I respect OMB Member Aristotle Christou for raising these issues with the OMB system. At the outset he touched upon planning rules and neutrality, which deserve further attention. If these are not addressed, then increasing the number of OMB Members to speed up the process... still leaves in question the appropriateness of the decisions that the OMB grinds out.
Mr. Christou has raised question with provincial policy in stating, "these policies arbitrarily squeeze more people in our cities without sufficient infrastructure and public transit, creating undesirable massive high-density developments and gridlock". However, my read of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Places to Grow Act finds more in them than a trite conception of unlocking intensification with a fluorish. Both address at length the fundamentals of local planning and development management to be conducted while implementing intensification. Likewise, the inclusion of Complete Communities idicates an intention far from arbirtrary. No doubt further policy work is required, as it is evident that local planning is ignoring current provincial policies. Ahem!
Mr. Christou states that OMB "makes decisions based on expert opinion evidence and provincial law" observing that "if the evidence... is weak, it will not pass muster" and that "there is no proof of prejudice". But, there is a prejudice against resident groups in the Hearing structure, namely an extraordinarily uneven playing field when it comes to costs. To a developer, OMB costs are part of his operating model, the decision a potential profit centre, and and win-lose-or-draw a tax deduction - whereas for residents the investment offers no better return than the continuation of an undisturbed condition, and the expenditure not tax deductible. It would be interesting to calculate this prejudicial influence of this playing field factor, even better: level the field.
With good planning wanting, and the state of the playing field in mind...perhaps it is best that timely OMB decisions... are instead for now protracted affairs.
Mr. Christou has raised question with provincial policy in stating, "these policies arbitrarily squeeze more people in our cities without sufficient infrastructure and public transit, creating undesirable massive high-density developments and gridlock". However, my read of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Places to Grow Act finds more in them than a trite conception of unlocking intensification with a fluorish. Both address at length the fundamentals of local planning and development management to be conducted while implementing intensification. Likewise, the inclusion of Complete Communities idicates an intention far from arbirtrary. No doubt further policy work is required, as it is evident that local planning is ignoring current provincial policies. Ahem!
Mr. Christou states that OMB "makes decisions based on expert opinion evidence and provincial law" observing that "if the evidence... is weak, it will not pass muster" and that "there is no proof of prejudice". But, there is a prejudice against resident groups in the Hearing structure, namely an extraordinarily uneven playing field when it comes to costs. To a developer, OMB costs are part of his operating model, the decision a potential profit centre, and and win-lose-or-draw a tax deduction - whereas for residents the investment offers no better return than the continuation of an undisturbed condition, and the expenditure not tax deductible. It would be interesting to calculate this prejudicial influence of this playing field factor, even better: level the field.
With good planning wanting, and the state of the playing field in mind...perhaps it is best that timely OMB decisions... are instead for now protracted affairs.
- / -
OMB is not working as it should, Letter April 15
The public’s scorn and disaffection with the OMB belongs with the provincial government. Provincial policy dictates and directs higher densities in our cities and towns. These policies arbitrarily squeeze more people in our cities without sufficient infrastructure and public transit, creating undesirable massive high-density developments and gridlock.
The OMB is an adjudicative tribunal that enforces provincial laws and policies. It doesn’t make law. It makes decisions based on expert opinion evidence and provincial law. If the evidence proffered by either party (proponents, opponents or municipalities) is weak, it will not pass muster. There is no proof of prejudice the OMB rules against municipalities or resident groups as suggested by some. It strictly applies the law.
Unfortunately, print media has taken matters out of context and are waging misinformation campaigns against the OMB. It may sell papers, but it is misguiding the people. Regardless, the OMB does not respond to demagogy, and like the courts, it maintains its neutrality.
However, not all is well at the OMB. The burgeoning ELTO bureaucracy, the cluster of tribunals that includes the OMB, has adversely affected the OMB’s efficiency in delivering timely decisions, as the membership has dwindled from 30 to 17 adjudicators who serve the whole province — from Windsor to Ottawa and from Pelee Island to Moosonee. This downsizing represents an organizational and political failure and a disservice to Ontarians.
The people and the economy of Ontario depend on timely conflict resolution of planning issues. It shouldn’t take six months to a year for a decision to issue.
- Aristotle Christou, management planner in residence,
School of Planning, University of Waterloo
No comments:
Post a Comment