Comment 122640

By Wentworth (registered) | Posted March 20, 2018 at 14:06:42 in reply to Comment 122628

It certainly wasn't my intent to dismiss s.37 outright or suggest that it not be used. I was just adding a pinch of salt to the conversation in light of The Inlet's account of the PPDH meeting, wherein s.37 is the sum total of "proposed solutions".

Obviously s.37 can be used as a tool to extract concessions from developers, but the options selected do not in themselves answer the needs of the community. Your example makes that clear: It's Guelph's articulation of preferred options in the DSP that enables those outcomes to be more likely. As such, it's not s.37 that's the solution but rather a DSP that reflects the aims of the community and the larger long-term goals of urban development. If the zoning heights in the City's draft DSP remain unaltered, and the PPDH contingent simply look to s.37 for remedy, they will only extract community benefits where developers seek to surpass the zoned cap. If you revise the height map but retain developer incentives, then it's taxpayers subsidizing or paying for the provision of s.37 benefits. So IMHO the "proposed solution" would involve a substantial rework of the DSP over the next month.

Comment edited by Wentworth on 2018-03-20 14:07:27

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds