Newsletter Signup

Statement from the Mayor Regarding Factual Inaccuracies in Burlington MPP Jane McKenna’s Bill 108 Response

STOCK_Burlington_City_Hall_4

I released a Statement from the Mayor today regarding factual inaccuracies in Burlington MPP Jane McKenna’s Bill 108 response. Please see it below:

Burlington, Ont. — July 8, 2019 — Democracy is the foundation of our country, and accurate information is a key pillar of it.

It’s therefore essential that our residents and local elected representatives have the facts when commenting on community matters and advocating to Queen’s Park on our behalf.

To that end, I’m writing to correct factual inaccuracies in an advertorial by Burlington Member of Provincial Parliament Jane McKenna, titled “Setting the Record Straight on Bill 108,” published in the Burlington Post newspaper on June 20 — and a slightly different version of the article posted on the local group WeLoveBurlington Facebook page (June 17) and to the MPP’s website (June 19).

I have also requested a meeting with MPP McKenna and Oakville North-Burlington MPP Effie Triantafilopoulos to ensure they both have accurate information, to best represent our interests at Queen’s Park as our elected representatives.

Here are the facts:

Bill 108 makes changes to 13 pieces of legislation. It was introduced in May and received Royal Assent in June — and much of the concerns raised by mayors and their residents across the province were ignored. The Region of Halton and the City of Burlington both passed resolutions detailing the problems with Bill 108 in advance of passage. You can read those here: http://bit.ly/COBResolutionBill108 and http://bit.ly/HaltonRegionResolutionBill108. Many other municipalities have also passed resolutions expressing their concerns with the legislation.

Two key changes are in the areas of development charges and the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).

Development charges are intended to ensure growth pays for growth. It doesn’t now — paying roughly 80% of the costs of growth, while taxpayers pick up the remaining 20%, for everything from community centres to parks and transit. The changes in Bill 108 will make that worse as certain items we used to be able to collect for have been removed from the development charges and are now included in a new “community benefits” formula that is to be determined. However, that new formula has a “cap.”

If the actual costs of growth are higher, taxpayers will again have to pay the difference.

There are certainly challenges with the current development charges system and related to that is the determination of Section 37 benefits, which are cash or in-kind payments for things such as park amenities or parking — these are negotiated for extra height and density.

As noted in the MPP’s article, I have long been a critic of Section 37 benefits. However, Bill 108 does nothing to make this system better and for the reasons I noted above, it will, in fact, make it less likely that growth will end up paying for growth.

You, the taxpayer, will get the bill. Further, there is no guarantee that the savings to developers from reduced contributions to the costs of growth will, in fact, be passed on to homebuyers.

The second change is to LPAT. The previous provincial government worked extensively with the development industry, municipal governments and citizens to reform the powers of the former Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to overrule local planning decisions and speed up the process of approvals so that housing could get to market faster and cheaper.

Bill 108 essentially reverts the LPAT back to the older OMB rules where, once again, there will be extensive hearings with lawyers and witnesses that start from the beginning of the planning process and redo all the planning analyses completed by municipal governments and their trained and knowledgeable staff.

This will add more time and more costs to the delivery of housing — the exact opposite of the stated intent of Bill 108.

It is clear that as long as the tribunal exists (in whatever form), not only will housing be more expensive and slower to market, but democratic decisions will be overruled by an unelected body. Ontario is the only province in Canada with such a tribunal — and communities across the country are successfully being built without one.

It is time to eliminate the LPAT entirely, and I will be introducing a motion to Halton Regional Council on July 10 to that end. Please see a copy of that motion here: http://bit.ly/RegionLPATMotion.

Finally, some facts regarding Burlington’s Official Plan (OP). As required by legislation, the City’s OP is regularly updated, including an extensive update in 2008 to incorporate the intensification measures proposed by the Province in its Places to Grow Act.

Burlington was allocated a population of 185,000 by 2031. As of the 2016 census, we were at 183,000. With known and approved developments underway and recently completed, we have already reached our population target — 12 years early.

Further, there are specific density targets that are required in certain areas of the city. Downtown Burlington is designated as an Urban Growth Centre, with a density of 200 people or jobs per hectare by 2031.

According to multiple analyses by staff, we are well on track to meeting and surpassing that density. The most recent was included in the staff report for the 421 Brant Street development (see pages 23-27 of the report via the link provided: http://bit.ly/421BrantStaffReport), which calculates the current density at 174 people or jobs. It also states that we are well-positioned to meet or exceed the density following the existing Official Plan provisions.

I have gone into more depth and details about how the changes Bill 108 will affect Burlington residents in previous posts on my website, mariannemeedward.ca.

It is critical for residents to have accurate information, and especially for our local representatives, to have the facts of Burlington’s situation and fully understand our concerns so they can best represent our interests to the Premier and Cabinet. We will be scheduling meetings to ensure that correct information is circulated to the public and will be circulating this information publicly, as well as to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Premier.

