For advocates of online privacy, these are alarming times. In the wake of the revelation that the Canada's spy agency has been using airport wifi to track Canadians, came the news that Canadian internet providers have been providing confidential information about their customers to Canadian government agencies at a rate that has been described as "staggering" and "jaw-dropping". In 2011 alone, Canadian government agencies submitted over 1.2 million requests for confidential customer data, often without a warrant or even a clear reason or justification. In some cases, it is as simple as a government agent picking up the phone and requesting the data, with no written request required.
In spite of the apparent ease with which they can access private information, the Canadian government is proposing to make it even easier for a wide range of "public officers" to access information about your online activity. Bill C-13 contains a number of provisions that would make necessary updates to the law to deal with cyberbullying and cybercrime. However, the government has also tacked on a number of controversial provisions which don't directly relate to cybercrime, but which would expand the ability of government officials to access your online information, in some cases without a warrant, and without your consent or knowledge. That part of the Bill is basically the same cyber-spying legislation that Vic Toews tried unsuccessfully to get passed when he was Justice Minister. That legislation was killed, and with good reason. The law didn't sit well with privacy advocates, nor with some conservatives who have fought to protect citizens from unwarranted government intrusion in Canadians private lives.
There is no question our laws need to be updated to deal with the reality of online crime. The question is why it needs to be done without the usual safeguards that protect the rights of law-abiding Canadians to carry on their day to day lives without the constant threat of government surveillance. As the mother of cyber-bullying victim Amanda Todd has pointed out, violating people's privacy without valid justification creates more victims, not less. The answer to cybercrime is not to allow the government to violate its citizens rights with impunity. In fact, it's fairly clear some of these provisions have little to nothing to do with addressing cyberbullying.
Proponents of the Bill have advanced a number of arguments in favour of the cyber-spying provisions. I find some of them unconvincing, and some of them downright frightening.
First, it has been suggested that people should not be standing up for the privacy rights of cybercriminals. This is just basically a re-hash of Vic Toews' infamous statement that if you don't stand with the government, you stand with child pornographers. This is not about the privacy rights of criminals. This is about the privacy rights of all Canadians.
Second, it has been argued that if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. But that is precisely the problem with warantless spying. To get a warrant, the police have to show some reasonable and probable grounds for believing you have committed a crime. If they don't need a warrant, they don't have to show any grounds to believe you have done something wrong. They can access your private online information for any reason they want.
Third, it has been argued that these are merely "tools" that will help the police solve more crimes. Of course they will. If the police knew what everyone was doing at every hour of the day, they would be able to solve every crime. But then we would be living in a police state. Likewise, this online surveillance is an unwarranted intrusion on the ability of Canadians to go about their daily lives with some degree of privacy.
Fourth, it has been argued that people already share a great deal of information online, often through social media sites such as Facebook, that in turn harvest and sell that information. However, that is different. While there are no doubt problems with the way sites like Facebook share information, when you share information on Facebook, you at least do so knowingly and voluntarily, and subject to the terms of your user agreement and the privacy laws that govern these sites. In the case of online spying, it is being done without your consent or knowledge, and often with little or no obvious legal justification.
But the most pernicious argument is the suggestion that online privacy is a "myth" or an "oxymoron". That members of the public should have zero expectation of privacy when they go online. That somehow, everything we do online is and should be available to anyone else, including the police if they want it.
To me, this argument misunderstands both the nature of the internet and its importance to modern-day life, and sets us on a very dangerous path with respect to the relationship between police and private citizens. It is also a self-defeating argument for those who claim they are trying to protect our children from online bullying and crime.
For starters, I don't think many people would suggest that the government should be able to randomly open and read our mail, or have unrestricted access to listen in on our private phone calls. In fact, a those things are the very hallmarks of a police state. Yet this "no privacy" argument suggests that if you send an e-mail to a friend, you should expect the government to read it, and if you use skype to call the grandkids, then you should expect the government to be listening in. The internet is an important vehicle for private communication, and people using it should enjoy the same protection as those making a phone call or mailing a letter.
Similarly, unless you are doing something illegal, the government has no legitimate interest in knowing what you are reading, or what you buy at the supermarket. Yet the "no privacy" advocates are basically suggesting that if you do your reading or your shopping online, it is fair game for a warrantless police search.
The reality is that in this day and age, many of us spend a significant part of our day online. Some of that time is spent doing things that are shared with the public (like this blog post, or things said on twitter). Some of those things we reasonably expect to remain private and confidential (like online banking, online shopping or personal e-mails). Unless we are doing something illegal, the police quite frankly have no business knowing most of what we are up to online.
