ScaleDown Radio, August 10, 2009 - the end of the WBR?
So, is this it? Truly? What are we going to do if council actually approves tonights Ward Boundary Review and takes away our perennial go-to topic here on ScaleDown Radio? I shudder to think.
Luckily, I am penning this post AFTER the council meeting, so I am not only going to give you a teaser for todays radio show, but also a wrap-up of the council meeting. So, here goes…
We did our predictions on how the voting would round out pertaining to the WBR (we ALL got it wrong!) and discussed the ramifications of wholesale electoral change. I must say - I like it!
As well, on tonights council agenda is the Interim Development Charges By-Law. Dry? Yes, but incredibly relevant. When you think of how much of our city and quality of life is affected by this issue, we really needed to address it. Speaking of addressing it, here’s my presentation to council last night;
The idea of development charges are one of those subjects, much like tonight’s ward boundary review, that tend to make people’s eyes glaze over when they come up in conversation.And much like the ward boundary review, when the topic is explored a little deeper, the light bulbs begin to turn on.I am not here tonight to debate whether or not the interim development charge by-law should be enacted. It should. There’s only one thing worse than not collecting enough development charges and that is not collecting any at all.
I am here to speak to the make-up of councils Development Charge Task Force and how, as it is currently proposed, Windsor could be missing out on a great opportunity of moving further down the road to sustainability.
Progressive communities across the continent are using Development Charges to shape their municipalities in ways that better prepare themselves for a brighter future, all while opening up new development opportunities for their citizens engaged in land development.
They are;
• Reducing Development charges closer to the town centre where the cost of providing infrastructure is much less than at the periphery
• Reducing Development Charges in designated areas to encourage development that is able to support transit, a district energy system or a geo-exchange heating system.
• Reducing the Development charge per unit for high density development to reflect the efficiency in providing infrastructure to higher density development compared to low density because of the shorter distribution distances.
• And reducing Development charges for subdivision of small lots that are designed to result in low greenhouse gas emissions and development that is designed to result in low environmental impact.
The BC Climate Action Toolkit suggest that Development Charges can provide a financial incentive for compact growth. Flat-rate Development charges have been the traditional approach, can encourage large lots and less compact development, but by varying Development charges by lot size, size of units or by
location, local governments can encourage infill development, contiguous development and compact growthThe West Coast Environmental Law organization states that utilizing progressive
development charges will result in:• Major savings in overall road and servicing network costs for urban development in compact, complete communities, especially where development is in the form of infill and densification in established areas with existing unused servicing capacity;
• Minor savings in local servicing networks if projects incorporate high performance building features that reduce water requirements, sewage flows and storm run-off;
• Potential major savings in municipal-wide networks from reduced service demands associated with high performance design.
• Reduced requirements for new water supply and storage, sanitary treatment capacity and municipal stormwater systems could generate significant savings;
• As well, that the infrastructure savings due to smart growth planning and high performance design could easily be in excess of $5,000 per residential unit in many communities.
It is our belief that the members of your Development Charges Task Force, as it is currently comprised, may not place as high a priority on these aspects of development charges. We believe that since the issue of development charges will affect the community as a whole, as opposed to simply Windsor’s development community, the make-up of the Development Charges Task Force should include other members of the community who have a deeper understanding of the long-term benefits of a properly crafted Development Charges By-Law.
We recognize that Windsor’s development community will play a major role in any future success stories we may collectively celebrate. We simply want the rules changed in ways where they may earn a good living practicing the crafts they have proven themselves exemplary at while working towards making Windsor a more livable, sustainable and vibrant community.
Thank You.
So, to tell you something that you already knew; councillors voted unanimously to adopt a Valentinis-lead 10 ward hybrid (which, as the Windsor Star reports, Dilkens isn’t happy with), as well as voting unanimously to add two citizen members to their DC Task Force. It was a great night, and we actually went out for a celebratory beer afterwards.
Which is a very rare occurance after a Windsor City Council meeting!
All this - AND MORE - on today’s ScaleDown Radio!
So kick back and enjoy!
Want to download today’s broadcast instead and listen to it at your leisure? Click here. 
ScaleDown Radio is broadcast live every Monday from noon until 1:00 on CJAM 91.5 FM, redefining radio in Windsor and Detroit.
Tags: DC Task Force, ScaleDown Radio, WBR
Post Feedback
Indeed a very sweet victory for all those involved and hoping that your recommendation Chris to have Ron Droulliard and Andrew Foot take a seat in the DC committee is accepted by the city, maybe the stranglehold of only having developers sit at these committees is broken. I noticed last night during your presentation of the above to city council that Benny(?)
sitting behind you was taking notes on what you were saying, that may be a good thing!!
Now that we will have a ten ward system and that city council saw the light of having citizen input on Development Charges, on to the next fight.
The next fight? At Scaledown there will always be the next battle, it’s the nature of our being. So, on to the next fight in regaining local control of our school boards or having a seat at their table and with voting powers and or veto powers.
As it is now, I think that Windsor is being gutted of its schools, public and separate, primary and secondary. If we are going to sustain this city we have to gain some control of where schools are now and will be built in the future. We can’t let the practice of population census and demographics dictate that all the new mega schools will be built in the county in and to the detriment to this city (but with the near time future rise in oil prices those schools will not be sustainable in the future), or we won’t be able to sustain our neighbourhoods and I don’t think that Windsor is the only city in Ontario thinking that.
I also think that the city shouldn’t shutter or flinch at raising the develop charges to the max for green field development but follow your examples in your above statement for all other development in comparison to the county or fear that they won’t be competitive.
It is feared in this city that if we raise development charges to the max that all of a sudden people and developers will pack up and move to the county, that may happen and probably will happen but what they don’t understand or seem to not know is that by moving and building in the county they are placing a greater demand on those municipalities for new services and we all know that new services in new areas always carry a greater fee for development than ready available serviceable land in a city. i see a tax crisis coming for the county in the near future, with much of their current expansion coming from the former workers of the auto industry who are no longer making the big bucks to live in those bedroom communities, it is only a matter of time that their share property taxes will decline and they won’t be able to match the funds needed to expand. And as they grow the demand for more city like services and features will creep into lives and were will the tax base be if they are always cheaper than “that city!”
Windsor still has a vast area of vacant land and parking lots sitting empty that is already developed as you mentioned above and with innovative development charges applied could go a long way in defeating the sprawling municipalities of the county, we just have to be very creative in handling such development and don’t see the reduced fees or surcharges as a lost of revenue but a gain in intensification of the city.
Good discussion, guys.
BTW I don’t know if it’s just me but the last part of the show got cut off on the MP3. Not sure how much I missed but I think Chris was about to wrap it up.
Development charges keyed to distance from the city center, or even to surplus infrastructure available if such information is available, would indeed be a step forward. Citizens seem to have no concept of how truly expensive and wasteful greenfield development can be, especially when compared to the arguably more brain-taxing but certainly more economical practice of redevelopiment or adding infill development closer to the urban core.
I hope your council ultimately sees the light on this one.