platform proposes tying federal funding to tenant rights and rent control, and they advocate for a substantial investment in social housing. While this approach offers a social equity vision, it is hampered by vague enforcement mechanisms and a poorly articulated funding model. The NDP’s goal to build 500,000 affordable units is commendable, yet questions remain about its feasibility given proposed funding and current labor, material, and jurisdictional challenges. 

The Green Party received a low score due to the absence of a policy linking federal funding to housing outcomes. Although their overall platform includes a strong focus on public housing, it does not address supply-side levers. As a result, their proposal lacks the tools needed to drive large-scale change or hold municipalities accountable for results.

While most parties signal a willingness to use federal dollars to influence tangible housing outcomes, their approaches differ in philosophy, structure, and strength. The Conservatives propose a conditional, performance-based model, while the Liberals offer incentives tied to transparency. The NDP centers its plan on tenant rights, and the Greens largely omit key policy levers in this area.

Reduce Bureaucratic Gatekeeping

Critical to our analysis in this category is how Canada’s major federal parties aim to reduce bureaucratic gatekeeping in housing policy, with a focus on their plans to streamline approval processes, cut red tape, and enable faster homebuilding across municipalities.

The Conservatives propose a NIMBY penalty on big city gatekeepers for egregious cases of NIMBYism. They would empower residents to file complaints about NIMBYism with a federal ministry. For well-founded complaints, they would withhold infrastructure dollars until municipalities remove the blockage and allow homebuilding to take place. They would also reward cities who are removing gatekeepers and getting homes built by providing a building bonus for municipalities who boost homebuilding, and require those seeking federal funds to pre-approve building permits for high-density housing and employment on all available land surrounding transit stations.

However, the practicality of their proposed “NIMBY hotline” is questionable. Delegating complaint management to a federal ministry could add more bureaucracy rather than eliminate it. While their support for pre-approving permits near transit is welcome, there is little clarity on implementation. The absence of explicit commitments to zoning and building code reforms limits their effectiveness in this area.

The Green Party has not made any announcements related to reducing housing-related bureaucracy, and thus could not be awarded anything higher than “D”.

The Liberal Party’s platform includes specific and promising proposals, such as:

• Streamlining regulations for prefabricated housing
• Promoting pre-approved, standardized designs
• Accelerating permit approvals, especially for repeat applicants
• Reforming the Building Code to simplify construction standards
• Cutting municipal development charges for multi-unit housing

While these measures are thoughtful, the platform does not fully explain how the federal government would enforce or coordinate them, given jurisdictional limits. Despite a mixed track record, the Liberals renewed focus and new leadership suggest a potentially more effective future approach.

The NDP would replace the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) with two new initiatives: the Canadian Homes Transfer (CHT) and the Communities First Fund (CFF). These programs would:

• Mandate multi-unit housing across all neighborhoods
• Speed up approvals and cut development charges
• Encourage prefabricated construction
• Require Project Labour and Community Benefits Agreements
• Demand national rent control compliance and end exclusionary zoning

Although the vision is bold and contains many desirable elements, the additional requirements may add complexity and slow implementation. A clearer policy design would improve credibility.

While each party offers varying levels of ambition and detail, the effectiveness of their proposals hinges on practical implementation and federal-provincial coordination; ultimately, the Liberals and NDP demonstrate more comprehensive planning, though not without limitations, while the Conservatives and Greens fall short in key areas of clarity and feasibility.

Disincentivize Bad Behaviour

Large investments in housing are required to tackle the housing affordability crisis, which makes it imperative that these investments are channeled towards bringing new supply into the market rather than inflating the value of existing housing assets.

The Green Party focuses on Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS) and stopping corporations from buying single family homes. While we do not believe these two forms of investment are barriers to bringing more supply to the market, these changes are unlikely to materially change the affordability of prices or rents. Their anti-money laundering proposals are laudable but similarly would have a limited effect on supply. The absence of meaningful policies linked to direct investment earns the Greens a low score in this category.

The NDP’s proposal centers upon banning price-fixing by corporate landlords. While this intervention may address equity concerns, it does not tackle the key issue of affordability. Additional inferences about banning corporations from buying affordable homes, which absent further detail is a proposal too vague to evaluate. The lack of policies that aim to direct investment to more productive ends earns the NDP a low score in this category.

The star promise of the Conservative Party is to remove GST on new homes up to $1.3 million. GST currently applies to new builds but not to existing homes, making it a disincentive to buy a new home. This behaviour is exactly what we want to change. Notably this proposal is more expansive than the Liberals equivalent; in effect eliminating the first-time home buyer and primary residence requirement. While both changes increase the cost of the proposal substantially, we do expect positive supply effects. However, the effectiveness of these proposals is undermined by the plan to finance them through the elimination of the Housing Accelerator Fund. Other Conservative Party proposals include deferring taxes on capital gains when making investments in homebuilding, which explicitly channels investment into building. Overall, they receive credit for promising two strong investment-oriented reforms but lose points for the lack of anti-speculation measures.

The Liberals propose a GST cut applied to homes under $1 million but this intervention is limited to first-time buyers. While still beneficial, the measure would be more effective with broader applicability—for example, by including seniors downsizing after their children leave home or individuals relocating between cities. Additionally, the return of the Multiple Unit Residential Building (MURB) tax deduction for rental construction is a well-targeted incentive. The reintroduction of this initiative first launched in the 1970s should promote the construction of purpose-built rentals by allowing investors to deduct capital cost allowance losses from other income sources. This particularly encourages small-scale investors to build rental properties of varying types. While the Liberal Party’s platform is thoughtful about directing investment into building, their platform is silent on measures to curb speculation.

All parties acknowledge the need for investment in housing, but only the Conservatives and Liberals offer concrete proposals to channel funds toward new supply. However, both fall short in addressing speculative activity, and the Greens and NDP lack clear, targeted policies to drive productive housing investment.

Non-Market and Social Housing

While market-driven housing supply is crucial, investments in non-market and social housing are critical, particularly for lower-income and vulnerable populations that are ill-served by the private market. Several party platforms acknowledge this need, with one party making major commitments to build more public housing.

The Conservative Party platform makes little to no mention of social and non-market housing, aside from a plan to sell and convert 15% of federal buildings into “affordable housing”. “Affordable” is not defined nor is any enforcement mechanism detailed. Additionally, the platform demonstrates a lack of interest in federal support for non-market housing, and the absence of social and non-market housing in the platform earns the party a low grade in this category.

The Green Party proposes (this is one of the few categories with content to evaluate) a return to federal housing construction on a 1970s scale - promising to “get the federal government back in the business of building housing”. Publicly-funded housing will cost buyers or renters no more than 30% of their income, an affordability requirement to be enforced through unspecified “covenants.” The Greens’ plans for social and non-market housing are big on broad strokes but light on details and substance. They score slightly higher here due to intent, but the vagueness holds them back.

We might expect social housing to be the bread and butter (or jam, if you prefer) of the NDP platform, and this is indeed the category in which they score best. The NDP pledges to build 100,000 rent-controlled homes on public land in the next 10 years. They propose investing $1 billion into the Public Land Acquisition Fund over five years to purchase additional land for the purpose of building rent-controlled homes. They promise $4 billion to help non-profit providers buy rentals that might otherwise be purchased and run by for-profit companies. A new Canada Homes Transfer fund would reward cities that “commit to 20 percent non-market housing in every neighbourhood,” though it’s unclear how this could be achieved. Additionally, the Communities First Fund, would incentivize provinces to bring forward strategies for ending homelessness and encampments. These are strong commitments but would benefit from more detail on feasibility and coordination.

The Liberals deliver a centrist social housing plan. Their “Build Canada Homes” crown corporation proposal would provide $10 billion in low-cost financing, 60% of which would support deeply affordable, supportive, and Indigenous housing. Their use of a Housing First strategy and tailored housing for vulnerable populations is both innovative and practical. This earns them the highest grade in this category.

The NDP and Liberals offer the most substantial commitments to non-market and social housing, the Liberals stand out for their robust and targeted approach. The Greens show decent intent but lack specifics, and the Conservatives fall significantly short by excluding meaningful support for this critical housing sector.

Immigration and Housing

Given the importance of immigration in Canada's social and economic fabric, we were hopeful that parties would issue election platforms that aligned immigration and housing policy as a tool to solve current supply and demand challenges. We also hoped to see this tension addressed through non-immigration restrictionist approaches. At the time of writing, no party has released a housing-integrated immigration strategy. All parties acknowledge that immigration targets should reflect provincial capacity, but most fall short on linking this notion with housing supply policy. As such we awarded all parties a moderately low score in this category.

The NDP and Greens take a slightly more productive approach, discussing skilled worker recruitment and welcoming displaced U.S. talent. However, specifics are lacking.The Conservatives and Liberals both use limiting language when discussing immigration targets. The Conservatives are particularly explicit about cuts. 

Conclusion

Overall grades reflect a combination of each party’s performance across our six evaluation categories, including leading the conversation, paying for results, reducing bureaucracy, disincentivizing bad behaviour, support for non-market and social housing and immigration/housing policy. While partially based on a simple average of these scores, final grades also account for the overall feasibility, practicality, and coherence of each platform. In particular, we assessed whether parties not only identified the right goals, but also offered credible, actionable plans for achievement. 

The Conservative Party has clearly and consistently elevated housing as a central issue in this election. Their platform takes an assertive, results-oriented approach, emphasizing performance-based incentives and holding municipalities accountable through conditional funding. This signals a serious intent to push for more homebuilding in Canada. However, the platform lacks a credible strategy for addressing Canada’s deep affordability challenges. There is no clear plan to support or expand social and non-market housing, nor is there meaningful attention to zoning reform or building code modernization. The tools proposed—such as the “NIMBY hotline”—often appear more symbolic than practical, and risk adding new layers of bureaucracy rather than reducing them. While the Conservatives are clearly driving the conversation and proposing bold measures to spur supply, the lack of detail, questionable execution, and absence of inclusive housing policies ultimately limit the platform’s effectiveness. As a result, we gave the Conservative Party a final grade of B-. 

The Liberal Party received a final grade of B+, reflecting a platform that combines innovative, well-targeted policy tools with a comprehensive approach to non-market housing. Their proposals to revive the Multiple Unit Residential Building (MURB) tax incentive, to invest in public builders like the new Canada Builds Homes (BCH) program, and to cut development charges for multi-unit housing all demonstrate a clear understanding of the supply challenges and the need to direct investment toward new construction. Notably, they are the strongest among all parties when it comes to social and non-market housing, with detailed, ambitious commitments that acknowledge the scale and complexity of Canada’s housing needs. However, this forward-looking platform must be weighed against the party’s mixed track record over the past decade, during which significant gaps persisted despite federal leadership. While recent efforts suggest a shift in direction, the Liberals must demonstrate stronger leadership in shaping the national conversation and translating policy into delivery and positive outcomes. Their grade reflects both the quality of their current platform and the lingering credibility gap they must still overcome. 

The Green Party received a final grade of D+ due to the lack of concrete, actionable policies in their housing platform. While they recognize the urgency of Canada’s housing crisis and express a desire to build more housing, their platform lacks the detail and mechanisms needed to translate that ambition into results. Key levers such as tying federal funding to outcomes, streamlining approvals, or incentivizing new construction are absent. Instead, the Greens focus on curbing corporate ownership and foreign investment, which may reflect broader concerns about housing equity but are unlikely to meaningfully increase supply or improve affordability. Their proposal to reintroduce federally-funded housing at a 1970s scale is bold in spirit, but vague in execution. With few specifics on implementation, coordination with other governments, or timelines for delivery, the platform falls short of offering a credible roadmap to tackle the crisis—resulting in a below-average grade. 

The New Democratic Party received a final grade of C+ for presenting a platform that articulates the right priorities—such as ending exclusionary zoning, expanding non-market housing, and accelerating construction—but falls short on implementation. The NDP clearly understands that Canada’s housing crisis is rooted in both affordability and supply, and their commitments to build 3 million homes and mandate pro-housing reforms at the municipal level reflect a commendable sense of urgency. However, the platform lacks a credible roadmap for delivering on these goals. Many of the proposed initiatives are heavy on rhetoric and light on practical details, with unclear timelines, funding mechanisms, and jurisdictional coordination. Some elements of their platform may unintentionally slow down housing delivery. While the platform reflects strong values and an equity-driven vision, its limited operational clarity and potential barriers to building prevent them from achieving a higher score.

Make Your Voice Heard

We hope that these summaries are useful and can inform your vote to advance housing across Canada. Election Day is April 28, 2025.

More Neighbours Toronto, Make Housing Affordable Ottawa and More Homes Mississauga congratulate the Hon. Rob Flack on his success in the recent election and welcome him in his new role as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. We look forward to working with him to alleviate the challenges in our housing economy. To that end, we have written an open letter encouraging the Ontario government to adopt key measures from the Housing Affordability Task Force Report to strengthen our province and eliminate the barriers to building at this critical moment.

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Hon. Rob Flack

College Park

17th Flr, 777 Bay St

Toronto, Ontario M7A 2J3

To Hon. Rob Flack, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing,

Congratulations on your recent election victory, and on your appointment as the new Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing under Premier Doug Ford.

As you know, housing affordability is a top priority for the people of Ontario.

Our province is falling far behind the target of 1.5 million net new homes by 2031, jeopardizing the important work being done by this government to Protect Ontario.

Analysis done by the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario¹ shows that the province is missing its target and will likely do so into the future. In addition, research by Dr. Mike Moffatt² shows that municipalities are not planning for the homes they agreed to under their housing pledges to the province.

There is a significant mismatch between housing demand and housing supply in Ontario, which has caused both rent and mortgage costs to skyrocket over the past decade.

Thankfully, the Ontario PC government put forward a roadmap to fix the housing crisis – the Housing Affordability Task Force report.

This is a serious plan, and we believe this is still the right plan to make housing affordable in Ontario.

Unfortunately, the most ambitious parts of this plan have not been implemented.

As a result, housing starts have plummeted, building investment has cratered, and our housing market is looking more and more dire every day.

This has a real world impact on Ontario families – many of whom are struggling to pay their rents or mortgages.

This also has a real world impact on the competitiveness of Ontario businesses. Our businesses struggle to attract talent when the cost-of-living in our major cities is so high.

Young families, in particular, are fleeing our cities for lower cost of living areas. Our best and brightest are leaving for other provinces because they can no longer afford to call Ontario home.

This was a crisis in 2022, when the HATF report was first published. In 2025 – with the added threat of a trade war with the United States, we are flirting with disaster.

Ontario jobs are at risk – which means rents and mortgages are at risk of default. We even heard earlier this month that some banks are making it harder for steelworkers to get mortgages³.

Housing costs are already unaffordable – how are families going to manage when job losses and increased costs from tariffs hit us hard?

Thankfully, in the face of a crisis, there is always opportunity.

If we truly want to Protect Ontario, it starts by building in Ontario.

We can adopt the recommendations of the Housing Affordability Task Force report. We can supercharge our homebuilding industry, creating tens of thousands of good jobs for skilled workers.

We can make housing affordable in Ontario, bringing young families back to our cities. We can help people afford to live in the cities they work, taking massive strain off our roads, highways, and transit systems.

A plan for housing affordability is also a plan for good jobs, higher productivity, better quality of life, and lower costs for municipalities and the province.

It’s a plan to Protect Ontario.

We understand that in the past, this government has assessed the Housing Affordability Task Force, and worried there was some political risk in adopting some of the measures.

We also understand that while the vast majority of people are broadly supportive of measures to build more housing, some in certain communities are reluctant to change in their own backyards.

And finally, we understand that the major problem with housing affordability comes from our big cities, like Toronto, other cities in the GTA, and Ottawa. Growing housing costs across our province are a direct result of people fleeing our big cities for lower cost-of-living areas.

With that context, we believe these are the two most impactful changes you could make to make housing affordable here in Ontario:

• Establish provincewide zoning standards in Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs). Eliminate maximum heights, angular planes, floor space index, shadow rules, and other red tape restrictions that limit development within a 1 km radius of MTSAs. These standards should be extremely permissive, broad, firm, and free of loopholes.
•  Eliminate or radically reduce development charges, community benefit charges, and the alphabet soup of housing taxes levied by our major cities. These taxes can add hundreds of thousands of dollars to housing projects, driving up rents and mortgage costs. Partner with the federal government to provide sustainable funding for capital projects in our major cities.

These changes will have the biggest impact, in the fastest period of time. But there are many other barriers, and we look forward to working with you on other issues like building codes, permitting, and land use.

Making these changes will set Ontario back on the path towards housing affordability – and create tens of thousands of direct jobs in the process. It will make our province stronger as we step up to the immense challenges we face in a potential trade war with the United States.

We believe you are up to the challenge. I hope you will prove us right.

We would like to request a meeting at your earliest convenience to discuss these issues and help you move forward towards our shared goal of making housing more affordable.

Let’s get it done together – and Protect Ontario.

Sincerely,
Leigh Honeywell, Chair, Make Housing Affordable Ottawa
Eric Lombardi, President, More Neighbours Toronto
Kelly Singh, Executive Director, More Homes Mississauga

¹ https://globalnews.ca/news/10869767/ontario-housing-starts-fao-report-2024/

² https://www.missingmiddleinitiative.ca/p/development-charges-are-artificially

³ https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/bmo-changes-some-mortgage-rules-steel-aluminum-business-owners-due-trade-war-2025-03-21/

Ontario is in desperate need of more housing. Since the last election, housing starts have fallen behind the targets needed to build 1.5 million homes by 2031. While interest rates and construction costs have played a role, other provinces have made bolder policy moves and kept building as Ontario has fallen behind. A recent run of completions and changes to immigration have resulted in more available housing supply that has stabilized rents, but it is unlikely to last into the coming years if the trend of falling housing starts continues. With growing homelessness and young people living longer at home or choosing to leave the province altogether, Ontario needs to make a change to preserve the dream of a home and a life here.

Although US relations and tariffs have understandably dominated recent news cycles, and were the stated reason for the snap election call, cost-of-living and housing affordability remain the top issues for Ontarians. Housing makes up the biggest expense in most people’s lives and its availability determines who can live and work in our province. It influences whether people can remain close to friends or family and, sometimes, whether they feel stable enough to start a family at all. Secure and available housing must form the foundation for Ontario to prepare to address every other challenge on the horizon.

Additionally, the United States has a population ten times the size of Canada’s; its economy and politics will always pressure ours. A key way for Canada to assert its independence and obtain more leverage in negotiations is to grow our domestic economy and reduce reliance on others. To prepare for healthy population growth, governments must address the economic burden that sky-high housing costs have on Canadians through transformational, future-oriented growth in housing and infrastructure. Fast and effective action on the housing crisis is critical to Canada’s future prosperity.

More Neighbours Toronto is a volunteer-only organization of housing advocates that believe in building more homes of all kinds for those who dream of building their lives in Toronto. Together, progressives and conservatives put aside their differences to advocate for more market and non-market solutions. We are working to legalize more housing in more neighbourhoods, more transit-oriented development, and advocating for more investments in affordable, supportive, and public housing.

Earlier in January, we released our housing platform, with suggestions of policies that we want to see from parties. There were five categories that address various failings in the system that the province has power over. Despite the release of the Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF) report and a shift in rhetoric, the Ontario government’s actions have lacked urgency and even backtracked when they received pushback.

While this may reflect the political challenges of implementing pro-housing policies, it also demonstrates the need for strong and confident leadership on the issue. Many municipalities in Ontario have made moves to end exclusionary zoning and simplify processes, such as Hamilton, Burlington, Guelph and Waterloo. Yet the head of the government’s own Housing Supply Action Plan Implementation Team, Mayor Drew Dilkens, refused such changes. While those municipal changes may have been incentivized by the federal Housing Accelerator Fund or the Provincial Building Faster Fund, it also demonstrates that Ontarians are capable of embracing change when they have good leaders who take the time to explain policies, the benefits of change and give the public confidence that the system is fair and transparent.

Despite the short campaign period, we encourage you to reach out to your MPP candidates and find out what they believe. The Premier himself objected to “four storey towers,” and candidates from all parties need to hear that housing matters. In New Zealand, a cross-party approach led to several zoning reform changes that have helped to stabilize rents in Auckland. Consistent support for pro-housing policies is key to building this consensus and making change.

Election Day is February 27 or you can vote at your local returning office beforehand. For more information, visit Elections Ontario.

Methodology

Grading platforms, as many other organizations have done, is a simplification of what the parties have proposed. We recognize that there is subjectivity in the interpretation of platforms and the choice of our grading categories. We welcome any corrections from parties if we have missed or misinterpreted something.

As of February 24, 2025, the Ontario Greens (full costing), Ontario NDP (partial costing), and Ontario Liberals (housing platform overall cost) and Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario have released their platforms. Note that this grading was updated from a previous February 18th version to reflect more recent ONDP, and OLP and PCPO updates. We used additional statements in campaign literature, advertisements and stump speeches to supplement, with sources linked below. For the Progressive Conservatives, we have used their statements and their record to evaluate their progress and plans. For other parties, we are not able to guess at the likelihood of following through on promises, although we have attempted to assess whether affordable housing subsidies or other incentives are reasonable by comparing with similar Toronto policy implementations.

In some cases, parties make no mention of what we feel are important policies (eg. building code changes to make mid-rises more feasible) and the Ontario Liberals and NDP make no mention of modular housing, although they committed to supporting it in responses to OREA’s survey. Although the Ontario Greens’ platform contains the most detail, some policies might conflict (eg. how would proposals to set minimum provincial zoning standards work with a commitment for municipal collaboration should municipalities object to these standards, a challenge that the Progressive Conservatives have faced). Given all of this, it is challenging to do an overall comparison and we encourage readers to examine the grades in each section against their own priorities, as well as to read the more detailed explanations. We will attempt to update this document if more information becomes available. 

We have divided our platform scoring into five categories, based on important changes that the province can make to address the housing crisis. These categories are similar to those from the 2022 provincial election, but updated to reflect new ideas from our membership and any progress that has been made:

1. Setting Ambitious Goals: Targets and Timelines
2. Building More: Measures To Increase Housing Supply
3. Housing Justice: More Social, Affordable, Co-op, and Rental, with Tenant Protections
4. Changing Behaviour and Aligning Incentives: Taxes, Fees and Municipal Cooperation
5. Scaling Up and Building Faster: Innovative Construction Methods, Expedited Processes, New Legal and Financing Structures

We gave each of the five categories a grade, and then combined these to assign an overall grade. A lower weighting was placed on Setting Ambitious Goals since this category is largely about recognizing the scope of the problem and making a promise to address it, but this has become common amongst all parties, while the details and implementation of plans are more challenging.

Detailed Score Table

Category-by-Category Explanation

Setting Ambitious Goals: Targets and Timelines

All of the parties continue to talk about the need for housing and to make broad commitments to build more homes. The differences lie largely in the details of how to make that happen.

All parties committed to building at least 1.5 million homes in the next decade, with the Ontario Greens working to build 2 million homes within urban boundaries. However, the Progressive Conservatives (PCs) include long-term care beds in their targets. While there is a desperate need for more long-term care beds, other parties count these separately, making the PC’s effective target lower. In addition, the PCs committed to this target last election as part of their commitment to the HATF report and have fallen behind the pace needed to reach this goal.

