Letter To City Council June 9 2009

June 9th, 2009

An Open Letter to the Members of Ottawa City Council from the Board of Directors of the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce Dear Councillors: In the last few hours before the vote on the 2009 Amendments to the Official Plan, the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce would like City Councillors to take a moment and review several key issues and questions that have arisen throughout the decision-making process that, in particular, affect the Ottawa business community as well as the community as a whole. It is our hope that upon review, you and your colleagues will seek the answers to these concerns and provide our members with your findings. Development Charges: The Amendments to the Official Plan include some inconsistencies with the principle of ‘growth paying for growth’. Increases to DCs as a result of increasing construction and infrastructure costs as well as ensuring DCs used to the fullest extent possible as allowed by law are supportive of this principle. However, the impact these increases may have on housing prices and the housing market in general have not been clearly revealed to the public. Council should, when debating these amendments, ask for an impact statement Growth Projections: There are also continuing concerns regarding inaccurate growth projections; decreasing population and employment growth and an aging demographic. The Ottawa Chamber has worked hard in the past to discourage growth projections that appeared to be and were eventually proven to be overly optimistic. Over the years, the Chamber has worked with City staff to reduce the official growth projections for the City. Five years ago, the Official Plan was using a 50% growth projection in population by 2031. With these amendments, the growth projection has been reduced to 30% as was approved by Council in 2007. This is a welcome improvement but may still be too optimistic. Actual versus projected growth needs to be vigorously monitored and revisited at the next review to ensure these figures are unfolding as projected. If not, adjustments will need to be made once again. The Chamber would ask Council to inquire as how these projections (if inaccurate by either being too high or too low) will impact the taxpayer. Council should also ask Staff to report these figures annually to the Planning and Environment Committee if it does not currently do so and have these figures published in the Annual Development Report.

Expansion of the Urban Boundary: It appears that the continued strong demand for single detached homes that is driving the call for an expansion of the urban boundary. While some statistics show demand is slowing, it remains the single most sought after category in residential property development. It also remains unlikely that a radical change in regards to demand will reveal itself over the next five years as record low mortgage rates are projected to stay that way for some time. At the Committee level, the committee members have endorsed the staff recommendation for the addition of 850 hectares. This endorsement, however, is a controversial contradiction to the City’s guiding growth management principles and has understandably become a political red herring. As mandated by provincial legislation, the Official Plan 2004 included developable land that was to last for the next twenty years of growth. And since the growth targets have been lowered, it would stand to reason that the City should be in a surplus position. Council needs to ask the hard questions as to why there needs to be more land added in light of these developments. If it is by reason of the continued demand for single family homes and the lack of demand for more intensified residential development, Council requires Staff to explain why this has been allowed to continue in light of the fact that the Official Plan demands the opposite. Intensification Targets: The legislated inclusion of intensification and density targets are logical components of a prudent plan for sustainable and managed growth. But conversely, targets that are too stringent may shackle the City to patterns of development that are neither desirable or planned. It would stand to reason that if the City chooses to expand the urban boundary these targets would then be even more difficult to attain by virtue of an increased developable landmass outside of the Greenbelt. Accordingly, the Chamber would ask Council to ensure the new Official Plan also includes the appropriate measures to ensure the targets are achievable as well as enforceable. Exemptions to targets must be employed with caution if not to render the targets useless. The success of LRT and the Official Transportation Plan are contingent on intensification in those areas outside as well as inside the Greenbelt. As such, the Chamber looks to the Council for leadership on these issues. Looking forward tomorrow’s discussions and your response to our concerns. Yours truly,