[All] The Region and the OMB Battle

[Eleanor Grant]

Thanks for the heads-up, Ginny.

Here's Martin Regg Cohn's excellent article, from today's Star.  Chances
are the Record will print it in a day or two.

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/08/27/how_the_omb_stifles_democracy_in_ontario_cohn.html?app=noRedirect

Martin Regg Cohn Provincial Politics, Published on Tue Aug 27 2013

1 PHOTO
0 COMMENTS

The Senate isn’t the only unelected, unaccountable body that likes to
second-guess our democratically elected representatives.

Perhaps you’ve heard of the Ontario Municipal Board? The OMB may lack the
high profile of the Senate, and its appointees don’t make headlines for
bogus expense claims.

But the OMB’s legacy of meddling makes it no less notorious. After decades
of over-ruling city councils across the province to side with powerful
developers, it has a reputation for favouring special interests over the
public interest.
Now the OMB is itself getting a second look. A creature of Queen’s Park, it
has just picked a fight with the province that it probably can’t win.

Last week, after months of public musings, the Liberal government announced
a review of OMB operations. It will seek public feedback and try to
streamline the way this quasi-judicial body — unique in North America —
overrules city halls and overreaches into provincial governance.

Like the Senate, the OMB dates from the 19th century, when it minded the
railways and municipal finances. Up until the 1990s, its members also
enjoyed lifetime appointments.
It weighs in on everything from fence disputes between neighbours to zoning
debates over high-rise condos. But all these years later, Ontario’s big
cities say they are mature entities that don’t require adult supervision.

In a closely watched move, Waterloo Region is taking the OMB to court over
a bizarre ruling that granted developers access to more than 1,000 hectares
of prime farmland. Waterloo’s official plan had restricted future
development to 85 hectares of urban lands designated for intensification —
in line with the provincial Places to Grow Act — but land-hungry developers
appealed to the OMB and won.

Hence the pushback from city hall, and the call for public feedback out of
Queen’s Park. In a rare move, the government has also joined Waterloo’s
formal court challenge against the OMB.

The Waterloo appeal matters because the region had painstakingly aligned
its official plan with the Places to Grow Act. If the OMB can effectively
trash the provincial government’s long-term vision for population growth,
it would set a disturbing precedent for the entire Golden Horseshoe area.

As a former minister of municipal affairs, Kathleen Wynne got the ball
rolling on a review. Now as premier, she also holds the agriculture
portfolio, which makes her directly responsible for the Places to Grow Act.
With an election looming within the next year, municipalities will judge
her actions after a decade of Liberal promises to make the OMB work.

“I was working on preparing some recommendations as to how we might change
the OMB,” Wynne said pointedly after the surprise Waterloo verdict. “It’s
probably time for a discussion about whether there need to be further
changes.”

Procedural reforms in 2006 were supposed to remake the meddlesome OMB into
a more circumspect and constrained appeals body. But these turned out to be
mere tweaks, and frustrated opposition parties have more recently
introduced bills to curb the OMB’s power.

A Tory proposal would exempt cities from OMB appeals on intensification,
while the NDP bill would exempt Toronto outright. Toronto city hall voted
to seek a full exemption from Queen’s Park last year, after rejecting a
previous offer that didn’t go far enough. All that manoeuvring puts the
Liberals on the spot.

Critics argue that the OMB too often serves as a surrogate planning board,
allowing developers with deep pockets to do an end-run around Toronto’s
planning department. That’s anti-democratic.

Despite its unpopularity, few believe the OMB can merely be wished away. If
it didn’t exist, we would have to reinvent it. Without an effective appeals
process, city councillors could reflexively side with local residents or
anti-intensification NIMBYism. Someone has to play the role of impartial
referee, lest everyone end up in even more costly courtroom battles.

For big cities such as Toronto, it seems only fair to allow for a
locally-run, arms’ length appeals mechanism to guard against errors of law
or lapses in due process. It rankles when non-Toronto appointees to the OMB
issue edicts without explanation, undermining years of negotiations and
planning work.
Substituting the often arbitrary judgment of outside OMB appointees for
on-the-ground assessments by local councillors leaves us all going in
circles. As the Wynne government tries to square that circle, it should let
Toronto lead the way. And find a better way for the rest of the province.
On Aug 27, 2013 12:31 PM, "Ginny Quinn" <ginny at kw.igs.net> wrote:

> I’m sure you have ALL read   the “uninformed “ column  by  Peter Shawn
> TAYLOR    about the “Region fights dirty”  in losing battle over
> development. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Well some good news article  by  Martin Regg  COHN  on page A4  in the
> Toronto Star  ( bottom of page   today Aug 27/13 )   the title is “ OMB
> has picked a fight  it probably can’t win. “  ****
>
> Those of you  who can go on line to read it will be well rewarded.  Those
> of you who can’t  Get it  let one of us GRENNERS   know  and I can get Paul
> to ‘scan ‘it  to send out to you.****
>
> Martin has done his homework  !!!!  Taylor  could take a lesson from
> him.   Ginny****
>
> _______________________________________________
> All mailing list
> All at gren.ca
> http://mail.gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20130827/893babb9/attachment.html>