Currently, housing targets are assigned to different municipalities by the province but the method lacks transparency. It appears to be partly based on recent growth trends, which would put more emphasis on suburban areas that have had high recent growth rates, while allowing areas that have fallen behind to lower their standards. Only the Greens make some allusion to any changes, saying that they will plan for unit mix and housing type based on demographic and immigration projections.

The Ontario New Democrats are the only ones who have made a commitment to ending chronic homelessness but the Greens state that they will take a housing-first approach to homelessness.

Building More: Measures To Increase Housing Supply

To meet housing targets, there needs to be land where you can build more housing. Barriers to this include municipal zoning standards related to housing type, density, setbacks and parking minimums. The HATF report recommended legalizing four units and four storeys on all residential land, with additional height and density along transit corridors and near major public transit stations. All four parties committed to not building on the Greenbelt at the debate, although Ford noted that he had made this promise last election before breaking it and then reversed following public outcry. This would mean that new housing would be mainly planned as infill development, brownfield remediation and/or making use of existing greenfield sites within urban boundaries.

Despite committing to the HATF report as their road map last election, the Progressive Conservatives have only legalized three units per lot with no changes to height or setbacks. In fact, they have criticized other parties for committing to the HATF recommendations and said that it would be a “massive mistake” to put four storey buildings in communities. They also criticized the Ontario Greens’ bill to allow mid-rise apartments on transit corridors. The PCs did make regulatory changes to set minimum provincial standards for angular planes, minimum lot size and building separation for additional residential units, but it would be good to see them recognize that similar barriers exist for multiplexes and small apartments. Bill 185 removed parking requirements in protected major transit station areas. On transit-oriented housing, their record is mixed. They made some changes in height permissions at Eglinton LRT stops, and they have proposed transit-oriented communities around future subway and LRT extensions, but they have yet to amend or approve proposals for existing subway stations or Finch West LRT stations in Toronto, some of which were submitted over four years ago. They also revoked a minister’s zoning order for the transit-oriented community near Mimico GO station after the deal with the developer fell through. A PC candidate in Oakville recently released a statement objecting to transit-oriented community plans near Oakville GO station.

The Ontario NDP propose to legalize more housing "like semis, townhomes and fourplex apartments in all neighbourhoods” and campaign literature mentions legalizing four storeys. They would also allow mid-rise apartments near transit as-of-right. They do not specifically mention additional barriers to housing such as setbacks or parking minimums.

The Ontario Liberals do not specifically mention legalizing four units and four storeys in their platform, but they did move a private members' bill to amend Official Plans and zoning by-laws for up to four units and four storeys on any land zoned as residential and the Progressive Conservatives have criticized the Liberals for their commitment to this proposal. Their platform promises to modernize design requirements like setbacks, stepbacks and angular planes. They also promise to modernize the building code, but there are few specifics so this may not include single stair updates for mid-rises. They reference British Columbia’s recent transit-oriented housing policy as a best practice that they will follow, a plan the More Neighbours has long supported. The Ontario Liberal Party candidate in York-South Weston appears to have started a petition objecting to the Ministerial Zoning Order for affordable housing on Lawrence Ave W.

The Greens propose allowing four units and four storeys on all residential lots, sixplexes in cities with populations over 500,000, and mid-rises on main streets and transit corridors in cities with populations over 100,000. They propose to set provincial standards for floor space index, setbacks and angular planes for missing middle and mid-rise housing and to end mandatory parking minimums. They would make transit funding contingent on minimum density requirements at major transit stations and along corridors. They would reverse recent changes to urban boundaries but add incentives to encourage building in existing cities.

None of the parties make mention of legalizing or regulating multi-tenant housing (rooming houses). None of the parties are specific about building code changes that would help make small mid-rise developments more feasible (eg. single stair changes such as those made recently in BC).

Housing Justice: More Social, Affordable, Co-op, and Rental, with Tenant Protections

Market rate housing, even with more efficient approval processes and scalable construction methods, will remain out-of-reach for some Ontario residents. This can be addressed through subsidies to individuals (eg. rental supplements, welfare programs, Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and Ontario Works) and/or by subsidizing dedicated affordable housing units (social and below-market housing). In addition, a diversity of developer, ownership and operating models are possible, including a public builder, non-profit partnerships and co-ops. It is important that such subsidies and operating models are designed to cover not just the construction but the ongoing operational costs to maintain the buildings. This is also true for tenant protection measures, which can make new rental development less appealing and shift the market toward condo and ownership units.

The Progressive Conservatives do not propose changes to ODSP or Ontario Works. They partnered with the Federal government on the Canada Ontario Housing Benefit. They have promised that affordable housing will be considered as part of the transit-oriented communities along the Ontario Line, but have not provided details. The PCs promise that part of their $8 billion Build Ontario Fund will go to affordable housing but don’t say how much or how many units it is expected to build. They worked with the Federal government to remove HST on new purpose-built rental buildings, as well as removing Development Charges for affordable housing and reducing them for 2- and 3-bedroom rentals (Bill 23). Despite a focus on removing encampments, they have not made significant investments in supportive or transitional housing and they withheld a minister’s zoning order for supportive housing at the request of the local Willowdale MPP after granting several previous MZOs. The Progressive Conservatives have made investments in the Landlord-Tenant Board, although it isn’t clear that tenants’ cases are being heard more quickly and they made cuts to legal aid when first elected.

The Ontario NDP are proposing at least 300,000 affordable rental homes over 10 years, although this commitment includes acquisitions as well as new builds. They estimate costs of $2.5 billion per year which, assuming an even spacing of 30,000 homes per year, is $83,000 per unit. This number appears quite low (eg. Toronto estimated that they would need about $20 billion of subsidy in addition to low-cost loans and free land to construct 65,000 affordable, deeply affordable and rent-controlled market units, or about $308,000 per unit). In addition, they estimate that Homes Ontario would bring in $349 million in revenue in 2026-2027 ($970 per unit per month if the program adds 30,000 units its first year) and $698 million in 2027-2028. This is unrealistically high for an affordable housing program, particularly if it includes the acquisition of older units in need of repair. They also propose to build 60,000 new supportive housing units and to upload shelter funding from municipalities to the province. They will double ODSP and Ontario Works, as well as expanding the Canada Ontario Housing Benefit. They are proposing to add rent controls to units constructed after 2018 and to implement vacancy control (so that rent cannot be increased between tenants) and they say that they will bring in a low-interest loan program to help small landlords with repairs and maintenance but this program does not appear in their costing; this will likely affect new market rental construction. Finally, they propose to fix the Landlord-Tenant Board by changing rules and cracking down on renovictions and funding legal aid.

The Ontario Liberals will remove Community Benefits Charges on co-op and rental housing, as well as removing the land transfer tax for non-profit housing providers. They promise to rapidly build supportive housing units but do not give a number or details or a cost breakdown. They estimate a $3.6 billion cost for their full housing plan, but a significant portion of this is likely for their development charge and infrastructure plan. The Liberals propose doubling ODSP and creating a Rental Emergency Support for Tenants Fund to reduce evictions. They will phase in rent controls on new builds to mitigate potential effects on new rental supply; the plan doesn’t provide details other than saying it will be modelled on places like Manitoba, which exempts new rental complexes from rent controls for the first 20 years after construction. They are proposing to clear the backlog at the Landlord-Tenant Board and resolve new cases in under two months by adding adjudicators and support staff. They will also reverse the Conservatives’ legal aid cuts.

The Greens propose to build 250,000 affordable and co-op homes; 60,000 supportive homes and 22,000 deeply affordable for-indigenous, by-indigenous homes over ten years. They budgeted $687 million per year for this. Assuming the proposed units are evenly distributed over the ten years, this works out to a $20,700 subsidy per unit. The Greens are the only party to provide clear cost estimates but this number appears an order of magnitude too low (compare to Toronto's $308,000 per unit estimate). When combined with the Greens’ plan to re-implement rent controls and add vacancy controls without other offsets, the operating model that would allow for building maintenance is also unclear. The Greens also propose to lease all suitable public land for non-profit and co-op housing and would introduce a brownfield remediation fund for affordable housing, as well as providing low-interest loans. They propose to double ODSP and OW as the first step to a basic income program and would introduce a portable housing benefit for 311,000 households. They would reform the Landlord-Tenant Board and increase legal aid funding. They support rental replacement by-laws and would introduce a rental registry.

Changing Behaviour and Aligning Incentives: Taxes, Fees and Municipal Cooperation

Current taxes and fees on housing are estimated to be almost 30% of a new home’s cost. In addition to provincial HST and land transfer taxes, the province sets the rules that govern municipal development charges, parkland fees, community benefits charges and, in Toronto’s case, a municipal land transfer tax. These influence what gets built and set a price floor for new housing. While municipalities use these charges for water and sewer upgrades, they also cover services that were downloaded from the province. Alternative models, such as municipal corporations or provincial uploading, could reduce up-front costs for housing. With more general revenue sources and more available public data, scrutiny for rising infrastructure costs, such as the 70% increase in development charges that Toronto has seen over the last five years, would likely face greater public accountability.

The Progressive Conservatives have had a tumultuous relationship with development charges this past term. With Bill 23, they removed development charges on affordable housing, reduced them for multi-bedroom purpose-built rentals and removed the ability to charge for some services that were not growth-related. They also put limits on how development charge increases could be phased in, promising to reimburse municipalities following audits, but later cancelled the audits and then reversed the phase-in limits with Bill 185. In their current plan, they once again promise to make municipalities make development charges more transparent and to standardize their calculation across municipalities. The PCs also previously capped Community Benefits Charges at 4% of the land value, reducing the uncertainty of previous site-by-site negotiations. The PCs worked with the Federal government to remove HST on purpose built rentals. They launched the Building Faster Fund to reward municipalities that hit their housing targets, although the amounts are much smaller than development charges in some cities (eg. Toronto received about $3600 per unit through the BFF, but charges $80,000 in development charges on a 2-bedroom apartment). The PCs are promising to add an additional $5 billion to the Building Ontario Fund, $2 billion to Municipal Housing Infrastructure Fund and $300 million for community infrastructure. However, this money is not tied to housing starts or reduced housing taxes. They say that they would work with “housing-forward municipalities” to reduce development charges but don’t say how they would handle municipalities that have fallen behind. The Ontario government has also held MPAC assessments at 2016 levels, which can affect the distribution of property taxes.

The Ontario NDP promise to upload housing and shelter services back to the province, as well as to provide consistent funding for road maintenance and snow-clearing through a funding formula. They say that they would work with municipalities on incentives for affordable housing for development charge easements but this is not included in their costing and Bill 23 already removed development charges for homes that are less than 80% of average market rent. The NDP are planning to increase the provincial land transfer tax on homes over $3 million, which they expect to bring in $33 million per year in revenue and could help fund some of these promises.

The Ontario Liberals promise to remove development charges on all units under 3000 square feet and to remove the provincial land transfer tax for first-time homebuyers, downsizing seniors and non-profit builders. They would remove Community Benefits Charges for co-op and rental housing. They would reimburse municipalities for infrastructure with the Better Communities Fund, which would link funding to the number, type and speed of housing approvals. Development charges for infrastructure would still be applied for greenfield projects. The Liberals give an overall cost estimate for their program of $3.6 billion. The majority of this is likely for the Better Communities Fund that is intended to replace Development Charges but, if this is the cost for a four-year term rather than the annual cost, this is unlikely to be enough to fully reimburse municipalities (compare to the Greens cost estimate for service upload and municipal reimbursement of $5 billion per year).

The Ontario Greens would remove development charges on units under 2000 square feet inside urban boundaries and reimburse municipalities for revenue losses. They would remove the land transfer tax for first-time homebuyers. They would also upload costs for community housing, shelters, and transit funding from municipalities to the province, as well as allowing municipalities to implement new revenue tools for infrastructure and critical services. They would offer low-cost loans for small-scale builders of missing middle and mid-rise housing, as well as increasing legal supports.

No parties suggested making data on available infrastructure more accessible to the public to improve transparency, guide decision-making and allow the public to better hold governments to account on housing and infrastructure.

Scaling Up and Building Faster: Innovative Construction Methods, Expedited Processes, New Legal and Financing Structures

The Progressive Conservatives have engaged with modular home builders and the government website includes some information for interested homeowners and developers. They would invest $50 million in more factory-built homes and new home-building technology. They updated the building code to allow mass timber construction up to 18 storeys. They provide information about co-ownership but do not provide standard forms or legal templates. They promise to add $1 billion to the Skilled Development Fund to help train more than 1 million workers in skilled trades. They attempted to legislate faster approval times in Bill 109 but reversed penalties in Bill 185 following municipal pushback. They also removed the ability for third parties to appeal decisions to the Ontario Land Tribunal but took a blanket approach rather than limiting to provincial priorities. They want to standardize development study requirements and develop a province-wide tool to accelerate approvals, but it is not clear how such a standardization would work with the wildly varying zoning requirements between municipalities that the PCs have avoided standardizing.

The Ontario NDP say that they will accelerate housing and infrastructure that can start immediately, although there are few details. In response to questions from OREA, the party committed to supporting modular and other innovative construction methods, as well as implementing a condo-style framework for multiplexes. In addition, they will support pathways into skilled trades and plan to use their Homes Ontario plan to retain skilled labour with employment through market slowdowns.

The Ontario Liberals committed to building code modernization in their platform and, in response to OREA, indicated support for modular and other innovative construction methods. They also indicated support for a condo-style framework for multiplexes. They would establish a provincial catalogue of pre-approved designs and would expand access to skilled trades.

The Ontario Greens would require municipalities to permit pre-approved designs. They would also update the building code and financial tools to incentivize modular and mass timber construction. They would address red tape and financial barriers associated with co-housing. One potential concern is their commitment to increasing collaboration and consultation with municipalities, a strategy that the Progressive Conservatives have occasionally fallen back on and that has resulted in many municipalities missing their housing targets. This idea seems to conflict with some other policies: for example, if municipalities are required to permit pre-approved designs but some municipalities do not want to, how will collaboration work?

Make Your Voice Heard

We hope that these summaries are useful and can inform your vote to make housing a priority in Ontario. Election Day is February 27.

Is the City of Toronto hitting its milestones?

As of December 31, 2024, Toronto has completed 15 of the 23 milestones that were scheduled to be completed by this date. Another 12 milestones have later due dates and one of these is already completed. Only 12 milestones have been completed on time. 

There is some nuance. The City went beyond its initial plans in some areas (eg. increased the unit cap for apartments on Major Streets from 30 to 60 for milestone 7.1, or completing the first call for applications for the rental incentive program ahead of schedule for milestone 6.2). However, other milestones for reports were completed with disappointing outcomes that are unlikely to result in more housing (eg. dismissiveness of BC-style permissions for transit-oriented development in milestone 4.4, or the apparent lack of formal review of shadow policies for milestone 7.5). 

Several milestones (notably those in Initiatives 2 and 4) are dependent on the successful delivery of a small number of projects, meaning that delays in these milestones will have a large impact on Toronto’s ability to deliver new units.

In addition to the summary chart below, you can find a detailed breakdown of individual milestones with links on our detailed tracker spreadsheet, which has separate tabs for tracking the milestones and summarizing the initiatives.

These milestone numbers provide an overall summary of Toronto's progress. For those interested in the nitty-gritty, there are more details on how Toronto's initiatives relate to the HAF goals below.

What is the Housing Accelerator Fund?

The Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) is a federal government program where municipalities applied for a portion of $4 billion in exchange for commitments to change their housing systems. The pre-application guide summarizes the program this way:

Through the provision of incentive funding, the HAF is intended to drive transformational change within the sphere of control of the local government regarding land use planning and development approvals with the overall objective to ‘accelerate supply’ of housing.

Objectives, targets and evaluation criteria are laid out in the pre-application guide. Key points:

• Initiatives should produce new housing supply. Funding was awarded based on predictions for additional building permits issued above historic averages. There were bonus funds for multi-unit transit-oriented housing, missing middle housing, and affordable housing, but the focus was on making changes that would permit more new housing.
• Initiatives should have an impact on the housing system, not just individual projects. In general, the changes that municipalities proposed were to be broad reforms or long-term commitments that would continue to accelerate housing and/or increase housing supply after the HAF program ended.
  This differs from many other federal government programs, where funds are provided to subsidize units in a specific project. Many of those projects have run into delays and cost overruns due to the ways that municipalities currently plan and approve housing and their long processing times. The federal government is not able to change these rules and processes directly. The goal of this program was to incentivize municipalities to make those changes.
• The program was competitive. Not every municipality that applied was awarded funding. Furthermore, the amount of funding was not based on need or population, but on the strength of the application and how likely it was to transform the housing system and produce more housing. This was evaluated by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), who administered the program. Municipalities interested in more funding would therefore need to propose bigger, more sweeping changes.

Successful HAF applicants will receive funds in four installments and are required to release annual public reports within 30 days of the anniversary of the effective agreement date. (Toronto passed a motion for HAF commitments at City Council on December 13, 2023 and the agreement was signed on December 20, 2023.) The second and third installments are likely to be based on meeting the milestones in the signed agreement. The final installment is intended to be based on building permit data that would indicate that more permits were issued by the end of the HAF program.

All of these aspects are important for the success of the Housing Accelerator Fund, but they are more complex than evaluating milestones and timelines. The next sections are therefore more detailed.

Are Toronto’s initiatives new?

The pre-application guide stated that initiatives should be new, meaning that they had not started prior to the 2022 federal budget. This requirement appears to have been relaxed. 

Toronto’s application includes a number of complex projects that have been underway for years, with the assumption that changes could expedite or expand those projects to produce additional housing. In evaluating whether initiatives were new, we therefore note both what milestones were planned - or even completed - prior to HAF, as well as whether new units are likely to be added or timelines reduced, but we put more focus on new or additional units.

A breakdown by initiative:

1. Expedite Approvals - Yes. Toronto has made several previous attempts to re-evaluate and speed up their approval process (eg. Concept 2 Keys). The Development and Growth Division was a restructuring first announced in October 2022 by former Mayor John Tory. It is not clear whether new digital tools were part of the initial plan or were added for HAF.
   If successful, faster approvals would reduce costs during construction and reduce uncertainty. This helps to make more projects viable and would produce an increase in new housing supply.
2. TCHC Revitalization - Mixed. The TCHC revitalization projects at Regent Park, Firgrove, and Lawrence Heights, are major projects that the City has been working on for years, but one stated justification for their inclusion in HAF is that the money could expedite these projects, allowing them to start construction sooner. Unfortunately, Regent Park and Lawrence Heights have already encountered delays.
   The Regent Park rezoning in July 2023 added 273 new units on top of existing plans. It was later discovered that these plans conflicted with City infrastructure and a new rezoning was passed in December 2024. This will delay the project but the City also added 98 more market units and somewhat fewer units of affordable/RGI housing (the exact number was not specified. The gross floor area is similar to the market rate addition, but the RGI/affordable units will include more 4- and 5-bedroom apartments).
   The Firgrove rezoning and Plan of Subdivision was passed with conditions by Council in July 2022 with delegated authority for reviewing the conditions and final approval given to the Chief Planner. This final approval appears to have been granted in early 2023 with few details publicly available, but the delegated authority is unlikely to include the ability to approve additional units so it is not clear how this project was expanded or expedited by HAF.
   The Lawrence Heights revitalization project started in October 2015. The City states that its initial plans don't meet the minimum density required under the Protected Major Transit Station Area (PMTSA) plans, so they are looking at a redesign to meet that minimum. It is not clear how many units this might add at this time. The highest minimum density in the PMTSA plans in this area is a floor space index of 3. The project is also behind schedule and a request for proposal has not yet been issued.
3. Protecting Rental Homes - No. This initiative is not planned to produce any new units and, as a result, Toronto did not receive any funding based on it, although it did commit to several milestones.
   The milestones themselves are a mix of things that were already underway and new plans. The pre-development fund is a new idea, possibly developed in response to feedback from small and non-profit developers who attempted to apply to Housing Now but found the cost and time of applying for City programs was too great to be worthwhile. The Multi-Unit Residential Acquisition program is an existing program passed in 2021.PH28.3. The housing at-risk table appears to be new, although the City has several existing programs for eviction prevention (eg. EPIC and the Toronto Rent Bank). The renoviction by-law was initiated in July 2022 and the by-law proposal and implementation plan were originally intended to come back before HAF application submission in Q2 2023, but were delayed. The rental protection and supply team is new, intended to create a database of at-risk properties and track them.
4. Housing Now and Transit-Oriented Communities - Mixed. The Housing Now program was adopted in 2018.CC1.3 and shovels were intended to be in the ground on multiple City-owned sites within a few years, but the program has faced numerous obstacles and delays. As a result, the City passed several program enhancements in 2023.PH3.6 to look at height, density, unit mix and tenure, particularly adding flexibility for suburban sites where the market might not be strong enough to support the cross-subsidy needed for the program.
   It is not clear how much HAF influenced these changes, but it is likely that a number of these Housing Now projects would have been further delayed without additional funds. In addition, the City has added units on many sites.
   However, delays continue. Bloor-Kipling broke ground on its post-HAF schedule in Q3 2023, but 50 Wilson Heights broke ground in November 2024, a year behind the planned Q4 2023 start. And 140 Merton has not yet broken ground despite a plan to start construction in Q3 2024. This is not a promising sign for the 14 Housing Now sites that the City had hoped to expedite with HAF to reach the permitting stage by September 2026.
   The report on BC's transit-oriented housing permissions (Milestone 4.4) was novel and had the potential to lead to more new units but the City seems reluctant to pursue it. The zoning amendments for Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) have been held up by a lack of provincial approval, but the City's submissions also would not have allowed more housing as-of-right on most sites without intervention by the province. So, unfortunately, these milestones are not likely to add much new housing during the HAF timeframe. You can read more about our disappointment with the City's approach to MTSAs in our response to PH17.14.
5. Quayside - Yes. Quayside was planned prior to HAF but the City added new units to the plans after they submitted their application. The initial proposal in July 2022 was for 3500 units and the latest update estimates 4700 units. That is the number for both phases of the project and Phase 1, which makes up about half of the units, is aiming to start during HAF.
6. Rental Housing Supply Incentives - Mixed. This program replaces the previous Open Door program, but it accounts for provincial changes from Bill 23 and goes beyond the development charge reductions required by the province. Also, many of these projects were "stuck" and might not have been able to move forward during the HAF period without extra funding. However, in 2024, the City increased development charges, including an increase of about 20% for rental apartments. Many rental projects have therefore seen an increase in charges since HAF submission, but those selected for the Rental Housing Supply Incentive program will see a reduction, which makes the net effect on new rental supply more complicated.
7. Missing Middle - Mixed. Many of these milestones were part of the 2022-2026 Housing Action Plan (2023.EX3.1) and had initial completion deadlines that fell before HAF. For example, the post-secondary housing strategy was part of the Housing Action Plan initially due in Q4 2023, but HAF altered that deadline to March 30, 2025. However, the 6-unit/4-storey, how-to guide, simplified design guidelines and built-form concepts and the availability of the missing middle pilot designs appear to be new.
   In addition, the City has taken steps to add units to some existing plans. The Major Streets milestone was scheduled for a final report in Q4 2023 but delays meant that the by-law passed in May 2024 with a 60-unit cap that exceeded the initial plans for a 30-unit cap. The as-of-right zoning along Avenues was also part of the Housing Action Plan and has been split into parts, some of which have been delayed, but the City is examining opportunities for additional height.
   The initial report for 6-units/4-storeys was delayed until December 2024 and a proposals report was then planned for December 2025, which likely would not have produced new units during HAF, but an amendment now aims for a final report in December 2025. The angular plane re-examination was in progress before HAF but the "no net new shadow" review is new. Unfortunately, these have been delayed and the City's apparent reluctance to move forward with a review of the "no net new shadow" policy and skepticism about allowing heights that would permit four storeys in more Neighbourhoods mean that this initiative will likely result in less additional housing than was hoped for under HAF. In addition, a motion to consider how the new mid-rise design guidelines that replaced angular planes would affect financial feasibility and housing construction was voted down at committee.
8. Apartment Infill - Mixed. The apartment infill initiative was part of the Housing Action Plan that pre-dated HAF and did not meet the initial deadline in that Work Plan, but it is possible that HAF may incentivize broader reforms for this Work Plan item. If completed, this initiative could simplify some forms of infill in Apartment Neighbourhoods. Any building over 10 units would need site plan approval, but zoning could be as-of-right, which would facilitate more housing in these areas. However, given that this initiative is behind schedule, it seems unlikely that 600 new, additional units will be completed during the HAF timeframe.

