Newmarket is one of the fastest growing cities in Ontario. Unfortunately, they've now run out of room to grow. After the provincial government passed the Places to Grow Act (PGA) in 2005, the government quickly created the Greenbelt that put much of the GTA's land out of reach for development. Newmarket, like many other cities, now has no choice but to grow upwards. The trouble is that some local residents are resisting high-density development. What they don't realize is that they don't have a choice in the matter. The provincial government and demographic forces will decide the issue.
The PGA is not only preventing development in the majority of undeveloped GTA land, but it also gives the provincial government the ability to overrule any zoning measure in any Ontario city. The province has already decided to mandate higher density development. Unfortunately, Newmarket residents are being told a different story. To the advantage of local politicians, details of the murky PGA haven't been the focus of much public debate in recent years. Some municipal politicians who vigorously support the current government that implemented the Act are also in favour of introducing a 15-storey height restriction, even though the restriction would contradict the aims of the provincial government. It would also run counter to the platform on which the mayor was recently elected. The motivation behind the proposal is to stop a planned 26-storey development at the city's main intersection. Yet the city recently approved two 17 storey developments elsewhere in the city. Even if the city does implement the restriction, they know it will be struck down by the Ontario Municipal Board. The taxpayers will be stuck with the legal bills for the show trial.
Political hypocrisy aside, there are two main challenges here. First, the community is being forced to comply with a broad mandate imposed by the province. Second, a vigorous Not-in-my-Backyard (NIMBY) campaign is attempting to use the city's community plan to prevent any development that will in any way have any impact whatsoever on their property. Even minor inconveniences such as increased traffic and shade will not be tolerated. These are mistakes.
The challenge with prescriptive land use planning such as the Places to Grow Act is that it assumes that development will proceed exactly as planned. Moreover, it does not contemplate unintended consequences. One such consequence visible in Newmarket has been an extraordinary increase in property values. While it has been a major windfall for long standing property owners, whose home values increased by 77% between 2001 and 2010, it is a significant challenge for young families who wish to move to the city. Not everyone can afford a $428,000 house.
Another unintended consequence of the PGA is that cities and towns around the GTA, such as Newmarket, have become home to what is known as leap-frog development. The goal of the Greenbelt was to reduce urban sprawl and traffic congestion. But people who want to buy single dwelling houses are increasingly forced to buy well outside of Toronto and commute further on a daily basis than if they could have purchased homes in the Greenbelt area.
The irony of the NIMBY movement in Newmarket is that the people fighting against development are the very people who have seen massive property value increases because of the city's growth. They argue that the proposed 26 story development will cast shade on their properties and increase traffic congestion. One would think that the compensation they've received in higher property values would be sufficient to make up for minor inconveniences that don't directly affect the use of their property. But it isn't. It is never enough with NIMBYs, who thrive on fear of change. If anything, the proposed development, which includes a new medical centre, ought to increase their home values. The rental and condo units would be aimed at a different market share than the single dwelling homes with three car garages typical of Newmarket. They might even make it possible for young former Newmarket residents to return to the city, and for young professionals currently living in their parents' basements to gain independence. Attempting to use zoning laws to maintain the property value of existing owners is a misguided goal in comparison to allowing the development of more affordable housing alternatives.
Newmarket is not alone. It is just one of many municipalities in the GTA that has encountered explosive growth. The GTA added 477,000 residents since the 2006 census. Of these, 76.2% settled outside of Toronto. Newcomers will need to live somewhere. As existing municipalities fill out, the only option will to be building upwards. The battle between NIMBYs and the provincial government has just begun. But they are both in the wrong. Each group seeks to build communities in its own image. One wants to mandate high-density development, the other to maintain their "small town feel." Both make the fatal conceit that we can and ought to centrally plan growth. Leapfrog development and rapidly increasing property values in the GTA are logical consequences of prescriptive land use planning. Unless Ontario repeals the Places to Grow Act, planners and NIMBYs will continue to punish prospective home buyers.
Follow Steve Lafleur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Steve_Lafleur
Anna O'Rourke
He is against “prescriptive land use planning”. He would unleash a free for all where, presumably, even the Green Belt would not be sacrosanct.
Lafleur pokes us in the ribs by saying Newmarket is full of NIMBY types.
In the UK there are two much lampooned groups. The NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) and the NOTE (not-over-there-either).
The Shrink Slessor Square group (aka the Shrinkers) do not fall into either category.
It is perfectly possible to accommodate the projected growth in Newmarket without building giant towers that loom over surrounding neighbourhoods.
We are not against development.
So long as it doesn't turn Newmarket into a pastiche of, hmm, Calgary.
On a related note, Mr. Lafleur (and everyone else concerned about Newmarket's future growth) is invited to a presentation by York U. Professor Robert McDermid. He's talking about the influence of developer campaign contributions on GTA municipal politics. Should be good. It sponsored by Occupy Newmarket, a group dedicated to people-centred planning and policies. 1 p.m., Saturday, March 31 at the Newmarket Library (Park Ave., just west of Main St.).
Robin Wardlaw, member, Occupy Newmarket
Mr. Lafleur's interpretation is one way to look at local resistance to development in Newmarket. There is another side to the story that he doesn't mention, though. All those who criticized the proposed development at a recent public meeting agreed with densification, just like he does. We, too, want cheaper homes to allow adult children to move home (or out of mom and dad's basement) and for retirees to downsize into. We agree with the vision of lots of population growth along the key transportation corridors to make transit viable. What he fails to note is that we also want a smart approach to urbanization. In other words, this is not NIMBY-ism. Call it 'smarter-in-my-backyard-ism,' or better yet, lets not resort to name-calling at all.
Those of us raising our voices believe many common urbanization mistakes can be avoided with some good planning and design beforehand. Slessor Square as it now conceived, for example, looks like a place not conducive to pedestrians or residents who wish to spend time outdoors. It seems to be over double the hoped-for Places to Grow density of living spaces and jobs.
Robin Wardlaw (member, Occupy Newmarket)
If you want to have a quiet suburban home a la 1970, you have to leave the GTA, and soon, Southern Ontario. Winnipeg, Calgary and Halifax are nice for this.