Dear Mayor and Council: Don't Destroy the Regional Plan

I have written before on Regional Planning issues in HRM.  Draft 4 of the Regional Plan is going before regional council for first reading on Tuesday, and a number of councillors have indicate their intent to seek significant amendments to the Plan.  Below is a brief open letter to Mayor and Council explaining why I think this is a bad idea. Please consider contacting the Mayor and your councillor as well.

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

As you know first reading of Draft 4 of the revised regional plan is to come before council tomorrow. I understand that some councilors plan to advance a number of amendments to the draft Plan, which include amendments to:

- have part of the Purcell’s Cove backlands re-designated from Urban Reserve to Rural Commuter;
- re-designate the entire Urban Reserve in Cherry Brook to Urban Settlement; and
- make sewer and water boundaries overlap;

Draft 4 of the Regional Plan is the result of over two years of extensive public consultation and committee work through the RP+5 process. While it is not perfect, it is a step forward from the original regional plan, and balances a number of competing interests, while making sure the Municipality is on a path to financial and environmental sustainability. The public feedback through the RP+5 Process has generally been supportive of the changes contained in Draft 4.

The proposed amendments are not minor amendments. In fact, they represent a complete abandonment of the underlying principles of the plan, including directed growth. This change of direction is being brought to council at the absolute last minute, with no meaningful public input. The proposed changes were never consulted on, and in fact fly in the face of what residents asked for in the RP+5 process.

These amendments would essentially abandon the concept of directing growth to our urban and rural growth centres in favour of allowing growth in areas where it will be expensive for the HRM to provide services. It would allow for development of areas that the community has clearly identified as wanting to preserve, such as the Purcells Cove backlands. They would represent a giant step backwards, not just from Draft 4 of the Plan, but from the 2006 Plan. To make such a significant change in direction at the last minute and contrary to public input would do irreversible damage to the public confidence in municipal decision-making processes like RP+5.

I urge you to vote against these amendments. Let us move forward with the plan the people have asked for.

Regards,

Derek Simon

A $3 Billion Boondoggle: Regional Planning and Sprawl in Halifax

Last Tuesday, HRM regional council unanimously approved a $823 million operating and $165 million project budgets for 2013-2014, for a total of close to $1 billion in spending. Several budget items were hotly debated, including the restoration of late night ferry service to Dartmouth, a fare increase and increased spending for transit, and a residential tax increase to expand snow plowing service. One issue that was not directly addressed in the budget was the growing cost of urban sprawl in HRM.

Yet the very next day, the HRM made public a report, by Stantec Consulting, which made it clear that sprawl could cost the HRM and its residents around $2.8 billion over the next 18 years.  Yes, billion with a "B".  Surprisingly, there has been much less public debate around this report than there was over much smaller line items in the budget.

This report, with the lengthy name "Quantifying the Costs and Benefits to HRM, Residents and the Environment of Alternate Growth Scenarios" is actually an interesting read for anyone following issues around taxation, spending and development in the HRM. The $2.8 billion price tag actually dwarfs the budget itself.  Yet nothing in the budget is likely to significantly change that cost, because that cost is tied into issues around how and where development takes place in Halifax, which is dealt with in the HRM regional plan.

The Regional Plan is a 25 year blueprint outlining "where, when and how future growth and development should take place in HRM."  All planning strategies, policies and regulations should flow from the regional plan.  The current regional plan was passed in 2006, and runs until 2031.  Although we are 7 years into the plan, we are only just now completing the first 5 year review of that plan.

One of the key targets in the plan is for population/housing growth.  It was expected that the HRM would add 100,000 residents over 25 years, and that 25% of this growth should take place in the urban core (the Peninsula and downtown Dartmouth), 50% in the suburbs, and 25% in rural areas. That growth was to be concentrated in a number of growth centres located throughout HRM, where it could be easily and cost effectively serviced.  Those targets are actually quite modest compared to other cities (Victoria, for example, has a target of essentially 90% within existing serviced areas).  But they are a starting point in combating the urban sprawl HRM has been experiencing.

Yet, in the first 5 years of the Plan, we fell short of even those modest targets.  Only 16% of growth took place in the urban core, while 56% took place in the suburbs, and 28% in rural areas. Indeed, one of the main issues raised in the review is the failure to reach these targets.  What the Stantec report shows is that failure to achieve our targets comes with a very real cost to the municipality, and ultimately to the taxpayer.

Stantec was asked to look at what would happen to municipal tax revenues, service costs and other costs of living in HRM if we reach our regional plan targets (the "RMPS Goal"), versus what would happen if we stay on the current path of 16% urban growth (the "Base Case").  Stantec also looked at two other scenarios: if we increased targets to 40% urban, 40% suburban and 20% rural (Scenario A); and if we increased the targets further to 50% urban, 25% suburban, and 25% rural.  They also considered certain health and environmental outcomes under all 4 scenarios. Their findings are very clear, and very striking.

As Stantec states in the report summary: "Results of our analysis clearly show the benefits of concentrating new residential development."  In other words, under current development patterns, the cost of providing municipal services often exceeds the amount the municipality receives in property taxes, leading to spiralling service costs, and rising taxes.  It also results in higher transportation costs, utility costs and other costs for citizens.   Concentrating growth (or densification) means the HRM can provide municipal services more cost effectively to residents, leading to lower spending, lower taxes, and more money for improved services.  It also decreases various economic costs to residents, making living in the HRM more affordable.