Will Toronto’s initiatives change the housing system?

The system impact of an initiative was evaluated by how much it would increase the stability and predictability in the housing system. A more predictable housing system has clear rules and processes, which reduce uncertainty and risk, making it easier to plan and complete homes. This differs from the stability that is created for tenants who are selected to live in a particular building that might have been subsidized by HAF funds; for it to be systemic, the impact should go beyond those who live in the specific units created. Of course, any time that net new homes are created, the increased supply improves the overall stability of the housing system, but this is true of any homes (whether subsidized or not), so it seems likely that the federal government was interested in effects beyond this.

An interesting aspect of HAF is that the funds did not necessarily have to be spent only on the proposed initiatives. A municipality might propose broad zoning changes to make the construction of market housing easier, with a small part of the funds going toward staff to make those changes, but the bulk of the funds could be spent on other projects entirely. These might include deepening affordability on planned housing, repairing existing social housing, new wastewater infrastructure, etc., even if none of those projects were part of a proposed initiative (see Section 8 of the pre-application guide for more).

The HAF Initiatives that Toronto chose include several big, pre-existing projects (the TCHC revitalization projects, the Housing Now sites and Quayside) that the City has struggled to get off the ground. A large amount of City-owned affordable housing would transform the housing system, but this will not happen if these projects are not completed or if delays and cost overruns make future subsidized housing projects politically toxic. The City has often struggled with its own processes, highlighting the need for system-level change because "business as usual" is creating delays and adding costs. A change in the housing system would fix the underlying problems rather than using funds to unstick projects caught up in these lengthy processes.

For example, rather than creating a fast-track process for selected affordable housing projects, HAF might incentivize a city to review the list of required studies and urban design guidelines to determine whether they actually result in better communities or housing outcomes. Rather than using HAF money to buy a relatively small number of aging apartments, a city could consider whether concentrating growth into a few apartment-rich areas contributes to the demolition of older, more affordable buildings. Rather than adding subsidy for one Housing Now project, consider places where a one-time investment could reduce time on bespoke site-specific evaluations for future projects.

There are some initiatives where the City committed to broader, long-term changes, but there are others where the City placed limitations on itself by being unwilling to reconsider how its current system has contributed to the housing crisis:

1. Expedite Approvals - Yes. More rapid approvals would decrease uncertainty and reduce costs, making more projects viable and allowing shovels to get in the ground sooner.
2. TCHC Revitalization - No. CMHC stated that specific capital projects were not an eligible initiative. HAF initiatives should offer system-level change beyond adding units on specific projects. The TCHC revitalization initiative will make many of these sites mixed-income, which is a shift from how they have operated previously and may allow these buildings to be more easily maintained.
3. Protecting Rental Homes - Mixed. The pre-development fund will more easily allow small and non-profit developers to apply to City programs. The City could have considered whether its wide array of programs with separate application requirements could be simplified to lower these barriers for everyone, but a pre-development fund is still an improvement in changing who can easily access and navigate the housing system.
   The MURA and eviction prevention programs are largely signs of the growing problems further upstream in the housing system. The increasing demand for these last-resort measures is a sign of the failure to fix that system. These programs help the tenants who can access them but, with low vacancy rates and limited housing supply, new tenants will still struggle to find suitable places to live. A housing system approach would consider how the City's existing Official Plan excludes new apartments from most of Toronto's residential land, forcing new apartments into existing apartment neighbourhoods and contributing to the precarious situation of tenants there. In addition, previous municipal efforts to protect tenants have been well-intentioned but lacked enforcement, limiting their effectiveness.
4. Housing Now and Transit-Oriented Communities - Mixed. "Unsticking" projects that are in trouble because of interest rate and construction cost increases will contribute to housing supply and is worthwhile, but doing this through additional funding is not a systemic fix. Given that the initial Housing Now delays led projects to run into a period of higher interest rates, a systemic fix might re-examine the way that the City initially put sites out for bid. Some of this reflection, including revisiting the height and density of sites, was part of 2023.PH3.6, but it would be good to have a public accounting that could facilitate a system-level examination. The fact that two of the three sites that were planned for ground-breaking within a year of HAF are behind may indicate that little has changed.
   That said, the scale of Housing Now (along with the TCHC revitalization in Initiative 2 and Quayside in Initiative 5) does have some transformative potential. Firstly, the City is examining its current use of public land, particularly near transit, and recognizing that dense, affordable housing is a good use of this land. This is a change in mindset from just a few years ago where land was being used for low-rise libraries with no housing on top.
   In addition, a large amount of non-market housing would help to apply downward pressure on prices. Also, a properly-funded public builder model could allow labour retention and continued housing supply during economic downturns. If the City retains some ownership or control over the land and units, these projects could even provide returns to the City that could be invested in future new affordable housing initiatives. This would be a fundamental change from how homebuilding currently operates.
5. Quayside - No. The Quayside initiative is, again, more of a specific capital project than a change to the housing system. This project includes plans for new infrastructure, but this is a reflection of the City's current growth strategy, which puts most new density into a few small areas. This necessitates infrastructure upgrades while many low-rise neighbourhoods, including some near Danforth subway stations, limit new housing and decrease in population. Although the City included some measures to increase missing middle and mid-rise forms in its HAF application (Initiative 7), some of the struggles to fund and expedite the larger high-rise initiatives reflect the challenges of Toronto's existing housing system. The City could have put more emphasis in its HAF application on transforming its previous plans and growth patterns that concentrate new residents within a few high-density areas.
6. Rental Housing Supply Incentives - Yes. This specific rental incentive program only lasts as long as the funding. However, it is intended as a demonstration for an expanded program with provincial and federal contributions. In addition, the City has created a new multi-residential property class that applies to all new purpose-built rental buildings, which could shift the balance between rental and condo buildings, as well as adding to supply.
   Finally, this initiative demonstrates the barrier that development charges create for housing viability. With a long-term funding agreement, this program might turn into a more general reform to development charges rather than an application-based program. The Mayor seemed open to such a possibility during the debate for 2024.CC24.16 at Council.
7. Missing Middle - Yes. If carried out as described, this initiative represents a series of broad reforms that could change where and how Toronto builds housing. This would allow more missing middle homes as-of-right in existing Neighbourhoods and make more mid-rise homes on Avenues feasible. It would make better use of existing infrastructure, make more land available for denser housing forms, and diversify the types of housing in Toronto. In addition, ground-related housing that can be built more quickly would be less subject to interest rate and market fluctuations, adding predictability to the housing system.
   However, the City's responses to Minister Fraser's letter were reluctant to go beyond the existing Housing Action Plan. In response to a request to permit four storeys in more areas of the city, the City talked about its Major Transit Station Areas, which did not change existing low-rise land use designations and which are reliant on provincial approval. This would also apply to selected land near some subway and LRT stations but would not include any of the low-rise Neighbourhood areas that lie outside of City-delineated MTSAs.
   An unwillingness to rethink the underlying system and growth patterns limits the City's ability to address other requests in the Minister's letter. For example, the City's response to a request to "commit to reducing restrictions...and rules regarding the 'no net new shadow' policy..." stated that the shadow policies are important because 89% of new units will be in buildings of 5 storeys or greater. In fact, most new units will be in high-rises, but this is itself a result of existing land use designations and design guidelines that make other housing forms less feasible: since 2010, there have been fewer than 10 residential mid-rises built per year, on average. Putting a large proportion of new units into high rises in a few designated growth centres is itself a part of the Official Plan that could be reconsidered under HAF. And one stated aim of the shadow policy - creating high quality parks near residents of dense developments - is at odds with the very fact that dense developments near parks are limited by that shadow policy!
   Similarly, the City proposed very few system-level changes for high-rises despite the fact that they make up the majority of new housing under the existing system. In recent plans for Downsview and a few affordable housing proposals, the City has shown some flexibility in its 750 square metre floor plate and podium guidelines for tall buildings. HAF could have incentivized these changes in more places. The greatest potential for more streamlined approval of high-rises was likely in Major Transit Station Areas, but the limited changes proposed by the City in its submissions to the province are unlikely to result in a significant number of additional units without provincial amendments.
8. Apartment Infill - Yes. The initial description of this initiative in Attachment 2 of MM13.27 includes both a process to identify existing under-utilized sites that could permit more housing under the current by-law or with a site-specific rezoning, as well as an overall review of the existing Zoning By-laws. The latter has more potential for systemic change that could reduce the need for future zoning by-law amendments; site-specific rezonings for apartment infill already occur under the current system. The preliminary report suggested that the variety of existing apartment sites could make as-of-right permissions challenging, but several potential strategies are discussed. It is difficult to say how transformative the changes might be until the proposals report is available.

Is Toronto’s HAF progress competitive with other cities?

As Canada’s largest City with an increasing affordability problem, Toronto should be expected to lead the way in reforms, whether incentivized by HAF or not. Toronto’s EHON program and Housing Action Plan 2022-2026, both of which pre-dated HAF, were important steps to legalizing more housing and changing Toronto’s current approach to growth. However, many of these ideas missed their initial deadlines and then were recycled for HAF, rather than the program incentivizing new ideas. Meanwhile other, smaller cities across Canada committed to changes that were similar to what Toronto has recently done.

GTA cities like Hamilton, Burlington and Guelph committed to allowing four units per lot. Waterloo moved to allow four storeys city-wide, while Regina is allowing four storeys near frequent transit and Charlottetown is allowing four storeys near UPEI. None of those proposals appear to have been on the table before HAF, but the funding incentivized these cities to change. The exception might be Edmonton, who should be considered a leader for proactive housing policy in Canada, allowing up to three storeys and eight units in its small-scale residential zone, the culmination of a process that began in 2018 when the city recognized the need to be more flexible to accommodate new growth and a variety of housing types.

In this context, Toronto’s HAF submission appears somewhat weak, composed of a number of existing initiatives that do not appear to have been incentivized by HAF, although some initiatives were expanded. The delays and apparent reluctance to allow up to four storeys in Neighbourhood residential areas, to consider BC-style transit rezoning or to revisit shadow policies calls into question the City’s true willingness to meet the requests in Minister Fraser’s letter.

Statements from some Toronto city councillors also suggest that some parts of Council think that existing City processes are sufficient, even good, that they have not contributed to the housing crisis or worsened affordability. In particular, Councillor Perks, the Chair of Toronto’s Planning and Housing Committee stated that the idea “that the barrier to housing was in zoning by-laws and fees and fines and so on has been proven false. It has been proven utterly, utterly false.” Ultimately, all that matters for funding is that the City hits its milestones and this results in additional building permits. However, these types of statements suggest that HAF reforms may not be a priority, which could explain the delays in hitting some milestones.

If HAF is to encourage municipalities to reform their policies, then any city that declares that its long-standing processes are not to blame calls into question why they would be receiving HAF funds. A competitive HAF program must evaluate whether a good-faith effort is being made to accelerate housing, especially compared to other, smaller cities that have committed to new, broad reforms.

Where is this information from?

The information on initiatives, milestones and timelines was obtained through an Access to Information request to the federal government and a Freedom of Information request to the City of Toronto. Some important documents include:

• The final signed Housing Accelerator Fund agreement
• A copy of the HAF application submitted to CMHC on Aug 25, 2023. Note that this application was still under discussion with CMHC and does not represent final commitments. However, many milestones match those in the signed agreement but more detail is included here, which helps to identify intentions.
• The City’s description of initiatives in Attachment 2 of the item that it passed at Council, committing to the agreement
• The public letter from then-Housing Minister Sean Fraser outlining requested changes to the City’s submission
• The Work Plan from Attachment 1 of the pre-HAF Housing Action Plan 2022-2026 for comparison to HAF initiatives and milestones 

Information on progress was typically obtained through searches of the City’s website and the most relevant sources are linked alongside each milestone in the detailed spreadsheet.

This is a volunteer effort to track progress on Toronto’s Housing Accelerator Fund milestones. It was limited by publicly available information and may not reflect internal progress within City of Toronto Departments that has not yet been publicly reported or that was missed in our searches. If you believe that we have missed or misinterpreted something, please contact us at volunteer@moreneighbours.ca.

Development Charges 101

By Damien Moule X:@damienmoule

Today, we take a look at Development Charges. In Toronto, you will often hear a councillor or city staff member utter the phrase “growth pays for growth”. When they say that, they are usually referring to Development Charges. This article goes through the basics of Development Charges: what are they, how they work, and what impact they have on housing.

What are Development Charges?

Development Charges are fees raised by municipalities and school boards on new housing development. They are raised for the purpose of paying for new infrastructure required as a result of the new development. 

In Ontario, the rules and regulations for Development Charges are outlined in the Development Charges Act and Regulation 20/98 under the Education Act. For the City of Toronto, they are implemented through Bylaw 1137-2022, and are helpfully summarized on the City’s website. For the Toronto Catholic District School Board, they are implemented through Bylaw 2023 No. 195. Similar fees are raised in multiple provinces in Canada, as well as other jurisdictions around the world. 

How Much are Toronto’s Development Charges?

The City raises two types of development charges. The first and largest are the base Development Charges. The City collects different amounts of Development Charges for each of the following categories: residential non-rental, residential rental, non-residential. It has also set separate rates for buildings in inclusionary zoning areas, but inclusionary zoning is not currently in effect in Toronto. The 2024 rates for residential non-rental are shown in the table below. The rates are a significant fraction of the cost of new housing, in the range of 10% of average sale prices for new apartments.  

Development Charges have not always been this high in Toronto. They have increased rapidly over the past 15 years. The chart below shows the Development Charges raised on non-rental residential units from 2009 to 2024. In that time, the charge on a non-rental one bedroom apartment has gone from $4,985 to $52,676, an average annual increase of 17%. 

In the 2024 Capital Budget, the City of Toronto plans to collect a total of $518 million from Development Charges. This will cover 11% of planned 2024 capital spending (more on that later). The City also often raises more from Development Charges than it plans. For example in 2023, the City planned to raise $505 million, but actually collected $817 million.    

In addition to the base Development Charges collected by the City of Toronto, the Toronto Catholic District School Board also raises Education Development Charges. The rates for 2023 to 2028 are shown in the table below. While these are significantly lower than the Development Charges collected by the City, they too have been rising rapidly. 

The Toronto District School Board also wishes to raise Education Development Charges. They are not currently allowed to do so under the regulation, as the TDSB has excess capacity in its schools. Following a failed judicial review, they are lobbying the Ontario government to change the regulations to allow them to raise Education Development Charges.

Who Pays Development Charges?

Development Charges are collected from the developer. They are due at the time the building permit is issued with two exceptions. The first is rental housing, where development charges are collected in six annual installments following first occupancy. The second is laneway houses and garden suites, where development charges can be paid up to 20 years following the issue of the building permit. 

Are There Any Exemptions or Reductions?

There are many exemptions to Development Charges, some of which are outlined by provincial law, and some of which are outlined in the City of Toronto’s Bylaw. The main categories of exemptions include:

• School boards, 
• Universities and colleges, 
• Hospitals and hospices, 
• The City of Toronto itself,
• Affordable housing,
• Industrial uses,
• Places of worship,
• New or existing buildings with up to 3 or 4 units (depending on the building type) 

There are also development charge refunds available through the City of Toronto for meeting requirements of the Toronto Green Standards program. As an example, in 2024, a one bedroom unit which met the latest requirements in 2024 would be eligible for a refund of $4,353.31

How Do Development Charges Impact New Housing Prices?

Development charges are a type of tax. As with any tax, there is a difference between who the tax is collected from and who ultimately bears the cost of the tax. This is known as tax incidence. Whether the cost mostly falls on the supplier (i.e. the developer) or the consumer (i.e. new home buyers) is an empirical question which depends on what economists call the elasticity of the housing supply and demand. 

This isn’t an article about economics, but a 2021 review of the economic literature on Development Charges by the Centre for Urban Policy and Local Governance at Western University concluded that in the GTA, new home buyers are likely bearing most of the cost of Development Charges. They also noted that the increased price for new housing as a result of Development Charges is also likely to increase the cost of existing homes as well.  

What Can Development Charges be Used to Fund?

The list of services is outlined in Section 4 of the Development Charges Act. The main categories include transit, water and sewer services, electricity infrastructure, emergency response services, libraries, long-term care facilities, and child care facilities. 

Education Development Charges, as the name implies, are used to fund the capital needs of school boards. 

Can the City Use Development Charges to Build New Housing?

No. Use of development charges for Housing Services was removed from the Development Charges Act as part of Bill 23. 

How Does the City Determine Development Charge Rates?

To determine Development Charges rates, municipalities must estimate what fraction of new infrastructure spending is required as a result of new development, and then what fraction of that spending is eligible for recovery under the Development Charges Act. Toronto’s most recent estimates were prepared in a May 2023 Development Charges Background Study by the consulting firm Hemson.

The study estimated residential and non-residential growth within the City, as well as planned level of transit service and historical costs of providing City services. It then estimated what fraction of the capital expenditures are eligible to be recovered under the Development Charges Act. 

The report concluded that $15 billion of the $67 billion dollar capital program from 2022 to 2041 would be eligible for recovery through Development Charges based on a projected population growth of 432,243 people and employment growth of 274,900 jobs. They then calculated the Development Charges rates based on that estimate which the City has implemented. 

These types of studies are complex, and estimation of population and cost is notoriously uncertain. This article won’t go through a breakdown of the methodology and modelling and whether they are reasonable. But there are two ways the City used the report that are worth mentioning. 

The first is that the residential rates calculated in the Background Report are based on $1.5 billion of affordable housing being eligible for Development Charge cost recovery (17% of the total eligible residential cost). However, as a result of Bill 23 (which was passed in 2022), affordable housing is no longer eligible for cost recovery. The City’s 2024 Development Charges rates are remarkably similar to those calculated in the Background Report, even though the affordable housing component is listed as $0. This suggests that the cost recovery for affordable housing was simply shifted to other categories rather than removed. 

The second is that the City is not obligated to recover the maximum amount of costs that are eligible under the Development Charges Act. They chose to set the rates to attempt to recover the maximum amount of capital costs. Given the current price of housing in Toronto, they could have chosen lower rates to avoid further increasing housing prices. 

Is the City Using the Development Charges it Raises?

When the City collects Development Charges, it assigns them to a project in the Capital Budget. However, the City of Toronto consistently underspends the Capital Budget, only spending on average 65% of the budgeted amount in a given year. As a result, the allocated Development Charges do not get spent when planned, and pile up waiting for projects to finish. As of June 30, 2024, there was a backlog of $3.2 billion of unspent Development Charges. 

Since in addition to spending Development Charges slower than it plans, the City also consistently raises more Development Charges than it plans, this suggests that the current Development Charges rates are higher than the City needs to support existing capital spending.

Here are some of the things worth thinking about when you give feedback at one of the public consultations.

Summary

• The existing Avenues policies have failed to produce the growth envisioned in the Official Plan.
• The new proposed Avenues policies will be an improvement, providing City Planning gets the details right. MNTO has concerns around the proposed Local Area Reviews and Avenues Typologies.
• You can support good policies for the Avenues by sharing your voice at upcoming Community Consultations. 

Why Do Avenues Matter?

Avenues are one of the three areas identified in the Official Plan where residential growth is encouraged, along with Centres and Downtown. They are the major “main streets” outside of the downtown core such as St. Clair or Kingston Road that will be familiar to most people. Avenues are the anchors for many communities where millions of people shop, eat, and spend time with friends and loved ones. 

The vision for Avenues, along with the 7 Avenues policies, are outlined in Chapter 2 of the Official Plan, and were written in 2002. The vision and policies are meant to guide City Planning staff on what changes should and shouldn’t be allowed when evaluating re-zoning applications within the Avenues area.

What’s Wrong with the Current Avenues Policies?

In short, the existing Avenues policies have been a disappointment. For the five and a half year period from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2023 only 142 projects were built along the Avenues, a rate of 28 per year. During that time, about half as many residential units were added along Avenues compared to Downtown. Rather than serving as key growth areas which could provide desperately needed homes throughout Toronto, the potential of Avenues has been sidelined.

There are four main reasons the Avenues have had disappointing growth: 

1. The Official Plan policies require that an Avenue Study be performed prior to development. Over the course of the 22 years in which the Avenues policies have existed, City Planning performed 30 studies covering only 45% of the Avenues. Many of these studies were themselves watered down to limit growth. For example, the Queen Street West Planning Study, which took 7 years to complete, set height limits to 1 or 2 stories above the existing built form, and required additional stepbacks above 3 stories, making growth unlikely. For the 55% of Avenues without Avenues Studies, rezoning can proceed only if the developer performs an Avenue Segment Review, adding additional time and cost.  
2. The Official Plan policies state that segments of Avenues which are designated as Neighbourhoods must reinforce the existing physical character of the Neighbourhood. Functionally, this eliminates any possible growth from these portions of Avenues, shrinking the already small area where growth is encouraged.
3. The Official Plan Avenues policies state that Avenues Studies should be implemented through as-of-right zoning. In practice there has typically been significant delay, measured in years, between the completion of an Avenue Study and updated zoning.
4. The areas designated as Avenues are small, and there has been no process to add new Avenues to plan for future growth.

What is the City Proposing to Fix Avenues?

The Avenues Policy Review proposals report suggests removing the requirement for Avenues Studies and Avenue Segment Reviews before re-zoning Avenues. Instead, Avenues policies would be implemented through as-of-right zoning using 3 new typologies shown in the table below to guide the Official Plan land use designations applied to each lot. An optional Local Area Review may also be undertaken where staff deem it necessary. 

The report also suggests allowing lot consolidation in Neighbourhoods next to an Avenue to allow for the construction of midrise buildings in areas with shallow lots, and includes language facilitating areas of transition between Avenues and adjacent Neighbourhoods. 

This report recommends removing the absolute priority of Neighbourhoods policies along Avenues when re-zoning, and states that Neighbhourhood-designated land along Avenues will be considered for conversion to Mixed Use or Apartment Neighbourhoods. 

