Retour aux projets de loi

Protect Housing, Parks, and City Funding

Titre complet:
Update on Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022

Summary#

This item is Toronto City Council’s response to Ontario’s Bill 23 (More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022). Council adopted staff’s update and a set of requests to the Province. The aim is to support adding homes while protecting the City’s ability to fund growth, keep affordable housing, and maintain parks, heritage, and climate standards.

Key points Council adopted or highlighted:

  • Ask the Province to extend consultation, pause major changes, and not reduce municipal development charges, community benefits charges, or parkland dedication.
  • If the Province proceeds, ask it to provide direct provincial incentives (grants/rebates) or a compensation fund for cities to replace lost revenues.
  • Flag an estimated loss of about $230 million per year to Toronto’s growth funding if Bill 23 is implemented as proposed, with more losses possible from pending details.
  • Warn that Bill 23 would limit inclusionary zoning (affordable unit set‑asides) to 5% for only 25 years and shift “affordable” to 80% of market rates, likely reducing true affordability.
  • Note potential impacts on parks (lower parkland contributions and more credit for encumbered/privately owned spaces), heritage protections (time limits on listings), conservation authority roles, appeal rights at the Ontario Land Tribunal, and rental replacement rules.
  • Support some streamlining and “missing middle” steps (e.g., up to 3 units per lot), which Toronto largely already allows.

What it means for you#

  • Residents and tenants

    • No immediate change from this Council item. It states the City’s position on Bill 23.
    • If Bill 23 proceeds as proposed, this could mean:
      • Fewer affordable units secured through inclusionary zoning and for shorter periods (25 years instead of 40–99 years).
      • A market‑based definition of “affordable” (80% of average market rent or price), which could be less affordable than income‑based measures.
      • Weaker rental replacement protections (details to be set by provincial regulation), which could increase evictions during redevelopments.
      • Less parkland per development and more credit for encumbered land or privately owned public spaces.
      • Fewer heritage properties protected if listings expire after two years without designation.
      • Limited community appeal rights at the Ontario Land Tribunal.
      • Easier permission to create up to three units on a lot with lower or no parking minimums (Toronto already allows most of this).

  • Homeowners

    • You would likely retain or gain clearer “as‑of‑right” permission for up to three units on a lot, with minimal parking. Small projects (10 units or fewer) would be exempt from site plan review.
    • The City has asked the Province not to weaken design and sustainability standards (Toronto Green Standard) that affect building exteriors and public space.

  • Developers and builders

    • Bill 23 would reduce or exempt development charges, community benefits charges, and parkland for certain units (affordable, “attainable,” non‑profit, and inclusionary units), and add discounts for market rental.
    • Council is asking the Province not to reduce municipal charges and to provide direct provincial incentives or compensation instead.

  • Community groups

    • If Bill 23 passes as proposed, third‑party appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal and Toronto Local Appeal Body would be greatly limited.

  • Municipal services

    • Toronto would have one year after provincial approval of each Major Transit Station Area to update zoning with minimum heights and densities to protect those bylaws from appeal. This would likely strain planning staff resources.

Expenses#

No direct public cost is identified from adopting this Council item.

Potential fiscal effects flagged by City staff if Bill 23 is implemented as proposed:

  • Estimated annual loss of about $230 million in growth‑related revenues (development charges and parkland), roughly a 20% reduction.
  • Development charge phase‑in: about $265 million over five years, in addition to a previously adopted City phase‑in valued at about $450 million.
  • Parkland revenue reduction: at least $30 million per year from new caps and crediting rules.
  • Other possible losses are not yet quantifiable due to pending provincial regulations (e.g., limits on eligible costs, capped interest, new exemptions).

Proponents' View#

  • The item appears intended to protect Toronto’s ability to fund growth and build “complete communities” (parks, roads, water, community centres) alongside new housing.
  • A possible argument is that cutting municipal fees shifts costs from developers to local taxpayers and could slow housing delivery by starving needed infrastructure.
  • The City recommends provincial grants, rebates, or a compensation fund instead of reducing municipal tools, so housing can grow without lowering service levels.
  • Staff also note positive elements in Bill 23 that could help add homes, such as allowing up to three units on a lot province‑wide, streamlining some approvals, and advancing zoning updates around transit—many of which Toronto has already begun.

Opponents' View#

No clear argument available from the supplied material.