The report found that if we are able to get back on track and meet our RPMS targets, this will save the HRM and its residents close to $655 million over the next 18 years.  However, if we were to raise the bar and increase our targets under Scenario B, the savings are closer to $2.8 billion.  This breaks down to $148 million a year, which lowers the cost of living for all residents.  The municipal portion could be passed on in the form if improved services, tax relief, or both.

The report goes on to say that for nearly all services assessed, Scenario B (50% growth in the urban core) is the best option.  Scenario A (40% growth in urban core) is second best, although ranks first on transit use (mainly because more people walk under scenario B).  Sticking with our current RPMS targets was the third best option, and the status quo ranks dead last in almost every category.  The study also found that concentration of growth under Scenario B provides better health and environmental outcomes.  The study further showed that increased walking and transit use meant shorter commute times for all users of our roads.

To date, our Regional Plan has not proven up to the task of concentrating growth in the HRM, and this carries huge financial, economic, environmental and social costs. Yet some municipal staff continue to resist changes to the regional plan that would help us get back on track. Citizens of the HRM, whether they want lower taxes, better transit, less traffic, or more greenspace, should be concerned, if not outraged, that the HRM knowingly and blindly continues to follow a failing development path.

Fortunately, it is not too late to change our course.  The 5 year review process is ongoing: the plan is under review by the Community Design Advisory Committee, and a revised plan will soon be coming back to the public for final consultation, before going to council for approval.  Groups like Our HRM Alliance have been working hard to propose solutions that address sprawl and build a more liveable, sustainable HRM.  The public can have their say by attending a CDAC meeting, speaking at a public consultation, or contacting their councilor and urging them to support measures that will increase densification. 

Changing our residential growth patterns will lead to a more sustainable HRM, financially, economically, environmentally and socially, now and in the future.  It is ultimately up to us, the citizens of the Halifax Regional Municipality, to make that future a reality.  A better city is in our grasp.

Is the Senate stuck with Patrick Brazeau and Mike Duffy?

A couple of Senators have been in the news lately for all of the wrong reasons.

Senator Patrick Brazeau was removed from the Conservative caucus after being arrested at his Gatineau home, due to an alleged incident of domestic abuse.  Brazeau, the youngest current Senator, has been a controversial figure since his Senate appointment in 2009, and has recently faced media scrutiny over a variety of issues, including the news he used his former father-in-law's on-reserve address to claim his income as tax exempt from 2004 to 2008.  Brazeau is also under investigation by a Senate committee for possible abuse of his Senate housing allowance.  Senators who live more than 100 km from Ottawa can have a second residence in the capital region and receive up to $21,000 a year to cover that expense.  Brazeau was apparently claiming his father's address as his primary residence, and then collecting the housing allowance for the house he rents in Gatineau.

However, while he is no longer a Conservative Senator, Brazeau can continue to sit in the Senate as an independent, although he faces possible suspension.

Another Senator who has found himself in hot water over his housing allowance is Mike Duffy, who was appointed as a Senator for Prince Edward Island in 2008.  Duffy, who grew up in P.E.I. but has lived in Ottawa for decades, has apparently been claiming a cottage in Cavendish as his primary residence, and then claiming the taxpayer-funded allowance for his home in Ottawa. 

However, in Duffy's case, the residence issue runs a little deeper: while there are very few qualifications for the position of Senator, one of them is that the Senator has to reside in the Province that they represent.  And it would seem that Duffy, while claiming to be resident in P.E.I., pays the non-resident tax rate for his P.E.I. property, does not have a P.E.I. health card (though he recently aked the government to fast-track his application for one) and is registered to vote in Ontario.  All of which raises the issue of whether Duffy was even eligible to be appointed as Senator for P.E.I. in the first place.

Unfortunately, with Canada's appointed Senate, Canadians don't have the option of voting anyone out.  So unless Stephen Harper succeeds in his bid for senate reform (which I hope he does), regardless of any wrongdoing, we might be stuck with these Senators until they turn 75.  For Brazeau, that's 37 years away.

But isn't there something the Canadian public or the Senate itself could do in the meantime?  The rules of the Senate do allow the Senate to suspend a Senator (with pay) and further provide that a Senator who is charged with an offence that may be indictable is immediately placed on leave of absence.

However, removal of a Senator is governed by the Constitution Act 1867.  As I mentioned above, Senators must meet certain qualifications to be eligible to be appointed in the first place.  They are (in brief) that a Senator must:

• Be thirty years of age or over;
• Own property valued at $4,000, over and above any debts;
• Own real property in the province for which they are appointed (and within their District in Quebec)
• Be a resident of the province for which they are appointed; and
• Be a natural born or naturalized subject of the Queen.

Senate seats can be vacated due to death, resignation, or retirement, a Senator can only be removed for the following reasons (again, briefly):

• Failure to attend two sessions of Parliament;
• Taking an oath to or becoming a citizen of a "foreign power";
• Declaration of Bankruptcy;
• Conviction for treason or a felony or any "infamous Crime"; and,
• Ceasing to reside or own property in the represented area

While the Constitution doesn't explicitly spell out who has the power to remove a Senator, it does state that any issues with respect to a Senators' qualifications must be determined by the Senate itself.

That is probably good news for Duffy.  While there might be some question about whether he was even qualified to be the Senator for P.E.I., it seems unlikely that the Conservative majority in the Senate would toss him for that.

For Brazeau, the news might not be so good.  While it appears he meets the residency requirements, he may also be facing investigation and criminal charges for domestic abuse, and possibly income tax evasion.  This could lead to jail time or personal bankruptcy, or could result in him failing to meet the property requirement or missing sessions of Parliament, any of which could result in him being turfed.  And unlike Duffy, at this point, it is unlikely he has many friends in the Senate who will plead his case.