Citizens in democracies have fought hard for the rights to ensure that their lives are not the subject of unwarranted government oversight. Many around the world still do not enjoy these rights. These rights are now very much under assault by laws that seem well intentioned, but which ultimately undermine important democratic safeguards. It is time for Canadians to stand up for their rights to privacy, their rights to protect their personal information and personal lives and ultimately their right to live in a free and democratic society.
Further, given that most online crime involves a breach of the victim's online privacy, it is self-defeating to combat online crime by creating even less online privacy. The cyber-surveillance provisions can and should be removed from this bill, and the government, instead of once again tacking the same old bad laws onto another Bill, needs to go back to the drawing board on its whole approach to cyber-surveillance and online privacy and security. Whether they are living online or offline, law-abiding Canadians should be entitled to go about their day to day lives without having to look over their shoulder and wonder who is watching them.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Monday, February 24, 2014
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
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
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Abolishing the Senate: Should Canada follow Ireland?
Senate reform has been in the news on both sides of the Atlantic recently, with both Ireland and Canada actively debating whether to keep, reform or abolish their respective Upper Houses of Parliament. The debate in Canada was sparked by the Harper government's proposals to reform the Senate, but has been back in the news mainly due to a series of scandals involving Senators. In Ireland, the issue has been pushed to the forefront by the Kenny government's proposal to abolish Seanad Eireann (the Irish Senate), which goes to a national referendum on October 4th. The abolition of the Seanad is part of a larger government programme of constitutional reform, but seems to have garnered public support largely as a cost-saving measure.
As a Canadian with Irish citizenship, I have been following with interest the debate in both countries. Apparently I am not the only one: politicians in Canada are reported to be watching with interest the possible countdown to extinction of the Seanad.
There are a number of obvious similarities between the Canadian Senate and Seanad Eireann. Both are based in the British Parliamentary model of a bicameral Parliament, or one made up of two houses, where the Upper House was meant to act as a check and balance, or a chamber of "sober second thought". However, in both countries, the Senate has too often been used as a convenient place to house political cronies, and both have had their share of political scandal over the years.
There are some obvious differences between the two Senates as well. While Canadian Senators are appointed until age 75, and entirely on the advice of the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach (the Irish Prime Minister) appoints only 11 of the 60 members of the Seanad. Another 6 are elected by graduates of certain Irish universities, and the remaining 43 are elected through a complex panel system by an electorate consisting of TD's (Irish MP's), Senators and local councillors. Irish Senators are elected only until Parliament is dissolved prior to the next general election, so they serve a maximum term of 5 years before seeking re-election.
The two Senates also differ in terms of powers. While the Seanad can only delay the passage of legislation approved by the Dail (the Irish House of Commons), the Canadian Senate has somewhat more power, having the ability to vote down legislation altogether.
Finally, while Seanad Eireann can be abolished through the support of a simple majority of voters in a national referendum (like other changes to Ireland's constitution), Canada's Senate can only be reformed or abolished with the support of a certain number of Provinces.
Proponents of Senate abolition in Canada are quick to highlight the similarities between the two Houses, and have also been quick to point out that Ireland would join a growing number of countries that have abolished their upper chamber, including New Zealand and some Nordic countries. They further point to the fact that many of the small democracies that emerged post-communism have chosen not to have a second chamber at all. The implication is that Canada should follow this lead, and eliminate the Senate.
However, this analysis misses one vital, fundamental difference between Canada and most countries that have no second chamber. Canada is a geographically large federal state: it was made up of separate colonies who joined together to form one large country, with significant regional differences. It has both a federal and a provincial level of government. Like other large federal countries such as the United States, Australia and Germany, Canada's Senate is meant to provide balanced representation of these different regional interests, and ensure that the voice of smaller regions is not drowned out by larger ones. In fact, equal representation of regions is one of the main reasons the Canadian Senate exists, and one of the reasons smaller provinces were willing to sign on to Confederation in the first place.
Ireland, on the other hand is a relatively small unitary state. It has no state or provincial level of government. And while there are certainly regional differences, they are simply not on the same geographic scale as Canada's. In fact, most, if not all of the countries that Senate abolitionists point to as examples of countries with no second chamber, tend to be small, unitary countries like Ireland. Getting rid of the second chamber might make sense for countries like New Zealand, Estonia or Sweden, which are relatively small and have no state or provincial level of government. However, most large, federal states like Canada have chosen to keep their second chamber.
So while Ireland's experience with the Seanad is interesting to politicos, it's not an example Canadians should blindly follow. As the debate on the future of the Senate continues to unfold in Canada, we need to bear in mind the uniqueness of our own particular situation, and the fact that our reasons for wanting to keep or kill our Senate are likely very different than Ireland's.