Finally, the report outlines criteria that would be used to identify new Avenues for the final report, which would increase the area where growth and midrise buildings are encouraged.

Will that Fix Avenues?

Implementing the City’s recommended changes would be a significant improvement over the current Avenues Policies. The process of lengthy studies or expensive spot re-zonings would be replaced with as-of-right zoning along the Avenues. Lot consolidation would be allowed on shallow lots, making development along key Avenues, such as Sheppard Avenue around the subway, much more likely. This should drastically reduce the number of re-zoning applications required for midrise buildings and in general decrease the time and uncertainty, and therefore the cost, required to build along Avenues.

However, the details are always crucial for housing policies. And there are two pieces of the Proposals Report which could undermine these reforms.

The first is the inclusion of a discretionary Local Area Review. The Proposals Report does not say how these would be triggered, whether as part of re-zoning applications (which should be minimized), or through Site Plan Control Applications, which will still be required. It also does not say who will perform the study, City Planning, or the developer. Lastly, it does not clarify whether building would be allowed prior to completion of the study.

If the Avenues Studies are replaced by a discretionary review which a developer could be required to complete for every project before being granted a building permit, then it would be worse than the current process. We know that discretionary planning processes often transform into requirements, and if the review is performed by the developer and not City Planning, there is no incentive for City Planning to actually be discretionary with the use of these reviews. 

The second item of concern is the proposed Avenues typologies. These typologies would be used to assign different land use policies (Apartment Neighbourhoods or Mixed Use) to different parts of the Avenues. This may become a practical impediment to building, as changing from the Apartment Neighbourhood designation to Mixed Use would require an Official Plan Amendment, and likely a re-zoning application as well.  

The typologies add a layer of unnecessary complexity to the Avenues Policies. We believe that simplicity and flexibility in housing policy is a virtue. Mixed Use Areas allow more flexibility than Apartment Neighbourhoods. Designating all Avenues as Mixed Use Areas would allow for these main streets to evolve and grow as needed by their communities. If instead an expensive review process is required before this can happen, it likely won’t happen at all. 

How can you help?

The City of Toronto will be hosting Community Consultations on the Avenues Policy Review from June 24 to July 9. You can attend and push for clear, consistent, and flexible policies for Avenues. We will have more to say when the final draft comes to the Planning and Housing Committee later this year.

• June 24, 2024, 10:30 am - 12 pm (Scarborough)

• June 24, 2024, 6 - 7:30 pm (Etobicoke York)

• June 25, 2024, 10:30 am - 12 pm (Toronto East York)

• June 25, 2024, 6 - 7:30 pm (North York)

• July 3, 2024, 10:30 am - 12 pm (Etobicoke York)

• July 3, 2024, 6 - 7:30 pm (Scarborough)

• July 4, 2024, 10:30 am - 12 pm (North York)

• July 4, 2024, 6 - 7:30 pm (Toronto East York)

• July 8, 2024, 10:30 am - 12 pm (City-Wide)

• July 9, 2024, 6 - 7:30 pm (City-Wide)

"This is a slap in the face to every Ontarian struggling to afford a home. The Ontario government has been quick to criticize others as NIMBYs (Not-In-My-Backyard) but action has been glacial." remarked Eric Lombardi, President of More Neighbours Toronto.

The announcement was a disheartening moment for conservatives who champion property rights, uphold the sanctity of strong families, advocate for the success of blue-collar entrepreneurs, and stand for low taxes. It is particularly sombre for those weary of witnessing young Ontarians forced to seek opportunities elsewhere. Today, Doug Ford told the future of this province that the housing crisis is here to stay and that prosperity is best found somewhere else.

"The stark contrast between Ontario Progressive Conservatives leaning into anti-housing regulation, and the BC NDP enacting strong market reforms, is not lost on us at MNTO. BC's policies are inspired by Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force, and it'd be wise for the Ford government to take a page from their own playbook" suggested Director Bilal Akhtar.

Densification is the key to building more attainable and affordable housing options and to ensure well-paying jobs for Ontarians.

The government's focus on appeasing a small group of entrenched property owners over evidence-based solutions is irresponsible. This decision condemns countless Ontarians, especially young people and families, to a future of unaffordable rents and a life on pause.

Enough is enough!

MNTO urges Premier Ford and his government to:

• Implement the recommendations of its own Housing Affordability Task Force, including by-right fourplexes provincewide
• Prioritize building a variety of housing types, including apartments, across Ontario.
• Implement real incentives for municipalities to embrace densification.
• Work with communities to develop plans that address concerns while creating a more affordable future for all.

The housing crisis isn't going away. Ontarians deserve leadership, not absence. MNTO calls on all residents who value a future where everyone has a safe and affordable place to call home to raise their voices. 

Together, we can encourage the government to take real action on housing.

For more information, please contact:

Eric Lombardi, President

More Neighbours Toronto

media@moreneighbours.ca

https://moreneighbours.ca/

About More Neighbours Toronto

More Neighbours Toronto is a volunteer-only organization of housing advocates committed to building more multi-family homes of all kinds in Toronto. The organization advocates for reforms to increase the city’s capacity for homebuilding and counterbalances the anti-housing agenda that has dominated local politics, exacerbating the housing affordability crisis.

Toronto, December 14, 2023 – More Neighbours Toronto (MNTO), a leading housing advocacy group, expresses its deep disappointment with the City of Toronto’s proposal to the Federal Housing Accelerator Fund. MNTO is calling on the Federal Housing Minister, Sean Fraser, to reject the city’s submission on the grounds that it fails to meet the urgency and scale required to address Toronto's housing crisis.

"Toronto's proposal to the Housing Accelerator Fund is a clear missed opportunity," said Colleen Bailey, Director of MNTO. "Our city is in the midst of an affordability crisis, and the response we've seen from the city is unambitious and inadequate. We believe Minister Fraser must recognize that Toronto’s submission does not align with the transformative goals of the Fund."

MNTO's concerns stem from the city's proposed enhancements in response to Minister Fraser’s letter dated November 22, 2023. These enhancements, MNTO argues, suggest a complacency with the status quo and a lack of willingness to adopt more aggressive measures seen in other jurisdictions such as Vaughan and Mississauga.

MNTO recommends specific amendments to the city's response, including:

• Directing city staff to work with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to significantly increase height and density permissions near transit stations, in line with British Columbia’s recent policies. MNTO is especially critical of the lack of action from the provincial and municipal governments on increasing density in Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs).
• Proposing zoning amendments for city-wide as-of-right zoning for multiplexes and apartment buildings up to four storeys (height restrictions impose a de facto 3 storey limit in much of the city).
• Revising the "no net new shadow" policy to balance the creation of housing with the impact on shadows in nearby areas.
• Removing minimum parking requirements for all multi-tenant housing across Toronto.
• Addressing restrictions that limit building new apartments near existing underutilized infrastructure like parks and schools.

"As housing advocates, we are disheartened to see Toronto lag behind in a time when bold action is essential," added Pirawin Namasivayam, a volunteer with MNTO. "We urge Minister Fraser to consider our recommendations and push for a proposal that genuinely addresses the dire need for more affordable housing in our city."

"We can fix this housing crisis but our politicians need to be bolder and move faster," said MNTO volunteer Zakerie Farah. "I want to raise a family in this city that I grew up in." 

MNTO remains committed to advocating for comprehensive reforms that will enable the construction of multifamily homes across Toronto and ensure that the city is inclusive and accessible to all who dream of building their lives here.

For more information, please contact:

Eric Lombardi, President

More Neighbours Toronto

media@moreneighbours.ca

https://moreneighbours.ca/

About More Neighbours Toronto

More Neighbours Toronto is a volunteer-only organization of housing advocates committed to building more multifamily homes of all kinds in Toronto. The organization advocates for reforms to increase the city’s capacity for homebuilding and counterbalances the anti-housing agenda that has dominated local politics, exacerbating the housing affordability crisis.

The Mid-rise Building Performance Standards are a set of 2010 guidelines for buildings between 5-11 storeys. These include specifications about height, balconies, streetscapes and, the infamous “angular planes.” More formally known as part of the “mid-rise rear transition performance standards,” angular planes are intended to provide “transition” between mid-rise buildings and their surroundings, to limit shade and to prevent “overlook” onto neighbouring properties.

Not mentioned in the performance standards: how they affect the people living in these mid-rises. In the entire document, the only references to the interior of the building are about where the garbage and mechanical equipment should go, and how seeing the ground floor interior will affect people viewing it from the street.

The City has been hearing from more residents - including volunteers from More Neighbours - who would welcome mid-rise buildings near them, but see how the current guidelines are adding to costs, limiting unit sizes and aren’t climate friendly. We don’t know what staff will propose at the upcoming consultation, but here are some things to look out for and ask about.

1. Simpler designs reduce costs

The main problem with angular planes is that they result in fewer and smaller homes relative to a boxy design of the same height. This also reduces the potential for affordable housing because affordable units will be the first to go when costs rise. A 2021 report from Toronto Metropolitan University estimated that an 8-storey building on a site near Dundas and Ossington could have 97 units, with 77 affordable (79%) in a basic box design, but only 65 units, with 42 affordable (65%) under the current angular plane policy.

In addition, floor plans cannot be re-used when there is reduced floor space in upper storeys, adding to design costs and construction difficulties. Angular planes also add breaks in the surface area, reducing energy efficiency. When combined with the possibilities of mass timber and material reuse, mid-rises have great climate potential when simpler boxy designs are allowed.

2. Will the proposed guidelines make the process easier and shorter?

The original guidelines were intended to provide more certainty about timelines and to reduce the need for some studies. This largely has not happened. Shadow studies are still typically required for most applications, as are public consultations. Toronto has one of the longest approval timelines, around 18 months, with little variation for mid-rise buildings compared to high-rise.

It was also hoped that the guidelines would reassure the community about mid-rises being proposed near them. Despite formulas for heights based on road widths and angular plane definitions for deep and shallow lots, small groups of residents continue to insist that projects go back to the drawing board because of concerns about sunlight and overlook.

The City should aim for zoning and guidelines that can truly provide certainty and speed up approvals. This needs to include consideration of the economic feasibility of the mid-rises that are allowed as-of-right. If the process is not actually made simpler and faster by the guidelines, and residents are not reassured by them, they serve little purpose for anyone.

3. What is an appropriate balance?

The September 20 consultations have come about because the City is acknowledging that the design guidelines haven’t worked as intended. However, some language in their initial report still suggests that “perceived impacts” on surrounding areas and “minimizing impact on adjacent low rise areas” are of similar priority to the need for housing. It is critical to remind the City that housing should be their top priority.

4. Other guidelines

The Planning and Housing Committee item that approved these consultations was amended by Councillor Bradford to include consideration of all of the mid-rise performance standards. Other points for discussion might include limits on balconies or the linking of building height to street width and what this means for the impacts of noise, pollution and road dangers on apartment residents.

Finally, there are questions about the City’s focus on zoning for mid-rise along Avenues and the more restrictive guidelines on buildings near parks and open spaces. These parts of the guidelines are meant to preserve certain features of the public realm, but they end up limiting some residents’ ease of access to it.

Mid-rises have a place in many areas of the city, not just on Avenues. In combination with transit expansion and RapidTO initiatives, mid-rises have big city-building potential and should be considered for some quieter streets that run alongside major transit routes.

What you can do

As we saw during the multiplex consultations, speaking up about your priorities for Toronto and housing makes a difference. Register for a meeting on September 20 from 10:30 am - 12 pm or 7 pm - 8:30 pm and we’ll see you there.

Further reading:

John Lorinc talks with Brent Toderian in Spacing on mid-rise guidelines and climate

Naama Blonder on the cost of angular planes

Whew! City Planning staff have finally released their recommended proposal to legalize multiplexes across Toronto. When the initial proposal came out, we were disappointed to say the least. We are happy to say that the final proposal is a completely different story. Thanks to all of you who voiced support for housing through the consultations, the proposed zoning and official plan amendments contain many of our key requests:

• Exempting multiplexes from floor-space index (FSI).
• Increased building depth maximums.
• Removing the ban on multiple front doors.

While staff are proposing to only increase height limits to 10m, approximately three storeys, we believe that exemptions from FSI are much more important to make multiplexes feasible. That being said, we will be pushing councillors to make the multiplex proposal even stronger by increasing height limits to 13m to get that fourth storey.

But, we cannot rest yet. We need your help to push multiplexes across the finish line and ensure councillors don't poison pill the proposal with some last minute amendments. Please use our tool to email your councillor and the Planning and Housing Committee in support of legalizing multiplexes across Toronto.

Email your city councillor now!

“Bad-faith, frivolous renovictions just to be able to reset rents to market have become disappointingly common. Tenants considering whether to take their complaints to the growing queue at the LTB often give up and an increase in the number of adjudicators offers some hope. We’re hopeful that these changes will make the LTB work for tenants again.” – said Colleen Bailey, an advocate with More Neighbours.

The Act also brings about some rental replacement measures across the province, though these were already present in Toronto as part of section 111 of Toronto’s Official Plan. In particular, after a rental property is redeveloped, tenants must be given the right to move to a unit of the same “core features” (eg. number of bedrooms) at the same rent. However, the announcement is vague on any requirements around providing interim housing or moving compensation to displaced tenants - both of which are key asks from More Neighbours Toronto to the province.

“We’re relieved to see the province retain some rental replacement rules in Toronto and expand them across the province. We will participate in the consultations and advocate for giving tenants temporary housing or equivalent compensation during redevelopment of a rental property, as part of provincial rules. Toronto already has these protections and we shouldn’t lose them. In a housing supply crisis, interim housing is a real challenge and strong rental replacement rules must include them. Without strong rental replacement protections, existing tenants have a stronger incentive to oppose new housing. We can avoid this zero-sum, displacement vs new housing debate by having strong rental replacement protections.” -- said Bilal Akhtar, a volunteer with More Neighbours.

Simplification of processes and the merger of the Growth Plan and Provincial Policy Statement is a welcome change, though it will not make a significant dent in meeting the Province’s 1.5 million homes target on its own. For that, stronger measures around zoning reform are necessary, and there are none in this bill. The Act makes it easier for municipalities to expand their urban boundary, but critically it does not incentivize or require them to accommodate growth within existing neighbourhoods.

“The province is, once again, refusing to fix bad policies and thus doubling down on tall-and-sprawl. Broad-sweeping zoning reforms to build more housing in existing neighbourhoods are within the province's control, and the only way we will get to 1.5 million new homes in 10 years” -- said Eric Lombardi, an advocate with More Neighbours Toronto.

Markets, labour and supply chains can take years to respond to policy changes. This Provincial Government is running low on time it has to make policy changes to meaningfully reach the goal of 1.5 million new homes in 10 years. The best time for reforms is now.

---

MoreNeigbours.ca

@MoreNeighbours 

Media contact: media@moreneighbours.ca

More Neighbours Toronto is a volunteer-only organization of housing advocates that believe in building more multi-family homes of all kinds for those who dream of building their lives in Toronto. We advocate for reforms to increase our city’s ability to build more homes in every neighbourhood. We are a big-tent organisation with members across the political spectrum who are nevertheless committed to counterbalancing the anti-housing agenda that dominates Toronto's politics, created an affordability crisis, and has cost burdened a new generation of aspiring residents. We are firmly committed to the principle that housing is a human right and believe Toronto should be inclusive and welcoming to all.

Toronto - Today, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the details behind the $4 billion Housing Accelerator Fund. Municipalities will be able to apply for funding to enact systemic housing reforms, including ending exclusionary zoning, permitting greater density (with the level of funding tied to the amount of density allowed). The prime minister warned that only transformational changes would be funded and small changes would not be eligible.

"This announcement is promising. There has long been no incentive for municipalities to make the transformational changes to their zoning and planning systems that we need to build more homes and end the housing crisis," said Jacob Dawang, advocate with More Neighbours Toronto.

More Neighbours Toronto is happy to see specific criteria that need to be met for eligibility, including increasing annual growth rate in the housing supply targets, timelines that need to be met, and ensuring the initiatives funded are systemic.

"If properly enforced, these criteria will ensure that municipalities' plans are serious and credible. In addition, the funding structure, where speed is rewarded and funds are disbursed over a course of four years, contingent on meeting interim targets, will also encourage municipalities to actually follow through on their plans quickly," said Dawang.

Applications for the Housing Accelerator Fund open in June, which means that now is the time for municipalities like Toronto to step on the gas with its Housing Action Plan that is going to the Executive Committee on March 21.

"Toronto City Council should take advantage of the money up for grabs from the federal government and put even more ambition into its Housing Action Plan. Now is the time to double down on planning reform and ignore the voices saying 'no or go slow'," said Colleen Bailey, advocate with More Neighbours Toronto.

One aspect lacking from the Housing Accelerator Fund are any penalties for municipalities that do not choose to reform their systems.

"Carrots for some municipalities are one side of the story, but the housing crisis is everywhere so reform is needed everywhere. The federal or provincial governments need to step in with sticks for municipalities that are not pulling their weight, lest they choose to maintain policies that perpetuate the housing crisis" said Bailey.

---

MoreNeigbours.ca

@MoreNeighbours 

Media contact: Rocky Petkov, media@moreneighbours.ca

More Neighbours Toronto is a volunteer-only organization of housing advocates that believe in building more multi-family homes of all kinds for those who dream of building their lives in Toronto. We advocate for reforms to increase our city’s ability to build more homes in every neighbourhood. We are a big-tent organisation with members across the political spectrum who are nevertheless committed to counterbalancing the anti-housing agenda that dominates Toronto's politics, created an affordability crisis, and has cost burdened a new generation of aspiring residents. We are firmly committed to the principle that housing is a human right and believe Toronto should be inclusive and welcoming to all.

Toronto’s draft plan for legalizing multiplexes is out. On the surface, it’s what More Neighbours has been asking for: permit four storeys and four units as-of-right on residential properties city-wide. In the details, however, it’s a little more complicated. This is incremental change with room for improvement, but to truly permit multiplexes city-wide, it will not be enough to just legalize them in name.Our recommendations and asks from city planning revolve around making multiplexes feasible to build across the city.

Here are some of the things worth thinking about when you give feedback through the City’s survey or attend one of the public consultations (Feb 21 from 2-4 pm, or Feb 23 from 6-8 pm). A more detailed explanation follows the summary.

Summary

• City Planning is proposing a 10 metre maximum height, unless higher is indicated on the zoning map. This would be an effective limit of three storeys. MNTO ask: permit a height of minimum 12-13 metres for multiplexes to support four storeys citywide. 
• Basic box shapes would not be allowed in some zones at the maximum height because there is a step back or sloped roof requirement, which reduces usable space and is inefficient. MNTO ask: eliminate the step back requirement for multiplexes.
• The proposed zoning by-law adjusts the allowed building depth and setbacks from the lot lines to match those for detached homes. Previously, multiplexes were required to be smaller where they were allowed. MNTO ask: allow building depth up to 19 m for multiplexes in all zones.
• The floor space index (FSI) used to regulate density remains in place in this draft, with different limits across the city. With FSI limits, multiplexes will continue to be unfeasible to build on much of the city's land. More Neighbours would like to see the city move towards a simpler, form-based definition of density, based on building height, length, lot coverage, etc. MNTO ask (e.g. at the end of the survey): remove FSI requirements in favour of form-based zoning. At the very least, allow minimum 2.0 FSI for multiplexes city-wide.

Why do multiplexes matter?

Toronto has concentrated most of its growth into a small area of the city. Two-thirds of Toronto’s residential land allows one single detached house on each lot, a policy that was intended to provide stability. But change is inevitable: as children grew up and moved out, as parents aged without good options for smaller homes in their communities, the population of many of these Neighbourhoods shrank. Meanwhile, everyone else had to compete for homes in the small share of land where growth is allowed.

This exclusionary zoning has a terrible history, rooted in racism, classism, and misogyny. To this day, exclusionary outcomes continue to be reflected in demographic trends. These restricted yellow land use areas are wealthier, contain fewer immigrants, fewer renters, have more trees and park access, the list goes on. However, areas of Toronto that are still low-rise but allow multiplexes and small apartments have less inequality.

They also provide new housing opportunities for young families, commuters who have been priced out or those looking to downsize. After Auckland made changes to allow low-rise multi-unit housing in 2016, they doubled the number of homes completed per year and recent rent changes are below inflation. This doubling is what Ontario’s Housing Affordability Task Force set as a target. A City of Toronto report suggested that, if the densities of the restrictive Residential Detached (RD) and Residential Semi-detached (RS) zones were similar to the RM zones where multiplexes are allowed, they could house an additional 572,000 people, but the true number would be heavily dependent on the policy options chosen and financial viability.

Great. So we’re getting multiplexes?

If Council passes this, yes, but maybe not as many as we had hoped. What is proposed technically allows fourplexes on any residential lot in Toronto, but whether anyone could build a liveable one at a reasonable cost is a different matter. This is partly because of limitations that Council placed on the project from the start, so pressure could result in amendments from the new Council.

You may recall that Ontario moved to permit triplexes on residential lots as part of Bill 23, but they did not change any zoning, meaning that the size and other limitations on a triplex would be the same as for detached homes. The Ontario government’s own internal estimates suggested that these limitations would only result in about 50,000 new homes across the province. The Toronto rule changes follow a similar pattern, trying to make multiplexes look as much like detached homes as possible, potentially limiting where they can be built in practice. Here are some examples.

The limitations

Height

In the Official Plan, low-rise Neighbourhoods can be up to four storeys. The zoning removes other limitations on the number of storeys, which is good news, but then it places a height limit of ten metres anywhere that doesn’t have a higher value on the existing height overlay map. This is an effective limit of three storeys in those areas. A limit of 12-13 metres would truly allow the four storeys across the city that More Neighbours has been pushing for in its campaign to end exclusionary zoning.

In addition, several zones have separate requirements for main walls: in classic Toronto fashion, you cannot build a simple box shape, but must have step backs on some walls or a sloped roof. It isn’t clear why this limitation exists for low-rise buildings, other than it was an existing requirement for detached houses that has now been transferred to multiplexes. Flat walls tend to be simpler and cheaper for construction, as well as allowing more space for residents and reducing the areas for heat loss, which has environmental benefits.

When you take the City’s survey, you will see specific opportunities to weigh in on both of these changes. Make sure to ask for a minimum height limit of at least 12 metres and no step backs for multiplexes.

Building size and setbacks

A longstanding beef for those who spend too much time with Toronto zoning is that the R and RM zones allowed multiplexes, but required that the building be smaller than detached houses and set back further from the lot lines. This has finally been equalized and the newly allowed multiplexes in the RD, RS and RT zones followed suit. Under the proposal, you could build a multiplex that is as big as a detached home, but no bigger.

There is an opportunity to comment on building depth for multiplexes in the R zone, extending it from the new 17 m up to 19m, which would be the same as in RD and RS zones. In addition, the shorter 14 m building length and larger setbacks for low-rise apartments in the R zone remain untouched. Strictly speaking, these apartments are not “multiplexes” but it would be great to see these inconsistencies addressed without another two years of consultation.

Floor Space Index

Once you’ve defined the size, setbacks and height of a building, you might think that you know how big it can be. However, in many areas of Toronto, the zoning places an additional constraint on the building size called floor space index (FSI). If you want the details, you can read this explainer, but the main point is that it is unnecessary when you have defined the building’s form with other measurements.

