Elimination Of Development Charges To Be Voted On At The March 2nd Council Meeting
PLEASE BE THERE !
There has been much publicity and comment about the ongoing debate at City Hall as to whether or not the City of Burlington should allow property developers a holiday from paying development charges. It is being proposed by City Council to waive development charges for a 2-year period in respect of all developments – whether affordable housing or multi-million dollar homes.
Development charges are levied in order to pay for the provision to new developments city services (water, electricity, sewers, policing, transit, roads etc.) and other needs like schools.
The mayor has said she has written to both provincial and federal governments seeking their agreement to cover the shortfall in city revenues that this waiver of development charges would create. There’s no guarantee or even indication from either the provincial or federal governments that they will cover the shortfall. If federal and/or provincial governments do not cover the shortfall the burden will fall upon property taxpayers in our city. At this moment in time, I am unaware as to whether or not either level of government has responded to the mayor
In my opinion this would not only be an unpalatable financial burden but it would be an irresponsible act by Council.
Developers already benefit from development charges being already deferred until project completion under terms of provincial legislation.
I am unaware of any other municipality considering eliminating development charges whether for a short period or permanently without a government guarantee to cover the municipality’s loss of revenue.
I am betting the vast majority of Burlington property taxpayers (if they were aware) would be against having their tax burden increased so as to bail out the development industry.
So, it is vitally important that as many residents as possible attend the March 2nd council meeting, whether to delegate or simply to attend and by being there apply pressure.
The more people who delegate a position against this proposal the better chance we have to defeat it.
All one needs to do is, when called upon by the mayor, to stand at the lectern and simply say “I live in Ward __ and I am against this proposal to have property taxpayers subsidize developers”.
Blair, Lynn, Joe, Caren, Gary S, Tom, Perry, Gary C, Michael, you are all pretty vocal online in your opposition to this Council’s use of taxpayer monies. Would you all please on March 2nd stand up and in person speak in opposition to this proposal?
What are your thoughts on the development charges issue?
Discover more from Focus Burlington
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Please not if, like me, you are unable to attend you can still make your opinion heard. Send an email to clerks@burlington.ca and it will be circulated at the meeting (or so they claim)
Yes, please submit ‘written delegations”. They will be circulated, and probably ignored. But one can hope!
Social housing is not a municipal responsibility – the municipal property tax is often called a regressive tax because it is neutral in relation to the services it was meant to provide. Income-related or social programs are a senior level responsibility for which they appropriately use income tax to address social inequities.
Reducing or risking a municipal fee or revenue for a two year intervention will only result in our property tax being used to make up for the capital deficit created by this initiative. And furthermore, reducing or removing revenue to try to reduce sale costs is a particularly simplistic in view of the range of variables that go into determining selling price. If you want to intervene in the housing marketplace, form a non profit corporation and start building non profit or coop housing. Otherwise, “stick to your knitting.”
I tried to reply earlier but I think it went into the internet never to be found.
You are so on point. Please if you can take the time to delegate in person at the March 2nd council meeting.
The largest impact that the city can have on the cost to build is to reduce the approval time in the process as every year adds 20% to the cost for the developer plus all the 3rd party consulting costs to prepare all the reports required. Ie)
Developers raise money from Private Investors to pay for the cost to buy the land and to cover the consulting and permitting costs before they put a shovel in the ground. The required annual return is 20% as the money is locked up for 10 years given the lengthy approval process and time creates risk as market demands change as well as input costs.
So if a Developer buys a piece of land and pays $10M and it takes 10 years to get all the approvals ( standard time ) this equates to an added cost of $51,917,364 that is required as a return to the investors, based on a 20% IRR
If the developer could get approval in 1 year his added cost to investors is $2M , so the cost to build is reduced by $50M or 5X the cost of the land – this is a much larger savings than development fees being charged by the city.
So this is where the City needs to focus.