Receive new post notifications by email

13 thoughts on “Statement from the Mayor Regarding Factual Inaccuracies in Burlington MPP Jane McKenna’s Bill 108 Response”

  1. David W. Matsden

    Sad that there was not more public input obtained before discussion at the Region. This could have elicited some good ideas for a plan B. Without a Plan B attached to the resolution it can simply be seen as another anti-government tirade that with the change in government by the people have become all too common.

  2. We had to get rid of Kathleen Wynne & the free-spending Liberals, but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. On a more pleasant note, we got the vote right for Mayor last Fall. Marianne Meed Ward is proving her worth and justifying our confidence in her to do what she promised to do; represent the best interests of Burlington. We’re 100% in support!

  3. We Love Burlington

    Thank you for this statement and correction of the factual errors and inconsistencies in Ms. McKenna’s published statement that she made to the Burlington Post and in a separate, lengthier letter to our group, which we posted verbatim on our facebook page in response to our request that she provide her reasons for supporting Bill 108. We Love Burlington fully endorses and agrees with your analysis. Our reply to Ms. McKenna makes many of the identical points, though we regret that we have not, as yet, received a response. We fully endorse your statement and thank you for also highlighting the fact that Ms. McKenna’s response to our group was equally erroneous. Ms. McKenna’s response to us and our reply can be found on our Facebook page – https://www.facebook.com/weloveburlingtonstopamalgamatiion/

  4. When you say the “growth pays for growth” who exactly is this ‘growth’? Where do you think the development costs eventually land? Ultimately its the new home buyers who pay the development costs through higher home prices. From a politician’s point of view, it is much more palpable to dump the cost on new home buyers than spread the cost across all city taxpayers. Now if the city wants developers to pay a higher portion of development costs then let’s be honest and let home buyers know that ultimately they will be the ones who are paying for them.

  5. Walter Migliaro

    Again and again, MPP McKenna is neglecting her duties in representing our community and spreading misinformation to justify the provincial government bad decisions. It’s a shame that we can’t never get an elected representative that does what they are elected for, be the voice of their constituency. Shame on her, hopefully we all remember in the next election.
    Thanks Marianne for been the voice reason.

  6. Norman Johnston

    Instead of hurling barbs at each other,perhaps the opposing parties could sit down and come up with solutions which would benefit Burlington and the rest of Ontario. Sometimes elected officials take the status quo for granted. Let’s collaborate and find a better way.

    1. You’re absolutely correct that’s why our mayor is engaging Jane with the facts. To be fair with Jane she’s just towing the party line which is shameful.

    2. Did you ever try to get anyone from Ford’s caucus to sit down and discuss anything? His word is law. McKenna does as she’s told.

    1. Hi Mike, this is John Bkila, the Mayor’s Media Specialist and I also look after her website. When comments are made on a post, they come to me for review and approval. I try and get to the comments to do that as quickly as I can, depending on my day’s schedule. Thank you for commenting on the Mayor’s blog.

      1. David W. Marsden

        The Mayor talks democracy but does not walk the walk. We have requested a delegation at Halton Council to set aside the motion she references in her statment as there should be a minimum of two weeks notice of such an important matter.

What's your take?

Here are guidelines before you comment, and our expectations before we will post:

  • Be civil. Would you speak this way to a good friend? If not, rewrite.
  • Focus on the issues. Build your argument and make your case in support of your opinion from facts, research or other sources. That way we can all learn. “I disagree with so-and-so because…” is fine; “So-and-so is naïve/stupid  for thinking the way he/she does and here’s why…” is not acceptable.
  • Don’t make personal attacks. Don’t assume motives of those you disagree with, make unfounded allegations, spread rumours, or engage in any other behaviours that would discourage you from participating if someone said this to, or about, you. The Golden Rule applies: Do unto others as you would have done to you. We will edit or not post comments with this type of content.
  • Say it once: When comments from the same individual or individuals become repetitive, going over ground already stated, we reserve the right to close commenting.
  • Use your full, and real, name. If wish to make a comment in public, we expect you will publicly stand behind it with your name. If you don’t want to publicly reveal your name, that’s fine; you are always welcome to share your thoughts with me privately via my email below. I welcome and consider all feedback in making decisions for the community.
  • Have fun, consider and learn. Share your views and read those of others. May we all benefit from a healthy exchange of ideas, and learn a little more about the people in our community, what you think, and what’s important to each of you. You may end up changing your mind about an issue; even if you don’t, we hope everyone will gain a greater understanding of why people have different perspectives.

Newsletter Sign Up

Phone: 905-335-7607
Email:  mayor@burlington.ca

Constituent Assistant: Georgie Gartside
georgie.gartside@burlington.ca
905-335-7600, ext. 7689