In addition, the FSI is very low in some areas of the city, like Etobicoke, and doesn’t even exist in others, like most of Scarborough and North York. Keeping this limit will make multiplexes much more difficult to build in some areas and perpetuate inequality in Toronto.

City Planning has talked at several points about getting rid of FSI, including for the EHON program and in some low-rise areas of the midtown secondary plan. I’m not quite sure why it didn’t make this draft, but now seems like a great time to ask. When you take the survey, make sure to include in your comments at the end that you support removing FSI as a requirement for multiplexes or, at the very minimum, permit at least 2.0 FSI for multiplexes city-wide.

Increasing complexity

The basis of the Official Plan Amendment is a Site and Area Specific Policy that copies a different section of the Official Plan and adjusts it to remove a reference to “prevailing building types” and then says it overrides the section that it copied. In addition, references to “prevailing size” and “prevailing setbacks'' were kept, even though size and setbacks are defined by the zoning, as noted above. Rules about a building’s external appearance can be used to conceal concerns about who might live inside; built form rules then become a way to continue exclusionary policies.

Then there are references to tree protection and larger units that duplicate policies in the existing tree by-laws or could have been added to the Growing Up guidelines. On the surface, this sort of redundancy might just seem unnecessary and confusing. However, putting things into the Official Plan means that exceptions require an Official Plan Amendment, which is often a long and expensive process. Large highrise developers struggle to endure the uncertainty and delays added by the Official Plan Amendment process; a small, non-profit developer or the Etobicoke grandmother trying to convert her home to a multi-generational duplex stands little chance, particularly given the recent report that projects with fewer units aren’t approved any faster.

It isn’t clear what the implication of making suggestions rather than requirements in the Official Plan is or why Neighbourhoods are getting this treatment and non-Neighbourhoods are not. As-of-right should mean as-of-right. Adding existing citywide policies into the Official Plan - but only for Neighbourhoods - is once again privileging them and perpetuating exclusionary policies. It will be important to ask about the intentions of this approach and any unintended consequences in the consultation process.

It’s still good news

This is still a change worth supporting. It goes beyond what the provincial government did and makes greater strides in reducing exclusion in Toronto’s Neighbourhoods. There is thoughtful work accounting for common areas in gross floor area, allowing balconies and porches for each unit, and proposing to reverse the unfortunate policy that Council passed for secondary suites that prevented renters from having their own entrance at the front of their home. But it could be so much more. The housing crisis is now.

How you can help

• Fill out the survey. It is quite detailed, but it walks you through each of the proposed changes, including those described above, and gives you a chance to comment.
• Attend a public consultation. Virtually on February 21st from 2-4 pm or February 23rd from 6-8 pm.
• If you can’t attend the consultation or think of comments after submitting the survey, you can write to EHON@toronto.ca with feedback until March 10, 2023.
• We will have more to say when the final draft comes to Planning and Housing Committee later this year.

RE: CC.2.1 - 2023 Housing Action Plan

About More Neighbours Toronto

More Neighbours Toronto is a volunteer-only organization of housing advocates that believe in building more multi-family homes of all kinds for those who dream of building their lives in Toronto. We advocate for reforms to increase our city’s ability to build more homes in every neighbourhood. We are a big-tent organization with members across the political spectrum who are committed to counterbalancing the anti-housing agenda that has dominated Toronto's politics, created an affordability crisis, and cost burdened a new generation of aspiring residents. We are firmly committed to the principle that housing is a human right and believe Toronto should be inclusive and welcoming to all.

Summary of Position

More Neighbours Toronto welcomes and supports the proposed "2023 Housing Action Plan" proposed by Mayor Tory. In addition to the long overdue step of legalizing and regulating multi-tenant homes, this action plan will start work on proposals to challenge the exclusionary planning policies that have dominated council for the past decades. This is a pivotal term of Council for housing. We urge you to vote in favour of the 2023 Housing Action Plan and begin this term of council by setting a positive example for other municipalities in the region to follow.

Necessity of Exceeding the Provincial Housing Target

In Toronto, there are simply not enough homes for the people who want to live here. This is not a point of debate: there is consensus on Ontario's need to build at least 1.5 million homes over the next decade from the CMHC, Mike Moffat of the Smart Prosperity Institute, and every single provincial party in the legislature. As Ontario's largest city and economic engine, Toronto must lead. Thus, committing to meeting or exceeding the provincial target of building 285,000 homes by 2031 is a prerequisite to ending the housing crisis in Toronto: necessary but not sufficient. We recommend that the City plan to exceed the target with some margin for error, as we will not know the exact effect of policy changes until they are undertaken.

The Beginning of the End of Exclusionary Zoning

The vast majority (66%) of residential land in Toronto is zoned for single-family homes, the most expensive and least environmentally-friendly housing type. In other words, apartments are banned in most of the city. The population of these neighbourhoods has decreased over the past fifty years, even though Toronto's population has grown as a whole. Young people today cannot afford to stay in the neighbourhoods they grew up in. Consequently, parents are unable to live near their adult children (and grandchildren). Seniors are unable to downsize within their neighbourhoods. Immigrants must live in poor conditions far away from work or school to make ends meet. We can provide more housing options for people to live in if we permit more types of homes beyond just single-family detached houses. This starts with ending exclusionary zoning to legalize homes that people can afford.

We know that there will be calls from established interests for a "no or go slow" approach when it comes to zoning changes because zoning has remained static in so many places for so many years. This is the wrong approach for this moment. Much of the groundwork already exists and has undergone public consultation. Missing middle and changes to neighbourhood land use have been studied and supported by local academic institutions, the Toronto Region Board of Trade and, of course, by Toronto City Planning as part of its Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods program and ongoing Municipal Comprehensive Review. The survey on multiplexes, for example, found 77% of responses supported multiplexes, with broad support across different areas of the city, age groups and incomes. Nevertheless, Council opted to send this item for yet more consultation in one specific ward, which happens to have some of the most expensive houses in the city as well as all of Canada. Public input matters but, when it does not achieve perfect consensus even amongst the selected groups who are prioritized in consultation, too often the attitude seems to be that more consultation is a reasonable and neutral answer without consequences. The stories of students ending up in shelters or being exploited by landlords in unsafe, illegal living situations demonstrate how absolutely false this idea is. We are losing people in Toronto due to a few fears and uncertainties that will never be satisfied by any amount of consultation and this should be accounted for when designing the plan and timelines.

The housing crisis calls for serious action now. We cannot tie up plans in years-long processes, reports and consultations, when we already know what we need to do.

At the same time, we cannot let proposals for ending exclusionary zoning be watered down to the point where denser forms of housing are only permitted in name. The economic feasibility of building homes must be top of mind in every review and every proposed change. We welcome the reviews of urban design guidelines, heritage standards and urban forestry policies to this end and hope that they will deeply challenge the orthodoxies of city planning.

Legalization of Multi-tenant Homes

Legalizing multi-tenant homes is a step towards housing justice in the city. If properly regulated, rooming houses are an option for low-income residents, newcomers, students, and social assistance recipients. The city’s reluctance to legalize rooming houses has not eliminated rooming houses, but instead allowed illegal rooming houses to function outside the bounds of regulation. This has created a scenario where residents are vulnerable to eviction, exploitation, and risks to their physical safety.

We often hear refrains that rooming houses are only appropriate in certain neighbourhoods. The reality, however, shows that there is a need to fill, and without mutli-tenant housing residents will resort to ever more precarious housing - illegal rooming houses, shelters, or being entirely unhoused. This is especially true given the increasing lack of affordability and lack of investment in affordable and emergency housing options in the city. The best time to legalize and regulate multi-tenant homes was yesterday, but today is the next best.

Regards,

Jacob Dawang

More Neighbours Toronto

However, in light of the amendments to the bill that have since become public we are disappointed that some of the key provisions have been watered down with the ultimate result that less housing will be built, putting the goal of building 1.5 million new homes in 10 years even further out of reach. Amendments that we would have supported - such as bringing back the ability of Toronto to regulate redevelopment of rental properties - have been struck down, while other amendments have reversed provisions we supported in our initial statement like the restriction of third party appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Province struck the Housing Affordability Task Force earlier this year, which published a report with 55 recommendations on housing affordability.These centered around the themes of:

• Achieving more housing density across the province 
• Ending exclusionary municipal rules that block or delay new housing 
• Depoliticizing the housing approvals process 
• Preventing abuse of the housing appeals system 
• Providing financial support to municipalities that build more housing

More importantly, nearly all of these recommendations were widely supported across political lines, and they were seen as credible, practical, implementable solutions to the housing crisis. MNTO lauded the report upon its release. This is also why we are particularly disappointed about the province choosing politically risky and costly ways to build more housing with Bill 23 and other related housing announcements, such as building on the greenbelt or reviewing rental replacement protections. These steps undermine the pro-housing consensus that big-tent groups like More Neighbours and others have been building; pitting environmentalists against new homebuyers, new renters against old renters, urbanists against suburbanites, housing abundance groups against tenant protection groups. There are far better, win-win solutions the province could be implementing instead.

Even some HATF recommendations that were present in the initial bill - for instance, removing third party appeals to the OLT - have been removed with these further amendments. 

Instead, the government has chosen to spend political capital on municipal governance changes, such as strong mayor powers introduced in Bill 39, as part of their push to build more housing. While we at More Neighbours have no shortage of qualms about the current, hyper-local-focused nature of municipal government, we are unsure about the long-term implications of these changes. At best, it is a downloading of responsibility to the mayor to carry out the key recommendations of the HATF, when the province could just implement the recommendations themselves.

The HATF recommendations would actually lead to construction of new housing. These include upzoning every residential lot to allow fourplexes and allowing mid-to-high density around transit stations as-of-right. Instead, this responsibility was punted away to the mayors, some of whom may not use their new strong mayor powers for good.

More Neighbours Toronto

“50,000 homes is a drop in the bucket compared to the magnitude of housing demand we are facing,” Pirawin Namasivayam highlighted, “If the greenbelt is to be opened to development, it should be accompanied by a much more ambitious plan that would meaningfully impact affordability in the GTA.”

“This measure would mean less housing supply  in the places where it is desperately needed - not more.”, noted Bilal Akhtar, “The last thing we need is to squander the labor, materials, and equipment that we need to add compact family homes in existing built up areas and settlement areas - and especially in Toronto - on greenfield sprawl in northern York Region and Northeast Pickering.”

“Our prior history of sprawl shows it to have detrimental environmental, social and economic impacts.”, said Akhtar, “Of course there’s the environmental cost of losing 7,400 acres of prime farmland but there’s also the social cost of folks living far from work, school, family and friends and the economic cost of maintaining hundreds kilometres of pipes, wires and roads”

“Should we build over valuable farmland, it must be a transit-oriented development”, noted Eddy Ionescu, “we should be building sustainable communities like the one around Mount Pleasant GO. It’s a perfect example of a mixed-use, mixed-density community that includes several mid rise buildings as well as a purpose built rental tower”.

“Plus”, continued Ionescu, “Residents can walk to rapid transit from day one. Mount Pleasant, along with plans like ‘The Orbit’ in Innisfil and a proposed community near the future Courtice GO station show how transit combined with density can form a community able to house many people without many of the downsides associated with sprawl such as traffic and car dependency”.

“Whether these new communities will more closely resemble Mount Pleasant or instead King City, remains to be seen”, said Haadhi Faizal, “Still, it’s disappointing to see the province spend its political capital on something that will not be a long term fix to the housing crisis. The only long-term fix would be to secure the planning reforms that would enable us to build more homes in the places where they want to live. The neighbourhoods where they have friends and family, where they grew up: the places they actually call home”

---

MoreNeigbours.ca

@MoreNeighbours 

Media contact: Rocky Petkov, media@moreneighbours.ca

More Neighbours Toronto is a volunteer-only organization of housing advocates that believe in building more multi-family homes of all kinds for those who dream of building their lives in Toronto. We advocate for reforms to increase our city’s ability to build more homes in every neighbourhood. We are a big-tent organisation with members across the political spectrum who are nevertheless committed to counterbalancing the anti-housing agenda that dominates Toronto's politics, created an affordability crisis, and has cost burdened a new generation of aspiring residents. We are firmly committed to the principle that housing is a human right and believe Toronto should be inclusive and welcoming to all.

“This bill is a good start,” said MacKenzie Campbell, a volunteer with More Neighbours Toronto (MNTO). “It is certainly a step forward in providing the tools necessary to end the housing crisis, but there remains a long way to go.”

“The move to permit three units per lot provincewide is welcome as it legalises triplexes, at least in name” said Campbell, “However, it fails to address policies like height limits, aesthetic design guidelines and setback requirements that municipalities weaponise to restrict this missing middle and gentle density.”

A welcome change is that third party appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal will be limited as a result of this bill. "Third party appeals are routinely used by the wealthy and comfortably-housed to delay and deny housing for our most vulnerable, such as the supportive housing project at 175 Cummer Ave. Appeals have also been used to delay permitting the gentlest of density in Toronto, like garden suites," said Campbell.

Transit oriented development is another major focus of the bill. Municipalities will be required to implement as-of-right zoning to reach minimum density targets near major transit stations (MTSAs). This is in line with a recurring ask from MNTO around making MTSAs more effective. “This will begin to unlock the power of transit oriented development,” noted Rocky Petkov, a volunteer with MNTO. “Of course, if cities like Toronto continue to be allowed to set underwhelming density targets, these developments and the transit that serves them will not be able to realise their full potential.”

The legislation will provide relief from ever-increasing fees that can kill housing developments or be passed onto tenants or new homebuyers. "Just this year, the City of Toronto raised development charges by 46%, even though they had already increased by 1,200% since 2008. The various provisions to provide discounts for affordable housing and family-sized units will encourage the types of housing that are currently most lacking," said Petkov.

Municipalities will also be assigned a housing target and be required to develop a plan to meet them. "This is a good start,” observed Petkov, “but there are no accountability mechanisms beyond a ministerial review. It’s easy to imagine that some of these plans will not be credible or simply never be implemented.”

“One of the biggest letdowns with this bill was how there were few if any provisions for the most vulnerable Ontarians,” lamented Petkov, “The future of rental replacement is uncertain, and there is nothing regarding legalising rooming houses meaning it will still fall to city councils to take action on front”.

“Regardless of the shortcomings, this is a step forward,” said Colleen Bailey, an advocate with MNTO. “Ending the era of single family zoning-as-default is something that no other province, or US state for that matter, has done to nearly this extent. With the provincial government promising to table a housing supply action plan every year, we hope this momentum will continue next year and deliver something truly transformational."

---

MoreNeigbours.ca

@MoreNeighbours 

Media contact: Rocky Petkov, media@moreneighbours.ca

More Neighbours Toronto is a volunteer-only organization of housing advocates that believe in building more multi-family homes of all kinds for those who dream of building their lives in Toronto. We advocate for reforms to increase our city’s ability to build more homes in every neighbourhood. We are a big-tent organisation with members across the political spectrum who are nevertheless committed to counterbalancing the anti-housing agenda that dominates Toronto's politics, created an affordability crisis, and has cost burdened a new generation of aspiring residents. We are firmly committed to the principle that housing is a human right and believe Toronto should be inclusive and welcoming to all.

More Neighbours Toronto is a big-tent organization which aims to raise awareness of the social and economic consequences of unaffordable housing. As such, we strive to approach everyone in good faith, since we don’t believe people get up in the morning resolved to cause maximum damage to the long-term progress and prosperity of this city.

However, there are individuals who adamantly refuse to accept the evidence that our current housing policies lead nowhere but increased inequity and hardship. With municipal elections in October, we decided to highlight three councillors who - instead of using their power to help - are actively making the situation worse.

The victims of Toronto’s housing crisis are real people with real names. So are its villains.

MIKE COLLE, Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence

It takes a considerable amount of poor judgement to fight against a development of a parking lot; it takes an exceptional lack of good sense to mail your smiling face to everyone in the area boasting about it.

Trees have died for this

Colle excuses his opposition by imagining the parking lot could one day turn into a park, upholding the time-honoured NIMBY principle: "Trees for me; tents for thee".

"Frightening" "Shanghai on Yonge"

Deprecatory remarks towards Asian cities seen in video above are another example of Colle's archaic views. As it happens, councillor Colle recently discovered a fondness for comparing Toronto to places like Shanghai and Singapore - the kicker being that he is considering these cities as somehow beneath Toronto, blissfully unaware they are in fact years ahead when it comes to transit and development. In this, Colle reveals a common blindspot of Western leaders - the more their own societies diminish, the more they are quick to diminish others’ achievements.

“Shanghai on Yonge”? If only.

Being out of touch is not a crime, of course. The problem arises when people who no longer keep with the times and new challenges become part of the problem instead of contributing to solutions.

Big mansion owner threatened by small mansion owner threatened by affordable housing

And it’s not like councillor Colle doesn’t know better. In an interview from 2018, he mentions "jogging in cities in Portugal, Italy, Spain, Israel and China" (presumably the same China he uses to scaremonger his constituents) and extols the concept of a main street, “where people like to meet up and walk or shop or dine". Unfortunately few Toronto residents would agree Toronto fits this noble ideal. Which just goes to show what most of us already know: making other people's lives miserable is easy - building things is much harder.

JAYE ROBINSON, Ward 15 Don Valley West

Having once advocated limiting councillor’s time in the office to two terms, Robinson is currently running for the fourth time, just in case someone else comes along who might not share her opposition to developing townhouses mere minutes from a subway station. And no, it’s not because she thinks something bigger than townhouses should be built on this valuable land.

“A prime location to build a McMansion for someone who wouldn’t be caught dead on a subway”

- Councillor Robinson, probably

Most concerning of all, in an act reminiscent of climate change denialism, she expressed scepticism that the housing crisis in Toronto even exists:

This doesn’t mean councillor Robinson doesn’t have the ear of her constituents - it’s just the people whose interests she represents are members of homeowner cartels such as Federation of North Toronto Residents' Association and Leaside Residents’ Association (formerly known as Leaside Property-Owners' Association, which apparently was a bit too on the nose). This can reach farcical proportions, like when a more progressive councillor tried to introduce a bill that would allow houses to have a secondary front entrance. Robinson’s response was to put forward a motion to defeat the bill, ensuring renters continue to access their homes like the second-class citizens they are - through the back door.

Don Valley West, where cars have more human rights than people

Robinson gave us the latest example of her lopsided priorities just a day before this article went live, when she declared Toronto a live museum - most likely so her affluent constituents can continue to cosplay living in a 19th century English village at the expense of people carrying the burden of their fantasy.

The only thing belonging in a museum is Jaye Robinson's antiquated thinking

She also has a propensity to accuse her critics of being shills for developers - a mindset which seemingly comes from her own experience of being beholden to rich NIMBY interest groups. It is a sad state of affairs when a public servant is incapable of understanding why anyone would advocate for others without personally profiting from it.

STEPHEN HOLYDAY, Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre

Most people get into politics to do something for their communities; Stephen Holyday’s time in office appears to be devoted to standing against them:

It will come to no surprise that Holyday’s obstructive stance extends to all forms of new housing. And while Robinson and Colle might simply be callously indifferent to detrimental effects of their decisions, Holyday goes a step further and is openly hostile towards affordable housing projects and the unhoused:

Alex Božiković of Globe & Mail singled out Robinson and Holyday as two “furiously anti-development [Toronto councillors]” - but that is underselling the duo, who are furiously anti-everything. Their voting records include being against small retail in neighbourhoods and voting against drinking in parks. But perhaps that shouldn’t surprise us. After all, you don’t lose anything by prohibiting others from having a beer in the park if you can sip wine in your backyard.

Time for another study by a committee to produce a task force to write a report

As outlined at the beginning, More Neighbours Toronto is a non-partisan organization that welcomes everybody, and we believe reasonable people can disagree on concrete politics. However we also believe no one should ever compromise on basic ethics. Mike Colle, Jaye Robinson, and Stephen Holyday are public servants who have repeatedly proven unwilling to uphold the fundamental tenet of the social contract - to protect the vulnerable and advance the common good. It is why we are compelled to condemn their work as city councillors and invite voters to choose more tolerant and fair-minded candidates this October.

Luckily, there are people ready to serve us better. Here are three challengers in the affected wards who we are proud to endorse for their inclusive and equitable housing policies. If you live in these wards, please consider giving them your vote; or please share the word that a better option is available!

Click the pics to visit these fine folks' websites

Put together by IMS, who came to Canada in 2016 by choice but the housing crisis might make him leave it by necessity. His fiction podcast The Program audio series surpassed 500,000 downloads and a segment was broadcast on CBC radio. He received the Toronto Arts’ Council and Canada Council of the Arts grants for his dramatic works.

TORONTO - Today, in just the third day of the Progressive Conservative Government’s second mandate: Steven Clark, the Minister for Municipal Affairs, tabled a much anticipated bill that would provide the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa with extra powers: enacting a “strong mayor” system similar to that used in many cities in the United States. The legislation tabled by Minister Clark is called the “Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act”, As the name suggests, it is meant to be a cornerstone of the government’s plan to expand housing supply within the Province of Ontario.

While there is little in this bill that would directly address the province’s housing supply crisis, some of the powers that will be given to mayors could be used to hasten the construction of new housing. “The ability to veto by-laws that contradict provincial priorities could be used to prevent anti-housing councillors from jeopardising the province’s goal of building 1.5 million homes by 2030”, remarked Chris Spoke, an advocate with More Neighbours, “new powers in personnel management could also be used to ensure that city departments are staffed with solution-oriented people who want to translate this policy vision into reality”.

“Whether these powers would be used effectively remains to be seen, ” said MacKenzie Campbell. "We encourage Mayor Tory to take bold action on housing, even if it means stepping on the toes of the most anti-housing councilors. Should the mayor be fortunate enough to be re-elected this fall with these new powers, he should move faster than he has in his previous two terms."

What doesn’t change is the fact that there’s still an anti-housing majority on Toronto’s city council. “Under these rules, the mayor would only be able to veto items actually passed by council”, remarked Jacob Dawang, “this means that regardless of who’s mayor, policies like legalising rooming houses or missing middle housing could still be killed by anti-housing councilors who wish to preserve the status quo. The importance of electing pro-housing voices to council in October is still paramount.”

“At the end of the day, the only way to solve the housing crisis is to actually build homes”, lamented Rocky Petkov, “Planning reform, including the elimination of exclusionary zoning, is much more important than strong mayor powers when it comes to housing. Minister Clark must keep his promise to introduce further legislation to make any headway in the housing crisis.”

- More Neighbours Toronto

---

MoreNeigbours.ca

@MoreNeighbours 

Media contact: Rocky Petkov, media@moreneighbours.ca

More Neighbours Toronto is a volunteer-only organization of housing advocates that believe in building more multi-family homes of all kinds for those who dream of building their lives in Toronto. We advocate for reforms to increase our city’s ability to build more homes in every neighbourhood. We are a big-tent organisation with members across the political spectrum who are nevertheless committed to counterbalancing the anti-housing agenda that dominates Toronto's politics, created an affordability crisis, and has cost burdened a new generation of aspiring residents. We are firmly committed to the principle that housing is a human right and believe Toronto should be inclusive and welcoming to all.

