Ontario pushed ahead with strong mayor powers expansion despite 'predominantly negative' feedback
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-strong-mayor-powers-ford-9.7253991
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-strong-mayor-powers-ford-9.7253991
15 Comments
discomatic@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 32d
All I know is if they come for the Greenbelt, there's gonna be hell to pay.
Mereo@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 35d
Perhaps I'll be controversial, but it might be a good thing. Here in Ottawa, projects are debated for ages, and the rural councilors simply do not want to do what's best for the urban area. Maybe this power expansion will speed up project development.
shitwizard420@crazypeople.online · 15 pts · 34d
You might just be venting but:
If you are actually interested in development applications in Ottawa and why they are rejected, that info is available in the development application search on the City of Ottawa website. Look in "post application" as the status.
The story is the same across Ontario. Applications for amendments to the Official Plans so developers can build outside of places that have established infrastructure. Strong mayor powers don't magically make sewers appear where there aren't any.
The Official Plan is public and shows developers where they can build based on available infrastructure capacity. Developers who own land outside these areas make an application and changes to the planning act mean the province will likely approve these applications (at the Ontario Planning Board) and force cities to try and catch up with infrastructure. Oh, and they force cities to lower development fees so there is no money to build it either.
Something to think about when you read about the undersized infrastructure in Ottawa over the next few days.
(Also this isn't new, it's about the pushback the new powers got during consultation. It came into force May 1, 2025).
Smaile@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 34d
Damn shit wizard spitting facts
Jhex@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 34d
Maybe rural and urban areas should not be bunched together under the same umbrella since they clearly have different wants and needs?
cadekat@pawb.social · 4 pts · 34d
Guess the areas of Ottawa that pay the most tax...
source
Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online · 4 pts · 34d
Critical context:
Source
The NCC or the feds own almost all of the land in that image, which overlays with the lowest property tax areas on the other map.
cadekat@pawb.social · 1 pts · 34d
Kanata and Orleans are on that map too, and are pretty populous, but have no spikes nearly as tall as downtown.
I'm guessing, but am happy to be proven wrong, that infrastructure costs scale much faster with the surface area they cover than the number of people.
Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online · 2 pts · 34d
I just wanted to explain why there was a big red band for people who don't know the city.
I do think Ottawa is an interesting case. Most of the time these discussions are about urban vs suburban areas, which pay the same tax rate (as a % of assessed value). Ottawa further separates rural properties based on if they have transit service or not, and charges different transit fees based on that classification. I would probably argue that every resident and visitor benefits from reliable public transit. I know every time I have to drive in Ottawa I curse the lack of transit 🤣
The rest of this isn't a direct reply to you, but may be informative so I wanted to add it:
I think it's important that people understand how municipalities are funded.
I'm not implying Strong Towns made a mistake or they don't know this, but I noticed they have a water infrastructure map with ages of water distribution, storm water collection and sanitary collection pipes. I'll stick with Ottawa as an example here, but this is very similar through the province:
I work in water infrastructure so it was fun to dig into what Ottawa does as an example, plus I know that even some of my colleges don't understand how it's funded! I won't presume to look at other infrastructure departments, but I think everyone who pays property taxes should take a look at their bills and see what is funded based on a % of the assessed value, what are set fees etc. I think of more people did that they would pay a lot more attention to how decisions are made. Personally I want to claw my eyes out when I hear a city council say water rates need to be capped 🥲
Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 34d
Yup. It was insane the amount of property tax I paid living in a condo, compared to how little I pay now in a rural location. My $4k for an acre of land compared to the millions paid per year for that same area of land that a condo building was on.
Mereo@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 34d
Exactly! To me, the amalgamation is a disaster.
Smaile@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 34d
It won't, it's just going to be used by ford and his local Jr.s to get what he wants
Grabthar@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 34d
Why should they want that? Rural councilors in cities are elected to look out for their constiuents' interests. You don't get to assimilate townships and tax rural voters at the same rate as urban voters, and then reduce their functional services to bottom-tier levels to fund urban interests "for the greater good" without pushback.
rbos@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 34d
Mostly on board with not assimilating townships, but it's a little bit the other way around with tax revenue. It's extremely expensive to provide municipal services to suburban and rural customers. Cities, with their much better tax revenue per acre, tend to subsidize rural customers.
Consider sewer, water, electricity, roads. All that extra pipe and wire to service a whole bunch of spread-out residences is quite expensive, and the revenue obtained from those residences is small. Which is why you have all these little towns going bankrupt, because their finances don't make sense.
I am on board with towns being able to manage their own affairs, but unsustainable development without the tax base to support it is causing a LOT of trouble. They spend without taxing.
edit: I see other people made this point better than I did.
Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online · 1 pts · 34d
I'm not trying to suggest these numbers solve the gap (I have no idea what the gap is) but Ottawa in particular does charge different development fees depending on if the development is inside the greenbelt, and if they are serviced or not. Different dwelling types within those areas have different fees too.
Further to that, the Village of Richmond has extra charges specific to the cost of sanitary sewers and so does a specific development in Greely.
Hydro is not managed at the municipal level.