TORONTO - Today, the CMHC released an alarming report that quantifies the urgency of our housing crisis. It suggests that Ontario needs to build 1.85 million homes over current projections (0.75M units) by 2030, representing a need for 2.6M new homes in total based on data in the report. This is substantially greater than the 1.5 million total home target over 10 years set by Ontario's Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF), and therefore higher than the rhetorical commitment by every major political party in the past provincial election.

"The CMHC's report confirms that housing construction is not keeping up with Ontario's population and that a massive increase in housing construction is required for widespread housing affordability in Ontario.” said Eric Lombardi, an advocate with More Neighbours Toronto. “It’s time to ignore local peddlers of the anti-housing agenda and secure significant provincial reforms immediately.”

The CMHC estimates that housing units per-person will decrease over the next decade, worsening Ontario's housing crisis. Meanwhile, municipalities across Ontario continuously fail to do right on housing, and when given the opportunity, do the bare minimum. It’s clear that business as usual urban planning will only lead to a worsening long term housing shortage. 

Earlier this year, the HATF laid out recommendations to increase the supply of homes in Ontario through provincial reform to end exclusionary zoning, building near transit, and speed up housing approvals. Steve Clark, Housing Minister at the time, punted on meaningful action, saying that municipalities were not ready for such bold reforms.

“It's clear that the HATF's reforms cannot be delayed or left to the whims of municipal politicians who deny the housing shortage and fight change with fake rhetorical tributes to the concepts of housing justice," said Julia Gregoire, another More Neighbours Toronto advocate.

Provincial reforms to make building market-rate homes easier are an absolute necessity, but not sufficient on their own. The CMHC report highlights that the federal Housing Accelerator Fund’s direct funding for 100,000 affordable housing units falls far short of meeting forecasted demand. We need more public housing and more market-rate housing as neither is enough on its own. 

“Both the Ontario NDP and Ontario Liberals promised higher targets for affordable housing unit completions than the PCs primarily by supporting the creation of a provincial public housing builder to streamline efforts and save costs.” said Bilal Akhtar, a volunteer with More Neighbours Toronto. “The PCs would be wise to borrow these ideas in addition to adopting recommendations by the HATF.” 

Premier Doug Ford has announced that the Ontario legislature will sit in the summer. There will be no better time for a more ambitious housing bill.

---

MoreNeigbours.ca

@MoreNeighbours 

Media contact: Eric Lombardi, media@moreneighbours.ca

More Neighbours Toronto is a volunteer-only organisation of housing advocates that believe in building more multi-family homes of all kinds for those who dream of building their lives in Toronto. We advocate for reforms to increase our city’s ability to build more homes in every neighbourhood. We are a big-tent organisation with members across the political spectrum who are nevertheless committed to counterbalancing the anti-housing agenda that dominates Toronto's politics, created an affordability crisis, and has cost burdened a new generation of aspiring residents. We are firmly committed to the principle that housing is a human right and believe Toronto should be inclusive and welcoming to all.

The rapidly increasing costs of housing are being further chased by accelerating rents, making it harder for those without access to family wealth to live, nonetheless prosper in our province. These extreme burdens are forcing young Ontarians, new immigrants, and everyone left out to abandon their dreams. Dreams of homeownership, of financial security, of family life and children, of entrepreneurship, and so much more. It represents a decline in living standards that our comfortable political leadership has been too slow to admit.

The housing crisis is therefore the dominant election issue for many Ontarians. Virtually every Ontarian cares about cost-of-living or housing directly. Housing is the biggest expense in most people’s lives, which has led to the housing crisis becoming an everything crisis.

Less than a year ago, More Neighbours Toronto launched with an objective to put reforms to end the crisis high on the political agenda. Together, progressives and conservatives put aside their differences to advocate for more market and non-market solutions. From ending exclusionary zoning and encouraging transit oriented development, to advocating for more investments in affordable, supportive, and public housing, we have helped put a growth-oriented end to the housing crisis onto the radar.

We have seen a significant shift in the conversation, especially following the publication of the Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF) report commissioned by the current government. It established a clear objective for the province to build 1.5 million new homes in the next 10 years by doubling the rate of homebuilding. This goal became the bar for serious housing plans, with every major party publicly committing to achieving this outcome.

And yet, there remains a fundamental lack of recognition for the severity and urgency of the housing crisis on the campaign trail. Only the Greens propose the wholesale reform of our planning system needs, with openness to bypassing and overruling municipalities when they fail to equitably meet provincial housing needs. The NDP and Liberal platforms take significant steps forward, but many more steps will be necessary. They deserve praise for commitments to end exclusionary zoning, for investing in a provincial builder, and for identifying new tools to prevent bad housing demand. But still, the platforms remain insufficiently ambitious to end the housing crisis in the long term. If elected, they’ll have to go much further than they’ve proposed. 

That leaves the Progressive Conservatives, who are running on their record and 2022 budget instead of releasing a platform. The PCs see the HATF report as their long term roadmap, but have not committed to implementing specific recommendations or timeframes. While they have moved policy in the right direction since coming into office, that movement has been too slow. Ontario’s housing crisis was in full-swing in 2018, and since then, prices have risen 44%. With an opportunity to usher in real change following the HATF report, the Government crumbled when faced with opposition by NIMBY-mayors and municipalities. While backroom conversations may have been enough to earn some endorsements from industry, we cannot evaluate the PCs purely on a positive vibe. Their low score ultimately reflects their lack of public commitments.

In the end, our best recommendation for who to vote for is to find out what your MPP candidates believe. Every party has a mix of candidates who are allies or adversaries to a pro-housing future. The reforms we need in Ontario to end the crisis will be easier when an all-party consensus on reform is achieved, as it has been in New Zealand. Let your candidates know you want more housing by using our tool. 

Methodology

Grading platforms, as many other organizations have done, is a simplification of what the parties have proposed. We recognize that there is subjectivity in the interpretation of platforms and the choice of our grading categories. We welcome any corrections from parties if we have missed something, or misinterpreted something from their platform. We also decided not to assign grades based on likelihood of following through. There are too many opinions on the  "trustworthiness" of each party to be able to assign a grade.

We have divided our platform scoring into five categories, based on what we think is most important to end the housing crisis. These categories are aligned with those in our submission to the Housing Affordability Task Force in December:

1. Setting Ambitious Goals: Taking The Crisis Seriously
2. Building More Homes: Measures To Increase Housing Supply
3. Housing Justice: More Social, Affordable, Co-op, Rental, and Innovative Housing Options
4. Changing Behaviour: Incentivizing Growth and Municipal Cooperation
5. Reducing Bad Demand and Strengthening Tenant Protections: Stop Excess Speculation & The Financialization Of Housing

We graded each party out of ten for these five categories, which is then averaged into an overall score out of ten. For simplicity, we did not assign half marks. Each category is divided into more specific questions, which we used to assign our category grade.

Detailed Score Table

Setting Ambitious Goals: Taking The Crisis Seriously

Setting goals is an important part of understanding the intentions of each party.

The Greens get the highest marks with a 9/10 because they have the most ambitious housing platform of all the parties, they recognize that housing is a human right, commit to building enough housing supply, and to ending chronic homelessness in the next decade.

The NDP follow with an 8/10. They score slightly lower than the Greens because taken together, their platform is less specific than the Greens.

The Liberals score a 7/10. They score one point lower than the NDP because they commit to ending chronic homelessness, but do not propose a specific timeline. In a province as rich as Ontario, ending homelessness in 10 years is achievable if we want it to happen.

The Progressive Conservatives score the lowest at 5/10. As stated in the introduction, it is very difficult to evaluate a lack of commitments. Some may think a lower score is deserved, however, if the HATF Report is their roadmap as claimed, it is ambitious. Having no plan to end chronic homelessness, however, is inexcusable. But we gave some credit for a legislative record that saw Laneway and Garden Suites mandated in many municipalities, even if too much leeway was given to regions to create rules.

Taken together, do platform commitments rise to the challenge of ending the housing crisis as quickly as possible?

The Greens made housing one of their three core issues and acknowledged a province-wide crisis is making homeownership “a pipedream for most Ontarians”. They have the most aggressive zoning reform policies, are not afraid to bypass municipalities, and will fund affordable housing.

The NDP acknowledged housing early in their opening message and made ending exclusionary zoning the first bullet point in their opening platform section on affordability. They recognize the need to end exclusionary zoning, and fund affordable housing through creating a public builder.

The Liberals also opened their platform with affordability, with housing policy forming a large part of this section. They defer slightly more to municipalities than the NDP, saying they'll "work with municipalities" to end exclusionary zoning, but they are more specific in their commitments overall. Like the NDP, the Liberals will create a public builder to finance affordable housing.

The Progressive Conservatives commissioned the Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF). The HATF recommendations were ambitious and rose to the challenge of ending the housing crisis. While the PCs have said that the HATF report is their long-term roadmap, they have not yet implemented most recommendations and have not made any specific commitments to implement them.

Do the platforms recognize that housing is a human right?

The NDP, Liberals, and Greens all commit to housing as a human right in their platforms. The Conservatives, in their latest budget, or in their latest housing bill have not committed to housing as a human right.

Do the platforms commit to building at least 1.5 million homes in the next decade?

Every party agrees that Ontario needs to build 1.5 million homes in the next ten years. Other questions rate whether their policies are effective at achieving this goal.

Do the platforms commit to ending chronic homelessness in the next decade?

The NDP and Greens commit to ending chronic homelessness in the next ten years. The Liberals commit to ending chronic homelessness, but do not give a firm timeline. The PCs have not committed to ending chronic homelessness. 

In a province as wealthy as Ontario, a housing-first strategy is possible, achievable, beneficial, and in all likelihood, a money-saver. Contemporary research shows that the costs of a housing-first strategy to end homelessness are likely to be offset entirely by reduced costs on the social system, health system, policing, and in other areas of public spending.

Building More Homes: Measures To Increase Housing Supply

It is now a consensus that a fundamental cause of the housing crisis is a lack of supply of homes in the places people want to live. Building at least 1.5M homes through efficient policies is crucial to ending the housing crisis.

The Greens score the highest in this section, with a 9/10, because their zoning reform policies are by far the most specific and ambitious: legalizing fourplexes province-wide and pre-zoning for mid-rise along transit routes.

The Liberals score an 8/10, with a less ambitious plan to end exclusionary zoning by "working with municipalities" to quickly permit triplexes that are two storeys across the province. They improve their score by promising to ensure municipal rules do not practically prevent building multi-unit housing, even where it is technically permitted, and regulating, but not straight-up legalizing multi-tenant housing province-wide.

The NDP score a 7/10, with a promise to end exclusionary zoning, but do not specify what density they plan to legalize, nor do they take action to ensure municipal rules do not practically prevent building multi-unit housing beyond ending parking minimums.

Both the NDP and the Liberals deserve praise for proposing a new public builder. A public builder can complement the market, leverage provincial land to build affordable options, set a standard for quality, and ensure labour markets remain healthy and skilled in periods of uncertainty for private industry.

The PCs score a 6/10, bringing their score up only because they have aggressively used MZOs and modified municipal Official Plan Amendments (OPAs) to build densely near transit, and taken some action to reduce timelines to building new housing through Bill 109. Their lack of commitments makes it hard to evaluate their intentions on supply.

Do the platforms take action to end exclusionary zoning?

The NDP, Liberals and Greens all promise to end exclusionary zoning - to a different extent. The PCs promise to use the Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF) report, which proposed legalizing fourplexes provincewide, as their roadmap. However, they make no firm commitment as to if they will implement that specific point.

The Greens are the strongest, and most specific. They promise to legalize fourplexes provincewide. They also propose amending planning legislation to require municipalities meet intensification targets with density spread throughout urbanized areas. This will force municipalities to abandon the "tall and sprawl" planning patter,, and actually build missing middle and midrise in existing neighbourhoods that are currently exclusionary.

The NDP promise to "end exclusionary zoning" and "reform land use planning rules" to enable building missing middle. While they use New Zealand's zoning reforms as an example, they are not specific with what they mean by "exclusionary zoning", or the density they plan to permit.

The Liberals promise to "work with municipalities" to permit triplexes that are two storeys or less as-of-right, with these permissions also applying to laneway and secondary suites. This language is weak: multiplexes should just straight out be legalized. Permitting triplexes that are two storeys is incremental progress, but falls short of what the HATF and Greens are proposing. The Liberals do propose creating neighbourhood transition zones, which are a good mechanism for permitting more density in neighbourhoods even beyond multiplexes.

Do the platforms take action to intensify near transit?

Legalizing multiplexes will not be sufficient to build 1.5 million homes over the next decade in the places people want to live. We will need to build mid-rise, and high-rise buildings, especially near billion-dollar transit investments.

The Greens have the strongest approach. They will pre-zone for missing middle and mid-rise on transit corridors and main streets, not only major transit stations. They also propose to require minimum densities along transit corridors, and condition transit funding on minimum densities. They will, however, have to ensure that municipalities do not choose to cut transit to avoid having to build more housing.

The PCs have taken action to densify near transit. They have used MZOs in transit-oriented communities, and they amended some secondary plans to permit higher density near major transit stations. However, this approach is not as strong as pre-zoning along all transit corridors like the Greens proposed.

The Liberals promise to encourage the development of "low-rise 'missing middle' multiplexes and other mid-rise housing options near rapid transit stations and routes." This is a good start, but not to the level of pre-zoning along all transit corridors. They do promise to implement parking maximums around transit, which will drive down the cost of construction. They will also include tie-in measures with inclusionary zoning to increase the number of overall homes allowed to be built around transit.

The NDP promise to "align growth with transit investments", but nothing more specific.

Do the platforms take action to ensure municipal rules do not practically prevent multi-unit housing where it is technically permitted?

Many municipal rules and design guidelines make it infeasible to build multi-unit housing, even where the Official Plan or zoning may technically allow it. It is important to relax these rules that prioritize aesthetics over housing.

The Liberals have the strongest language, promising to simplify and modernize rules like parking, floor space, and lot splitting requirements. They will also modify planning legislation to overtly say that building homes is a priority. This could cause city planners to put more weight on getting homes built instead of design guidelines when evaluating development proposals.

The Greens' only specific reference is to end parking minimums province-wide, and improving rules to help homeowners add accessory dwellings (e.g. garden suites, laneway suites, garage conversions).

The PCs have promised to follow the HATF report as their long-term roadmap, but have no specific commitment to enacting provincial standards around these types of municipal rules.

The NDP promise to end parking minimums in transit-served areas. They also propose a new Residents’ Rights Act to make it easier to convert garages, basements and floors into affordable rentals, but they do not discuss changes to make it easier to build new structures.

Do the platforms legalize multi-tenant housing province-wide?

Multi-tenant housing, also known as rooming houses, are one of the cheapest forms of housing available. They provide people a home, who may otherwise not be able to afford one. They should be legal, and regulated for safety province-wide. Unfortunately, even Toronto City Council has not succeeded in legalizing them. The province needs to step in and legalize them across Ontario.

Keeping multi-tenant homes illegal does not keep them away: they already exist in all communities in Ontario. Students, young people, new immigrants, and anyone in desperate need of the cheapest market-rate housing in Ontario depend on multi-tenant homes, but the status quo lets them all down by keeping multi-tenant houses unsafe, illegal, and in the black market.

The Liberals promise to "work with municipalities" to regulate multi-tenant housing. This is better than the other parties, but not enough. Multi-tenant housing should be legalized province-wide, regardless of municipal opposition.

The PCs have promised to follow the HATF report as their long-term roadmap. While the HATF report specifically called for legalizing multi-tenant homes provincewide, the PCs have not provided a timeline or a specific commitment to legalizing multi-tenant housing.

Neither the NDP or the Greens promise to legalize multi-tenant housing.

Do the platforms take action to reduce regulatory process barriers and timelines to building new housing?

The PCs have taken some action to reduce timelines to building new housing through Bill 109, which sets out penalties to municipalities for not approving housing according to the legislated timeline. There remains some debate on how effective those measures will be, and whether there may be some adverse side-effects. They have also promised a Streamline Development Approval Fund of $45M to help municipalities speed up approvals.

The Liberals promise a $300M fund to speed up planning approvals and support the use of community planning permits that help reduce approval timelines.

The Greens promise to streamline approvals in certain situations, such as for affordable housing, or innovative co-housing situations.

The NDP do not have any proposed action to reduce regulatory process barriers.

Housing Justice: More Social, Affordable, Co-op, Rental, and Innovative Housing Options

Even with additional supply, there will still be a need for below-market housing for those who cannot afford market-rate housing. That is why it is important to invest in building affordable housing.

The NDP score highest with a 9/10 because of their commitments to maximize building on provincial lands for affordable housing, creating a new public builder, providing direct subsidy to create affordable housing, and their high targets for affordable housing.

The Liberals score an 8/10, slightly lower because their affordable housing targets are lower than the NDP and Greens.

The Greens also score an 8/10 because they do not propose a creation of a public builder.

The PCs score the lowest with a 3/10, because they have not provided enough direct subsidy for affordable housing, nor have they used provincial land to maximize building affordable housing.

Do the platforms take action to use provincial lands to maximize building new affordable housing?

The Greens have the most specific and wide definition of provincial land. They will build affordable housing on top of transit facilities and transit surface parking lots in addition to the overall inventory. They will develop long-term leases for permanently affordable rental, and attainable homeownership and will sign low-cost leases with non-market housing providers. They will also accelerate the deployment of supportive modular housing on provincially owned land.

The Liberals will develop surplus lands, including on hydro corridors. They will maximize student housing on university and college lands by providing as-of-right zoning for student residences and eliminating development charges for student housing. This is important, as actual population growth has surpassed predictions used for planning, largely due to higher immigration from international students.

The NDP will require Metrolinx to make surplus lands available for social and affordable housing. They do not specify whether surface parking lots are considered surplus, which is an important point since most suburban GO stations are surrounded by a sea of surface parking. They will make public land available to land trusts, and non-market housing providers through their public agency.

The PCs have used public land in transit-oriented communities to build some affordable and non-market housing, but have not done so to the extent that the other parties are proposing.

Do the platforms provide subsidies to increase the number of social, affordable, public, co-op, subsidized, and supportive units?

The NDP have the strongest proposal. They will finance and build 250,000 affordable and non-market rental homes, including 100,000 deeply affordable, and 150,000 below market homes. They will provide direct subsidy to finance 40% of the capital repairs, matched with the federal government, with the remaining financed by municipalities and housing providers to extend the lifespan of 260,000 affordable homes. They will restore the co-op housing seed fund, starting with $10M in co-op homes, and work with the Federal government to establish a co-op housing trust. They will build 60,000 supportive homes, 22,000 homes for Indigenous peoples. One negative is their proposal to expand inclusionary zoning without any offsets, which relies on new residents subsidizing affordable housing, instead of direct government subsidy.

The Greens will build 100,000 new permanently affordable rental homes over the next decade. They will increase incentives for homeowners to add affordable rental units to their property. They will create a seed fund of $100M for co-ops, increase incentives for permanently affordable housing developments. They will fund extending the lifespan of 260,000 community housing homes, and fund 50% of the costs for operating and maintaining shelters and community housing. They will provide low-interest loans for affordable housing, increase incentives for infill affordable housing. They will fund 22,000 homes for Indigenous people and build 60,000 supportive units. However, the Greens are promising to mandate 20% affordable units via inclusionary zoning (IZ) province-wide which could have the unintended effect of killing the feasibility of some housing projects, and relies on future residents subsidizing affordable housing, instead of direct government subsidy.

The Liberals promise less than the NDP and Greens: 138,000 deeply affordable homes, including 78,000 social and community homes, 38,000 supportive homes, and 22,000 homes for Indigenous peoples. They will provide $360M in operating funds to municipal and non-profit housing providers. They will also provide offsets for IZ, such as increasing the number of homes allowed to be built, which is a more effective policy than mandate-only IZ.

The PCs have not promised any new investments in non-market housing, and their current investment is insufficient.

Do platforms propose creation of a public builder empowered to deliver mixed income housing?

Canada and Ontario’s past experience with public housing should not bias us against public

housing as one of many solutions to our housing crisis. In Paris (France), more than 30% of

residents live in mixed income public housing. In Vienna (Austria), which is often ranked in the

top five cities for quality of life, more than half of residents live in mixed income public

housing. In Singapore, one of the most prosperous cities on earth, more than 80% of

residents live in publicly built housing, with more than 90% of them owning their homes. The

common theme in the approach taken by these city-regions is that their public builders create

a mix of housing and complete communities that include market rate units. This facilitates

public housing and communities that are economically self-sustaining after their

development is completed.

A public builder is an excellent mechanism for building mixed-income public housing quickly, with minimal financial and process overhead. A public builder can pool expertise and capital to build a lot more mixed-income and cross-subsidized affordable housing faster than would otherwise happen in public-private partnerships.

Only the NDP and Liberals will create a public builder.

Do the platforms legalize and/or incentivize innovative structures and financing options to support small-scale co-ownership?

The NDP propose enabling small groups of friends, families or communities, to "build a shared home or community they want, including zero or limited equity co-ops" (baugruppen model).

The Greens will develop pilot programs such as cohousing, tiny homes, rent-to-own and shared equity plans. They will also allow single family homes to be divided into multiple condos.

The Liberals only propose legalizing rent-to-own.

The PCs have not promised to legalize innovative structures.

Changing Behaviour: Incentivizing Growth and Municipal Cooperation

Municipalities are the largest barrier to building new housing in Ontario. The next provincial government needs to take a carrot and stick approach with municipalities to ensure that they do not circumvent any reforms put forward.

No party scores well in this category.

The PCs score a 5/10 because they have used MZOs for some affordable housing projects, albeit in an arbitrary manner, and implemented penalties for municipalities who do not approve housing fast enough.

The Liberals score a 5/10 because they suggest improving public consultation, but not limiting it in situations where it is an unnecessary requirement, and provide financial incentives for municipalities to build housing beyond their targets.

The Greens score a 5/10 because they also suggest improving public consultation, but not limiting it in situations where it is an unnecessary requirement, provide some financial incentives for municipalities to build more housing, and condition transit funding on minimum densities.

The NDP score a 4/10 because they also suggest improving public consultation, but do not have any penalties or incentives for municipalities who do not approve enough housing.

Do the platforms take action to limit public consultation and appeals for small projects, affordable housing projects, and shelters?

Onerous public consultation requirements, and threats of appeal add costs, delay, and risk to housing projects. Limiting public consultation for small developments, affordable housing, and shelters is a way to get housing built now.

The three opposition parties say they will reform planning appeals and consultations to be more inclusive, but none of the parties propose concrete actions to limit public consultation and appeals in a systematic way.

The NDP say they'll reform the planning appeal system to make sure that the planning appeal process is fair, efficient and serves the public interest. That can mean a lot of possible outcomes.

The OLP say they will use MZOs only for critical provincial projects like affordable housing, but require transparent consultations with affected communities. They will expand the reach of community consultations by requiring municipalities to proactively reach out to equity-deserving groups, advertise on social media, provide online options, and schedule meeting times outside of working hours.

The Greens want to make consultations more inclusive by engaging people in community locations such as coffee shops, or transit, or providing childcare at consultations. They will also work on a provincial yes in my backyard (YIMBY) initiative to address NIMBYism. They do say they want to commit to robust public consultation and only use MZOs in exceptional circumstances. They also say they'll reverse damaging changes to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, but it is unclear whether they will replace it with.

The PCs have reformed land planning tribunals into the OLT, but have not proposed to limit third-party appeals. They have used MZOs to limit public consultation and appeals, but in an often arbitrary manner. For example, they have not issued a MZO for the supportive housing project at 175 Cummer.

Do the platforms suggest penalties for municipalities who don’t approve enough housing?

Municipalities are responsible for approving housing. A carrot and stick approach is required to reward municipalities that carry their weight in approving housing in a timely manner, and penalize municipalities that seek to block or delay housing to appease NIMBY interests.

With their Bill 109, the PCs imposed financial penalties on municipalities if they do not meet timelines for approving housing at each stage of the development applications.

The Greens propose conditioning transit funding on meeting minimum densities along transit corridors.

The NDP and the OLP do not propose penalties for municipalities that don't approve enough housing, although the Liberals will require more data on approval timelines and building permits to be released.

Do the platforms incentivize municipalities to build more housing beyond provincial mandates?

Changing municipal behaviour means rewarding municipalities that welcome more neighbours than the minimum set out in the growth plan. Financial incentives can help municipalities embrace the benefits of growth and building housing.

The Liberals will give dedicated capital funding for municipalities that meet or exceed growth targets for "local priorities and amenities". They will also allow for street votes, which could be a mechanism to allow streets to exceed the bare minimum density allowed by zoning.

The Greens will reinstate the brownfield remediation fund to incentivize municipalities to build affordable infill housing in former industrial sites.

The PCs and NDP do not describe specific incentives for municipalities that build more housing, although they both advocate for tying growth to transit.

Do platforms suggest updating provincially mandated growth policies to incentivize infill growth over sprawl?

Building housing is good, but building housing where people want to live is better. Overwhelmingly, people want to live in 15 minute neighbourhoods, close to their friends, family and community. Forcing people to move to faraway places because not enough housing is being built in existing communities is not a true solution to the housing crisis.

The current Growth Plan, set in 2020, significantly underestimates and under-plans for urban growth in Toronto. The Growth Plan expects Toronto to get roughly 30,000 new residents between now and 2051, while Toronto has grown at a much faster 50,000 new residents per year since 2016. By planning for more 905 suburban growth over Toronto growth, the current Growth Plan is a sprawl-and-traffic plan that expects Toronto homes to remain increasingly out-of-reach for most.

The Greens have the strongest policy on this question. They will review development charges to stop subsidizing sprawl, start with a density assessment before a land needs assessment, and freeze urban growth boundaries.

The NDP promise to protect farmland from sprawl, and encourage "responsible development" within existing urban boundaries.

The OLP do not promise to freeze current urban boundaries, but they promise to increase housing targets in existing unaffordable communities, a more direct mention of growth planning than in any of the other parties’ platforms.

The PCs have taken action to ensure that infill growth is possible through legalizing laneway suites, garden suites, but they have also decreased minimum densities for greenfield development within urban boundaries. They also drafted the current Growth Plan that undercuts urban growth and have signalled that they want to continue to expand urban boundaries for sprawl-like development.

Reducing Bad Demand and Strengthening Tenant Protections: Stop Excess Speculation & The Financialization Of Housing

Reducing speculation can provide some relief to the housing market in the short-term. 

The best way to reduce financialization and speculation is through housing abundance. Corporate property owners, multiple property owners, and even primary homeowners are all speculating on continued housing scarcity. Landlords should be competing for tenants, not vice-versa.

The second best way to reduce financialization and speculation is through a land value tax, or eliminating the primary residence capital gains exemption. Less optimal policies can introduce unintended consequences, such as advantaging homeowners over renters or limiting the housing options for new arrivals to Canada in ways that can put them in precarious housing situations.

With regards to tenant protections, landlords will always have some market power over tenants due to moving and search costs. As with speculation, the best way to reduce landlords' market power is through housing abundance. Even in a world with housing abundance, strong tenant protections remain important to stop landlords from taking advantage of the most vulnerable tenants.

The NDP score a 7/10. Some of their policies to reduce the financialization and speculation of housing could cause adverse consequences for the rental market compared to something like a land value tax, but they do differentiate themselves from the other parties by permitting municipalities to implement progressive property tax. They will strengthen various tenant protections more than the OLP and PCs, but do not propose offsets for disincentives to new purpose-built rental induced by vacancy control.

The Greens score a 6/10 because they propose almost the same policies as the NDP, but with the very small offset to vacancy control of making it easier for homeowners to add a rental accessory dwelling unit on their property.

The Liberals score a 6/10 because they will reintroduce rent control, but offset disincentives to new purpose-built rental construction. Like the NDP and Greens, some of their proposals to reduce speculation could cause adverse consequences to the rental market. They also do not have as many proposals on empowering tenants as the NDP or the Greens.

The PCs score a 4/10 as they have incentivized new purpose-built rental by removing rent control, and have committed to clearing the LTB backlog, but have not taken action to reduce the financialization of housing, nor strengthen tenant protections.

Do the platforms take action to reduce the financialization of housing?

The NDP promise to introduce annual speculation and vacancy taxes, applying to out-of-province residents at 2% of value. They will limit investor purchases of resale homes, implement progressive property taxes, regulate short-term rentals, and crack down on money laundering. They propose a limited form of land value tax in a “use it or lose it” tax for developers with permits in place who have not begun construction, but do not account for how their inclusionary zoning policy might affect land values and project viability.

The OLP will implement a vacant homes tax and extend the federal non-resident ban for four years. They will implement a limited form of a land value tax through taxing unused land owned by developers with project approvals that have not yet begun construction. They cite that 250,000 homes are approved, but not yet constructed. This is most likely an overestimate, as the approval process is so long that, by the time projects are approved, they are no longer economically feasible. They will also crack-down on money laundering and pre-construction flipping.

The Greens will implement a vacant homes tax, expand non-resident speculation tax to the entire province starting at 20% for third homes and increasing for each home thereafter, anti-flipping tax and increase land transfer tax on all single-family homes over $3M. They will create a task force to address the financialization of housing and regulate short-term rentals, by limiting them to primary residences in areas like Toronto. They will crack down on money laundering and pre-construction condo flipping.

The PCs increased the non-resident speculation tax from 15% to 20% in March and expanded its range from the Greater Golden Horseshoe to the whole province.

Do the platforms strengthen tenant protections, while offsetting possible disincentives to new purpose-built rental?

Rent control is a useful policy to prevent the displacement of the working class, middle class,

and minority groups from their homes and communities in a market with rapidly accelerating

prices. However, our politicians often only wish to implement rent control for their existing

renting constituents, and then proceed to push back against pro-housing policy in their wards. It is important to recognize the possible negative effects of rent control and vacancy control on new purpose-built rental and apply offsets for them.

The Liberals propose applying rent control to all rental properties. They offset possible disincentives to new purpose-built rental by allowing as-of-right additions to purpose rental properties.

The Greens propose vacancy control and rent control. They have a small offset of making it easier for homeowners to add an accessory dwelling unit on their property.

The NDP propose vacancy control and rent control with no offsets.

The PCs will not apply rent control on any new built purpose rental buildings. This does incentivize construction of purpose-built rental.

Do the platforms empower tenants in defending their legal rights, through Landlord & Tenant Board (LTB) improvements or legal aid for tenants?

The Greens will establish a clear system for above-guideline rent increases, strengthen the Residential Tenancies Act to deal with the state of good repair, strengthen rules for bad-faith evictions, increase penalties and enforcement for discrimination in rental process, increase funding to the LTB to address delays, restore the right to in-person hearing, increase access to legal aid by increasing funding to legal aid ontario, bring back stronger LTB oversight of payment agreements between landlords and tenants, and allow tenants to bring group applications to the LTB for repair and maintenance.

The NDP will strengthen penalties for renoviction, return a right to in-person hearings that are prompt, fund legal aid so tenants have access to legal aid, strengthen right-to-return laws and guarantee elevator availability.

The OLP will invest $15M into the OLT and LTB to make review prompt, strengthen provincial oversight over elevators, and reverse cuts to legal aid.

The PCs have promised to spend $19M over three years to clear the LTB backlog. However, they make no promises to provide legal aid to tenants to help them navigate the tribunals.

TORONTO - The Ontario Liberal Party (OLP) has released their platform for the 2022 Ontario provincial election. Included among the platform’s housing proposals are a pledge to build 1.5 million homes, end exclusionary zoning in the province, re-institute rent-control and create a public builder to finance and construct both affordable and market rate housing in the province. 

A cornerstone of the bid to create 1.5 million homes is the creation of a public builder. The builder would work to develop surplus lands into a mixture of market-rate and affordable housing. This has been a policy long advocated by More Neighbours Toronto as areas with a public builder have been shown to deliver more housing. “This proposal is exciting because sometimes it’s best to just do it yourself building new housing,” commented MNTO volunteer Julia Gregoire.

The inclusion of “Street Votes” is also a welcome addition to the Liberal platform. While light on details, a successful implementation of street votes would allow a neighbourhood to vote to upzone themselves, allowing for a more diverse neighbourhood, and possible financial benefits for owners allowing more neighbours. Importantly, only upzoning is allowed, not downzoning. "I was excited to see the Liberals adopt this idea as it empowers local residents to welcome more neighbours and maximize the value of their property," said volunteer Sam Wong.

The platform also promises an end to exclusionary zoning. Here, the OLP joins both the NDP and the Greens in promising to end this discriminatory practice. “A year ago, it was unthinkable that three of four parties would be calling out this practice by name,” said Colleen Bailey, “but, by only committing to legalising two-storey triplexes as-of-right, I question if the plan is bold enough to reduce exclusion and have the impact on affordability that the party claims it will in these times of crisis.” 

This is not the only issue with the party’s promise to end exclusionary zoning. A Liberal government would also seek to collaborate with municipalities on this front. “I have doubts on this approach. These are the same municipalities that have resisted even modest efforts at intensification, who wrote long policy papers arguing against the proposals in the Housing Affordability Task Force Report,” lamented volunteer Rocky Petkov. “What will the Liberals change to ensure a different outcome?”

The absence of an explicit call to legalize rooming houses was also a disappointing omission from the OLP platform. “Rooming houses are the cheapest form of market-rate housing in most parts of Toronto; legalising them is the bare minimum governments should be expected to do on housing affordability and tenant safety, as long sought by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, to end discrimination against protected groups,” said volunteer Jacob Dawang.

“With this platform, the Liberals have made some important steps forward on the housing issue but success will be contingent on getting reluctant municipalities to act,” said More Neighbours volunteer Pirawin Namasivayam. “If elected, it will be essential that Del Duca and the Grits show strong leadership and be willing to shepherd a sometimes reluctant flock.”

- More Neighbours Toronto

---

MoreNeigbours.ca

@MoreNeighbours 

Media contact: Eric Lombardi, media@moreneighbours.ca

More Neighbours Toronto is a volunteer-only organization of housing advocates that believe in building more multi-family homes of all kinds for those who dream of building their lives in Toronto. We advocate for reforms to increase our city’s ability to build more homes in every neighbourhood. We are a big-tent organization with members across the political spectrum who are nevertheless committed to counterbalancing the anti-housing agenda that dominates Toronto's politics, created an affordability crisis, and has cost burdened a new generation of aspiring residents. We are firmly committed to the principle that housing is a human right and believe Toronto should be inclusive and welcoming to all.

TORONTO - The Ontario NDP (ONDP) has released their platform for the 2022 Ontario provincial election. In doing so, they became the second mainstream party committed to ending exclusionary zoning, a policy that More Neighbours Toronto has advocated for since inception. Despite this important commitment, the plan is too thin on details. We’d like to challenge the ONDP, and its competitors, to think bigger: to offer bolder commitments that rise up to the crisis facing our province.
 

"We’ve reached a tipping point: ending exclusionary zoning is now an expectation for serious political parties. But without more information, we cannot assume it is sufficient. We hope they’ll elaborate," said Emily Bain, a volunteer with More Neighbours Toronto.

Affordable housing is also a key focus of the platform - with the ONDP’s earlier promise to build 69,000 affordable housing units in ten years now increased to 100,000 units.

"Building and maintaining social housing while unlocking public land for affordable housing will make a difference. However, these targets remain inadequate to address the scale of the housing crisis," said Jacob Dawang, an advocate with More Neighbours Toronto.

The ONDP’s platform also commits to rent and vacancy control, which we agree with in principle to prevent displacement. We would like to see the ONDP acknowledge that these policies create incentives against long term upkeep and construction of purpose built rental, raising prices while deteriorating quality in the long term. We’d like to see further commitments to offset these negative outcomes directly.

Furthermore, the ONDP plans to reduce the power of the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) while giving some municipalities even more power with charter cities. In an environment where our cities universally fail to do right on housing, we are skeptical that empowering them further is good policy. There are reasons why advocates are demanding provincial actions.

“From our experience, the OLT plays a major role in pushing back against anti-housing elements and municipal leaders who pander to NIMBYs. A blanket empowerment of municipalities without recognizing the fundamental conflict between hyper-local and broader interests when it comes to land use will slow housing construction and let future generations down,” said Bilal Akhtar, a volunteer with More Neighbours.

"While the ONDP's housing platform is an improvement on their previous plans, it does not yet meet the moment.", said Rocky Petkov, a volunteer with More Neighbours Toronto, “This is a good foundation; we’d encourage the ONDP to build on it.”

- More Neighbours Toronto

---

MoreNeigbours.ca

@MoreNeighbours 

Media contact: Eric Lombardi, media@moreneighbours.ca

More Neighbours Toronto is a volunteer-only organization of housing advocates that believe in building more multi-family homes of all kinds for those who dream of building their lives in Toronto. We advocate for reforms to increase our city’s ability to build more homes in every neighbourhood. We are a big-tent organization with members across the political spectrum who are nevertheless committed to counterbalancing the anti-housing agenda that dominates Toronto's politics, created an affordability crisis, and has cost burdened a new generation of aspiring residents. We are firmly committed to the principle that housing is a human right and believe Toronto should be inclusive and welcoming to all.

TORONTO - Today, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland tabled the 2022 Federal Budget with a message aiming at Canada’s housing crisis. Included is a two-year ban on foreign buyers, a new savings vehicle for first-time buyers, and $10B of investments in housing initiatives over the next 5 years. However, in light of rocketing housing costs in cities across Canada, the Finance Minister’s policies are like trying to stop a forest fire with a water gun. 

One campaign promise delivered on is the introduction of a temporary Foreign Buyers ‘Ban’. “Foreign buyers are often vilified and easy scapegoat in Canada’s housing discourse”, said More Neighbours volunteer Bilal Akhtar,  “Both domestic and foreign speculators have a role in Canada’s housing market, the Federal Government clearly believes that the foreign speculators are the only demographic that they can target politically”. 

Another highlight is the creation of a new tax-free savings vehicle allowing first time buyers to avoid capital gains on up to $40,000 (in increments of up to $8,000 every year) in savings for down payments.  This benefit pales in comparison to the unlimited capital gains exemption on homes, representing upwards of millions of dollars in exempted gains for long-time homeowners. The unfairness in tax treatment between those who own and those left out is disgraceful, and it is time to consider policies that will treat renters equally.

In the same vein, the first-time home-buyers tax credit was doubled to provide $1,500 and the first-time home-buyers incentive programme was extended to 2025. “These programs might be good politics but they are terrible policy”, said volunteer Jacob Dawang “this funding would have a greater impact if used to directly address the housing shortage or to fund affordable housing for those struggling the most.”  

Of the $10 Billion earmarked for expanding housing supply, $2.5 billion will be targeted directly at the creation of new homes; this includes $1.5 billion that will fund the rapid housing initiative for another two years, and the creation of 6,000 units targeted at the most vulnerable Canadians. “Wouldn’t the $1.2 billion in the first-time buyers incentive programme achieve greater good if diverted into the rapid-housing initiative?” asked More Neighbours volunteer Colleen Bailey, referring to the unclaimed funds remaining in the incentive programme. 

An additional $4 billion is going to be directed to incentives for provinces and municipalities to accelerate the approval of new housing. This value, representing $250m to the City of Toronto, is unlikely to be a big enough carrot to encourage needed reforms when those reforms in of themselves would benefit cities financially. Money doesn’t solve NIMBYism.

“The government may have adopted the language of the housing crisis but, words are cheap just like their actions”, lamented volunteer Rocky Petkov, “this budget demonstrates a lack of the ambition required to confront this crisis.”.

The budget gets the directions on some things right - even if it's off scale from the reality on the ground. More loans and grants for low-income housing providers, and new funding to expand co-operative housing starts, are correct moves. However, the devil is in the details; plus, the amount of funding could be insufficient. "$500 million to incentivize co-operative housing starts across the country might sound like a lot, but seeing as land acquisition and construction is a major hurdle for co-ops, that amount falls short when considering land values in Toronto and Vancouver", said Petkov.

“Provinces may have power over planning and land use but the federal government is more influential than they let on”, suggested Eric Lombardi, another advocate, “if the federal government chose to leverage all its tools and resources, it could be possible to imagine a future in which young Canadians could afford a home. Once again, our leaders have left everyone dreaming of attainable housing out to dry through inaction.”

---

MoreNeigbours.ca

@MoreNeighbours 

Media contact: Eric Lombardi, media@moreneighbours.ca

More Neighbours Toronto is a volunteer-only organization of housing advocates that believe in building more multi-family homes of all kinds for those who dream of building their lives in Toronto. We advocate for reforms to increase our city’s ability to build more homes in every neighbourhood. We are a big-tent organisation with members across the political spectrum who are nevertheless committed to counterbalancing the anti-housing agenda that dominates Toronto's politics, created an affordability crisis, and has cost burdened a new generation of aspiring residents. We are firmly committed to the principle that housing is a human right and believe Toronto should be inclusive and welcoming to all.

TORONTO - Today, Ontario’s Minister of Housing, Steve Clark, tabled Bill 109 - The “More Homes for Everyone Act”. This eagerly awaited legislation follows the Housing Affordability Task Force (“HATF”) Report released in early February. The report called for the construction of 1.5M new homes over the next 10 years, an ambitious target to end the housing crisis while creating a huge opportunity for Ontario’s businesses and workers as they mobilise to double the rate of homebuilding in the province. Today, Ontario’s Provincial Government threw the HATF Report into the garbage.

“Everyone left out of Ontario’s housing boom, especially young Ontarians, just watched provincial leaders give up on a fair housing future for our generation. By continuing to punt on urgently needed reforms, our leaders are endorsing the housing crisis instead of a better quality of life for all Ontarians.”, said Alena Parkinson, a More Neighbours Toronto advocate.

The HATF Report’s provincially-appointed authors articulated a clear pathway to stabilising runaway housing costs, by recommending that Ontario finally end exclusionary zoning practices through legalising multi-tenant housing and multiplexes on every residential property. It also suggested municipalities make better use of existing transit infrastructure by allowing mid-rise growth along bus and street-car routes while transforming underutilised commercial retail space to become mixed with residential development. 

“The task force recommendations had the potential to take the market down to earth, bring back main street culture, enable ageing residents to downsize in place, and create sustainable complete communities.”, said Ramsey Kilani, a volunteer with More Neighbours Toronto.

With critically needed actions left out of Bill 109, the anti-housing agenda scored a victory. Systemic reforms took a back seat to “cutting red tape” in the housing approvals process. The time between a housing application being filed and shovels being dug into the ground may be shortened but this alone will have a negligible impact on affordability. In the majority of our cities, 70% or more of all residential land is locked away in zoning that only permits single-family homes. Nothing in Bill 109 comes close to changing this unfair reality.

“This legislation may make it faster to build homes but does little to make it possible to actually build enough homes where housing is most needed, in existing communities.”, explained volunteer Rocky Petkov, “We’re building a fast lane straight into a brick wall”. 

Ontario’s housing crisis has reached a breaking point. In just 10 years, home prices have risen over 200% while incomes increased by just 38%. To make matters worse, these rapidly increasing prices for ownership are contributing to rapidly increasing rent. This is trapping many renters in unsuitable housing and stealing prosperity from everyone left behind through lower disposable incomes. The cost of housing has become a major barrier for new Ontarians, young people, racial and other minorities, and the economically mobile in establishing their lives in our province.

“Ontario has barely begun to feel the consequences of bifurcating our society into wealthy property-inheriting classes with political influence and a renter class for whom ownership and participation become increasingly impossible.”, remarked Eric Lombardi, an advocate with More Neighbours Toronto, “We must urgently avert this neo-feudal future from wreaking havoc on our generational social contract, our economy, our environment, and our democracy.” 

The province had a chance to act where municipalities have demonstrated repeated failures. We at More Neighbours Toronto hoped for much better, and expected more action. When Will Ontario’s Leaders Finally Start To Take The Housing Crisis Seriously?

- The Advocates Of More Neighbours Toronto

---

MoreNeigbours.ca

@MoreNeighbours 

Media contact: Eric Lombardi, volunteer@moreneighbours.ca

More Neighbours Toronto is a volunteer-only organisation of housing advocates that believe in building more multi-family homes of all kinds for those who dream of building their lives in Toronto. We advocate for reforms to increase our city’s ability to build more homes in every neighbourhood. We are a big-tent organisation with members across the political spectrum who are nevertheless committed to counterbalancing the anti-housing agenda that dominates Toronto's politics, created an affordability crisis, and has cost burdened a new generation of aspiring residents. We are firmly committed to the principle that housing is a human right and believe Toronto should be inclusive and welcoming to all.

As Mississauga is the second largest municipality in the GTA and one that many MNTO members have strong connections with, we spent the time to respond to each and every one of the city's points. We disagree with the City's lack of ambition in going for broad zoning reforms, and their belief that their existing Official Plan is sufficient in producing housing in large enough numbers to tackle this crisis. The fact that the average house price in Mississauga is over a million and is well out of the reach of most Ontarians is proof of the urgency of this crisis.

On top of that, Mississauga was uniquely the only large municipality in Canada to have lost population in the latest census - underscoring the lack of sufficient intensification in Mississauga to make up for the shortage of greenfield development.

You can read our response to Mississauga's response in detail. 

Unfortunately, mayors and city councillors from across Ontario are opposing the most important recommendations:

• Legalizing four units and four storey buildings across the province
• Legalizing mid-rise buildings along transit routes
• Setting provincial standards for design guidelines that municipalities routinely use to block housing in the name of aesthetics

In a recent example, a Vaughan regional councillor said that the province should incentivize building more homes - just somewhere else, like in Barrie or Orillia. Not to be outdone, the City of Mississauga claims that “broad sweeping changes should be avoided”.

We cannot disagree more. Broad sweeping changes are exactly the kind of legislative action we need right now to tackle our housing crisis.

Our municipal leaders have proven, through their words and actions, that they are unwilling to make the policy choices necessary to end the housing crisis. Given the chance, they will only make it worse.

The provincial government intends to introduce legislation on housing before the election. We have worked hard to advocate for the most important Task Force recommendations, but we need your help to ensure the provincial government acts on them in the face of strong municipal opposition.

Please take a minute to share your support for legalizing housing across Ontario to Minister of Housing Steve Clark and your MPP.
Use our tool to email Minister Steve Clark and your MPP now.

Alternatively, use our sample email content on Google Docs.

And please share this with your supportive friends and family, so we can show our representatives just how many people support legalizing housing across the province.

Thank you for your support,

Jacob Dawang

• Jake Lawrence - Task Force Chair, CEO of Global Banking and Markets at Scotiabank
• Ene Underwood - Task Force Member, CEO of Habitat For Humanity
• Tim Hudak - Task Force Member, CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association

The full recording of the event is now available to view on YouTube.

TORONTO - Today, the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force released a comprehensive package of recommendations to drastically increase private market housing supply in Ontario. We believe these actions have the potential to significantly improve long-term ownership and rental housing affordability in the province. More Neighbours Toronto, a volunteer-led housing advocacy group, is calling on the provincial government to take immediate steps to legislate and implement the breadth of the recommendations from this report, particularly those that overlap with policies advocated for in the More Neighbours Toronto submission to the Task Force.

"Evidence suggests that Ontario’s accelerating multi-year housing crisis has been caused by not building enough homes to meet the needs of our growing population. Housing advocates have long known what the solutions are, and the Task Force has reaffirmed many of them. This can be the turning point for Ontario to end the housing crisis, provided the provincial government moves quickly to implement this report’s major recommendations", said Jacob Dawang, a volunteer with More Neighbours Toronto.

More Neighbours Toronto agrees with the report’s two primary focuses: first on intensifying growth in urban areas by ending exclusionary zoning practices and permitting fourplexes, garden suites, laneway suites, and multi-tenant houses everywhere, and secondly, by fixing the labyrinth of rules, processes, and practices used by municipalities to thwart or delay reasonable housing growth. Ultimately, it aims at a broad swathe of municipal planning rules that are at the heart of Ontario's housing crisis. It also recommends enacting changes through provincial tools to ensure that municipalities do not make multifamily homes practically (while not technically) illegal through means such as heritage designations, excessive urban design guidelines that prioritize aesthetics over housing, and unnecessary drawn-out public consultations. 

"The recommendation to establish province-wide standards around minimum lot sizes, maximum building setbacks, minimum heights, angular planes, shadow rules, front doors, building depth, landscaping, floor space index, and heritage view cones, is necessary to effectively legalize fourplexes and low-rise apartments, as long as those provincial standards are set with growth in mind," said Bilal Akhtar, an organizer with More Neighbours Toronto.

The report also acknowledges the significant opportunity for housing growth near transit, recommending that the province allow mid-rise apartments up to 11 storeys near bus and streetcar routes, and unlimited density near subway and regional rail stations for municipalities that have not approved enough density within 2 years. This would unlock large transit-accessible parts of Toronto and Ontario for more intense uses than allowed for by current policy. Additional suggestions for mixed commercial and residential use along these corridors has the potential to rebuild main street culture and create new complete communities province-wide. Finally, by recommending the legalization of wood-frame construction up to 12 storeys, the Task Force is giving these developments the option to build with a low-carbon, lower-cost alternative to concrete and steel construction.

The Task Force recommends limiting public consultation to large, more complex housing developments while streamlining the approval process for gentle density and eliminating consultations for projects under 10 housing units that meet official plan guidelines. When public consultation is necessary, the Task Force suggests requiring digital participation options to improve accessibility, even after pandemic restrictions ease. Virtual options eliminate barriers to participation for those with accessibility needs, working people with busy schedules, parental/caretaking responsibilities, and is a necessary step in surfacing diverse voices from across the socio-economic spectrum.

"Digital options have brought new voices and viewpoints to public consultations that were previously unheard. Because of online options, many More Neighbours volunteers, myself included, have been able to attend public meetings, ask questions and present our views for the very first time," said Emily Bain, a busy young mother and More Neighbours Toronto advocate.

While more housing supply is desperately needed, very little in the Task Force suggests promoting uneconomic and unsustainable suburban sprawl at urban boundaries, calling for any new growth to be dense, sustainable, and with complete communities in mind. As the Task Force report notes, there is no shortage of land and demand for new housing can be accommodated almost entirely within the current urban boundaries.

"People want to live in existing neighbourhoods that are already walkable, well-serviced, and close to their friends and family. More 'drive until you qualify' sprawl is not a serious solution to the housing shortage in our major cities," said Eric Lombardi, the founder of More Neighbours Toronto.

While the actions listed in the Task Force's report are a good start to expanding supply of market-rate housing, other solutions outside of its mandate will also help solve the housing crisis. All levels of government need to increase funding for public and affordable housing. We will continue to advocate for creating a public builder to compliment private sector homebuilding and to meet needs underserved by the market. Furthermore, none of the recommendations in the report conflict with taking additional demand-oriented policy action to reduce undesirable speculative housing demand from over-leveraged multi-property owners and non-resident investors. Nevertheless, we encourage the provincial government to enact the breadth of these recommendations as soon as possible instead of waiting until after the June provincial election. Finally, we encourage all provincial parties, the Progressive Conservatives, The Ontario New Democratic Party, and the Ontario Liberal Party, to work together to pass significant reform instead of nitpicking at the policy margins to undermine action.

More Neighbours Toronto

MoreNeigbours.ca

@MoreNeighbours 

- - - - - - - - 

Media contact: Eric Lombardi, volunteer@moreneighbours.ca

More Neighbours Toronto is a volunteer-led organization of housing advocates that believe in building more multi-family homes of all kinds for those who dream of building their lives in Toronto. We advocate for reforms to increase our city’s ability to build more homes in every neighbourhood. We are a big-tent organization with members across the political spectrum who are nevertheless committed to counterbalancing the anti-housing agenda that dominates Toronto's politics, created an affordability crisis, and has cost burdened a new generation of aspiring residents. We are firmly committed to the principle that housing is a human right and believe Toronto should be inclusive and welcoming to all.

------

Introduction Editorial

Toronto and Ontario’s housing crises have reached a breaking point. Decades of inaction, policy failures, excessive regulatory capture, and political domination by exclusionary anti-housing interests have culminated in diminishing social and economic mobility. In Toronto, the cost of the average dwelling has moved far beyond what the average family can afford. The cost of housing relative to income is now worse than that of San Francisco, a city famous for its long-run housing crisis. The consequences of permanently expensive housing are too devastating to ignore any longer.

Our society can set goals for housing growth and prices that are underpinned by our values and love for our communities. We can repair the social contract between generations and classes that decades of exclusionary planning have broken. We must agree that every family should have access to decent housing that meets their needs at every stage of life in the communities they love. We can return to a society where the dream of homeownership is achievable instead of a fantasy to ordinary people. We must agree that housing is more than a financial asset because it carries social, environmental, and economic values that are not reflected in the state of financial commodification we see today. We must return to an era where housing values are seen as a store of wealth (savings) instead of a highly leveraged growth asset that outcompetes public financial markets without improved value. Until such time, the housing market will continue to divert capital away from productive economic activity into land values, property values, and rents paid to landlords.

We must build, encourage, and grow mixed income communities because we understand that geographic economic stratification will make us all poorer in the long term. We should value creating an open society with high levels of social and economic mobility so that residents can achieve their potential no matter where they’re born. We must recognize that individual goodness cannot be measured by financial success in a market economy, and therefore, we need solutions to help the underprivileged afford the decent housing that they deserve.  We must rectify the systematic exclusion in contemporary planning that determines where racial minorities and the working class can afford to live. We must stop confining the most disadvantaged members of our society to transit corridors and avenues because they are our neighbours and not pollution or noise shields for rich neighbourhoods. We must believe in an outcome of housing policy that maximizes the freedom of every resident to pursue their best lives, innovate in our economy, and contribute to a more just society.

In an era where we increasingly understand the impacts of growth on the environment, we must aim for policy that generates sustainable abundance for all. In Toronto (and Ontario) today, we predominantly have two modes of growth - sprawl and tall. Both are unsustainable. We have the space to grow in existing developed land. Massive towers made of concrete and steel have significant embodied carbon emissions, even as they become more efficient over their lifetime. Sprawl maximizes individual emissions through heat inefficiency, promotion of excessive driving, and by decimating greenfield space. More than that, sprawl costs municipalities more every year to service than they collect in property taxes. We must legalize and encourage more efficient forms of growth. This means wood framed multifamily housing close to transit, jobs, and community infrastructure, in places Ontarians want to live. This means changing the incentives towards neighbourhood growth, so that residents who live in higher density housing are not subsidizing richer residents through property taxes. We must, as a society and as a province, ensure that our growth is environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable.

Our submission to the province does not come with the expectation that every idea will be considered. However, we believe the major principles we’ve developed should guide the task force in its own report. We think that the first step to ending the housing crisis is to ensure the housing market functions like a market. Basic reforms to market incentives will help more than just market-rate supply, as many of the same barriers are faced by builders of non-profit and non-market housing. We believe the task force must not leave affordability in the rental market as an afterthought, and must establish a goal to stabilize the growth rate in rental prices. Additionally, the task force should consider policies that leverage both market incentives and direct public investment in the creation of more non-market affordable housing and provide support to housing co-operatives. Finally, nothing proposed by the province can work if it cannot enforce the intention of its policies with municipalities.  This will require carrots but also real sticks that incentivize compliance. Aligning stakeholder interests towards growth is the most important step the province can take to stabilize long term price acceleration in ownership and rental markets.

The San Franciscoization of Toronto continues unabated as our city becomes an exclusive urban playground for the wealthy. A labyrinth of archaic rules, exclusionary zoning laws, slow processes, and a culture of selfish anti-growth NIMBYism have suppressed Toronto’s ability to build enough housing for its aspiring population, sending prices and rents into the stratosphere far beyond what most of us can afford.

It might come as a relief for some to learn that Toronto’s City Council has passed a new policy on Inclusionary Zoning, which has the potential to help alleviate or accelerate the ongoing housing crisis. As proposed, it would require new housing developments near rapid transit to designate 5% of units as below-market affordable housing, which would gradually increase to 8-22% by 2030 depending on location. While to some this approach may be cautious, the overwhelming desire for action led to some city councillors backed by well-intentioned activist organizations to call for a faster phase in and a 20-30% target for affordable units by 2030.

So why not? It sounds perfect: more affordable housing, at almost no cost to the taxpayer. Only those greedy developers building soulless glass skyscrapers would pay. Except for the fact that they won't. 

The consequence will be fewer homes built, and fewer affordable units paid for exclusively by new buyers, sending already prohibitively expensive costs for housing even higher as supply tightens. Toronto will cement its status as a city for the wealthy and those lucky enough to qualify-for and win the affordable housing lottery, the new NIMBY-approved Canadian Dream.

If we want Inclusionary Zoning to succeed, as every Torontonian should, we need to change our housing policies to create abundant, available, and attainable housing options in every neighbourhood. We must build greater quantities of affordable and market-rate multifamily housing everywhere, not just on avenues, polluted transportation corridors, or former industrial sites. We cannot see marginally higher affordability percentages at major transit station areas as wins on their own. People cannot live inside of a percentage.

In other cities, Inclusionary Zoning policies have been paired with policies that offset the burden of heightened affordability targets by making it easier to build housing. These include density bonuses, fee waivers, relaxed urban design guidelines, limited public consultation processes, expanded as-of-right approvals, and direct financial incentives. These rules make it possible for developers to build denser, faster, and with greater efficiency from scale. The outcome is more affordable housing and more market-rate housing for the city, an outcome Toronto should aspire to.

Unfortunately, Toronto is offering few incentives to encourage developers to build more homes; it is not even extending existing ones, such as the Open Door program. This risks decreasing or delaying construction in a city where 135,000 people are already underhoused and many more leave as they become priced-out.

Many anti-growth councillors favour higher affordability targets for inclusionary zoning because it puts a progressive facade on the typical exclusionary agenda prized by wealthy homeowning constituents. They don’t want Inclusionary Zoning to succeed in making housing more affordable, because failure is the point.

If Council is serious about Inclusionary Zoning, it must end exclusionary zoning, wherein the city protects 65% of Toronto’s residential land for detached  homes typically geared to single-families. These greedy policies have been championed by small but well organized homeowner groups that prioritize their shallow interests by bullying local politicians to fight new housing. This forces overdevelopment onto the remaining small parcels of land. Should we cheer on councillors who want to make those small parcels of land more inclusionary, while suspiciously making wealthy neighbourhoods like the Annex, Lawrence Park, and Leslieville more exclusive?

Eating into developer profits is politically popular, but if it leads to fewer housing completions and fewer affordable housing units than otherwise, has anything really improved?

Toronto’s inclusionary zoning legislation is an important first step in building a great city accessible to people of all classes and income levels. It is the tip of the spear in Toronto’s effort to correct a generation of classist, ageist, and environmentally unsustainable housing policy. But it isn’t enough in isolation; to be successful, we must bring an end to exclusionary zoning because we need more housing, affordable and market-rate, for rent and for ownership, in every neighbourhood. 

TORONTO – Today’s Housing Protest highlights this city and this country’s frustration with our leaders’ lack of action in combating the housing crisis, which continues to worsen every single day. Skyrocketing rents and housing costs affect Canadians of all ages, ethnicities, walks of life, and political stripes.

When our city evicts people from encampments without a plan to house them, or chooses to keep rooming houses illegal to appease those fearful of their currently unprotected vulnerable neighbours, or chooses to leave neighbourhoods near transit untouched while others continue to commute from apartments far away, it makes a choice to perpetuate the housing crisis. We at More Neighbours agree with the people turning out to protest today when we say: Enough is enough.

This is a pan-Canadian problem, and this protest is joined by similar ones across the country. With a federal election looming on the horizon, and with provincial and municipal elections not far off, we at More Neighbours Toronto call on our leaders at all levels of government to commit to a strong, pragmatic, and effective housing plan. Much as climate change is bigger than any one (plastic) straw that broke Canada's back, this issue needs meaningful action across all levels of government.

Announcing incentives for first-time homeowners is a start, but if it it’s not matched with a great increase in housing supply of all kinds, it’s a narrow-minded band-aid that will leave behind today’s renters, public housing residents, and future homebuyers. When 95 percent of Canadian incomes are deemed in need of such a program, deemed to be set up to fail without it, it is the market that is in need of retooling, not the way we bell this lopsided curve.

As with the carbon backstop, the federal government should do all it can within its jurisdiction to push for proven solutions. They must tie infrastructure funding announcements to housing completion / density goals, or start programs like their Childcare agreements with 7 of 10 provinces, to ensure that lower levels of government can work towards housing solutions within their jurisdictions. The province of Ontario must update its growth plan targets to be in line with actual population growth and higher demand, and municipalities must build new housing like we are in a crisis, because, alongside climate change, our generation most definitely is in one.

The status quo is not an option.

###

More Neighbours Toronto is a network of pro-housing voices from across the political spectrum which believes that housing is a human right and is committed to counterbalancing the anti-housing agenda that dominates Toronto's politics and has created an affordability crisis.

For more information, please visit MoreNeighbours.ca or email volunteer@moreneighbours.ca

Summary

Toronto, like many major North American cities, is facing a housing crisis. While prices for homes and rent have continually soared for years in Toronto, the availability of affordable housing has been on the decline. The decline of affordable housing has created many problems for the city’s residents and others looking to move into the city. For example, according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp, 30% of households in Toronto that rent lives in unsuitable housing.

While the causes and solutions to the housing crisis are complex, one aspect of the solution should be increasing the housing supply to match the rising demand. But increasing housing supply raises some questions, namely, what type of housing and where should it be built?

If Toronto is going to combat its housing crisis, new homes must be built in the urban areas of Toronto (the Yellowbelt) rather than growing urban sprawl outwards towards the Greater Golden Horseshoe region (the Greenbelt).

Find the full report here: https://housingmatters.co/hm-yellowbelt-sep-30-2019.pdf 

Executive Summary

Toronto housing prices have increased by 4.8% per year between 2000 and 2019. That has translated to a total price increase of 145% over 19 years. Housing prices have risen significantly faster than both the rates of inflation and income growth.

Despite numerous attempts by the government to curb demand—by increased stress tests, taxes and regulations limiting foreign buyers, and other limits to borrowing, lending, and speculating— Toronto housing prices continue to increase.

During this same time, the population of Toronto increased by over 400,000 people. However, 39% of the landmass in Toronto has simultaneously seen a decline in population. How is this possible? We suggest it is because of Toronto’s outdated land use rules, informed by its Official Plan, which require new developments in nearly half of the city to “reflect and reinforce the existing physical character” of their neighbourhood.

As this area is coloured yellow in the land use planning maps, it has come to be known as the Yellowbelt. Of the Yellowbelt, two-thirds is zoned specifically for detached homes. That works out to 32% of the entire landmass of Toronto—including parks, rivers, and industrial areas—being zoned exclusively for detached homes. Not only does the Yellowbelt limit the growth of the city, but it also slows it down significantly: the backlog in the permitting offices and courts mean that developers, big and small, can expect bureaucratic delays lasting several years.

The problem, then, is a government restriction on supply. Real housing affordability means that the market provides options for anybody who wants to move to Toronto. We can easily affect this by letting more people build more homes. 

Recommended Actions

Action 1: Update The Official Plan

• Unlock the Yellowbelt by removing language around the need to respect and reinforce existing physical character within Neighbourhoods.
• Shrink the Yellowbelt by redesignating somes of its land along major arterials and surrounding transit nodes from Neighbourhood to Mixed Use.

Action 2: Update The Zoning By-Law

• Consolidate all non-RA residential zones (R, RD, RS, RT, and RM) into R.
• Rezone all RA-zoned land to CR.

Action 3: Implement a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

• Monitor and evaluate the number of missing middle development applications that require major and minor variances. Compile list, address those in subsequent ZBL update.

Find a copy of the complete article here: http://www.waterlooregion.org/sites/default/files/August2020.pdf

Summary

This paper begins by exploring the theoretical and practical relevance of the financialization of multi-family rental housing. I discuss how “financialized” ownership remakes homes into assets, and transforms the sector as a whole into product for investors—creating a new asset class that enriches them via business strategies based on tenant dispossession. The second section launches a nationwide examination of this process in Canada, showing how state policy and other factors produced multi-family housing as a gold mine for reinvestment in the late 1990s, and tracing the history of domestic firms that grew into sophisticated financial platforms. A key contribution is my list of Canada’s biggest landlords, which has not elsewhere been assembled. Third, I examine the crucial role of state policy in creating an uneven landscape of rental regulation, which has lured financial capital to certain provinces and deterred investment in others. Finally, I propose a three-part typology of “geographic-investment” strategies that have allowed financialized landlords to penetrate Canada’s diverse regional housing market geographies. The typology identifies “core,” “value-add,” and “opportunistic” strategies that are used in big cities, smaller towns, and resource-driven markets. This section draws on detailed empirical data on firms, and a novel analysis of their business models, identifying similarities which have important implications for housing justice. In the conclusion, I turn to the apartment suite as a flashpoint for struggle around whether housing ought to be treated as a home or a financial asset.

Access the full 22 page report here: https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/social-innovation/Programs/Affordable_Housing_Visual_Systems_Map_Oxford.pdf

Summary

A Housing Crisis occurs when there is an extended and increasing scarcity of affordable housing and the housing supply falls far short of demand. Most major cities are experiencing this problem as strong economic growth has led to massive population growth and sky rocketing housing prices.

There are two competing characterizations of housing crises.

1. The Crisis is solely the product of growth and is a supply shortage issue.
2. The Crisis is a product of inequality fueled by growth, and is rooted in housing costs outpacing income growth by increasingly wider margins.

In this report, the authors introduce readers to the concept of the housing continuum and the housing crisis. They then deep dive into the pains suffered by Torontonians in an increasingly unaffordable rental market.

About Angus

I develop and build attainable housing. I also write the semi-monthly re:Build newsletter on cities, housing, and the business of land development and home construction. My experience comes from working with a development and construction firm building attainable housing and as a board member of a non-profit making housing more affordable through shared equity and project financing. In my spare time I wander around cities, read weird blogs, play classical guitar, and practice muay thai. I’m often thinking about how cities can unlock human potential.

Summary

Densifying big cities is the low hanging fruit in the fight against climate change. Building more homes and increasing their population is the most impactful thing cities can do for the climate.

Cities are responsible for 75% of global energy consumption and 80% of green house gas (GHG) emissions. By making efficient use of land and other resources, they’re also the greenest way to house a growing global population. These efficiencies are amplified by the density of cities.

Consider, New York City. The largest and most dense city in the U.S. is one of the highest net emitters in the country but its per capita emissions are only 29.7% of those in the U.S. as a whole.

At a point when international, national, and provincial climate action is challenged, cities find themselves leading the fight against climate change. Yet climate strategies in many cities have optimized for the wrong outcome.

About Erik

My name is Erik Drysdale and I work as a Machine Learning Specialist at the Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids) for the AI in Medicine (AIM) initiative and the Goldenberg Lab. My professional responsibilities include the development and training of the machine learning models for various pediatric data science projects. My research interests are focused on the intersection of statistics and machine learning methods such as high-dimensional inference, survival analysis, and optimization methods. I also have a background in economics and I worked as a housing economist at the Bank of Canada.

Executive Summary

Because this analysis contains seventeen figures and numerous technical discussions, I have distilled the salient facts which emerge from the analysis. Despite the impressive gains in population in these two cities overall, the distribution and composition of neighbourhood growth in the Toronto and Vancouver CMAs is skewed and limited to a handful of areas. The clear spatial and geographical concentration of population increases points to obvious regulatory constraints preventing densification on the majority of residential land.

1. Over a 45 year period, 1971-2016, 56 of Toronto’s 140 Official Neighbourhoods had smaller populations in 2016 than they did in 1971 (e.g. The Annex). More than 70% of Neighbourhoods in what was formerly Old Toronto, fall into this category of de-densification. 80% of the City of Toronto’s population growth have come from 20 Neighbourhoods.
2. The Toronto and Vancouver CMAs have seen their population more than double since 1971, outpacing national growth, and adding 3.2 and 1.4 million individuals, respectively.
3. The City of Surrey accounts for the plurality of growth in the Vancouver CMA (31%). Growth is more balanced between the City of Toronto and the other municipalities that make up the Toronto CMA.
4. Two-thirds of the Toronto CMA’s population growth has come from the creation of new DAs, and only one-third of population growth has come from increasing density of existing DAs. In the Vancouver CMA, the figures are reversed: two-thirds of the population gains have come from increased densities in existing DAs.
5. Since the 2011 census, very little population growth has come from new DA formation.[1]
6. Toronto’s oldest DAs have shown very little densification, whereas DAs formed after 1971 have been more likely to record higher densities over time.
7. Roughly the same number of DAs lose population compared to those that gain. De-densifying DAs lose an average of 250K and 125K individuals between census years in the Toronto and Vancouver CMA, respectively. However, the net gains from density to each CMA end up being positive as the DAs that see population growth increase by a larger magnitude than those that see population declines.
8. There is a clear spatial correlation for those areas that have seen population density increase or decrease. Population growth has been concentrated into a fraction of residential areas.
9. Statistical evidences suggests that having a higher share of row housing units is associated with higher population growth (the “missing middle” hypothesis), whereas higher incomes and single-family and semi-detached homes are associated with a declining population over time (the NIMBY hypothesis).