As a Canadian with Irish citizenship, I have been following with interest the debate in both countries. Apparently I am not the only one: politicians in Canada are reported to be watching with interest the possible countdown to extinction of the Seanad.
There are a number of obvious similarities between the Canadian Senate and Seanad Eireann. Both are based in the British Parliamentary model of a bicameral Parliament, or one made up of two houses, where the Upper House was meant to act as a check and balance, or a chamber of "sober second thought". However, in both countries, the Senate has too often been used as a convenient place to house political cronies, and both have had their share of political scandal over the years.
There are some obvious differences between the two Senates as well. While Canadian Senators are appointed until age 75, and entirely on the advice of the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach (the Irish Prime Minister) appoints only 11 of the 60 members of the Seanad. Another 6 are elected by graduates of certain Irish universities, and the remaining 43 are elected through a complex panel system by an electorate consisting of TD's (Irish MP's), Senators and local councillors. Irish Senators are elected only until Parliament is dissolved prior to the next general election, so they serve a maximum term of 5 years before seeking re-election.
The two Senates also differ in terms of powers. While the Seanad can only delay the passage of legislation approved by the Dail (the Irish House of Commons), the Canadian Senate has somewhat more power, having the ability to vote down legislation altogether.
Finally, while Seanad Eireann can be abolished through the support of a simple majority of voters in a national referendum (like other changes to Ireland's constitution), Canada's Senate can only be reformed or abolished with the support of a certain number of Provinces.
Proponents of Senate abolition in Canada are quick to highlight the similarities between the two Houses, and have also been quick to point out that Ireland would join a growing number of countries that have abolished their upper chamber, including New Zealand and some Nordic countries. They further point to the fact that many of the small democracies that emerged post-communism have chosen not to have a second chamber at all. The implication is that Canada should follow this lead, and eliminate the Senate.
However, this analysis misses one vital, fundamental difference between Canada and most countries that have no second chamber. Canada is a geographically large federal state: it was made up of separate colonies who joined together to form one large country, with significant regional differences. It has both a federal and a provincial level of government. Like other large federal countries such as the United States, Australia and Germany, Canada's Senate is meant to provide balanced representation of these different regional interests, and ensure that the voice of smaller regions is not drowned out by larger ones. In fact, equal representation of regions is one of the main reasons the Canadian Senate exists, and one of the reasons smaller provinces were willing to sign on to Confederation in the first place.
Ireland, on the other hand is a relatively small unitary state. It has no state or provincial level of government. And while there are certainly regional differences, they are simply not on the same geographic scale as Canada's. In fact, most, if not all of the countries that Senate abolitionists point to as examples of countries with no second chamber, tend to be small, unitary countries like Ireland. Getting rid of the second chamber might make sense for countries like New Zealand, Estonia or Sweden, which are relatively small and have no state or provincial level of government. However, most large, federal states like Canada have chosen to keep their second chamber.
So while Ireland's experience with the Seanad is interesting to politicos, it's not an example Canadians should blindly follow. As the debate on the future of the Senate continues to unfold in Canada, we need to bear in mind the uniqueness of our own particular situation, and the fact that our reasons for wanting to keep or kill our Senate are likely very different than Ireland's.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
HRM's Sewage Debacle: Who Pays for the Pipes?
If you've been following the HRM's recent decision to spend $25 million to pipe sewage from Timberlea to Halifax, you could be forgiven for having a difficult time figuring out who, exactly, is going to be paying for all these new sewage pipes. As has been pointed out elsewhere, regional council has been provided with a series of confusing, and often conflicting explanations as to who, exactly, is paying for these new sewer pipes. The decision to tear up the Chain of Lakes trail to run sewage from a handful of new subdivisions to be treated in Halifax has been criticized by some as "bad planning". It's an example of bad accounting as well.
One of the major costs of urban sprawl in the HRM is the extension of sewer and water pipes to service new development. Not only does it cost money to build new sewer and infrastructure, it also increases the future costs to service and maintain this growing infrastructure. Water rates are often not enough to cover these ongoing costs.
Residents of the HRM are justifiably angry about recent and substantial increases to their water rates. Yet much of the debate has ignored the significant geographic growth of the water and sewer system, and the spiralling cost of maintaining ever-growing infrastructure. While HRM has a sewer and water service boundary, that boundary covers a substantial area. In addition, regional council has frequently made decisions to extend that boundary, often to provide sewer and water to specific new subdivisions.
While developers pay the cost of installing all sewer and water pipes within the subdivisions they build, these pipes then need to be connected to the larger water and wastewater systems. As a result, developers pay a complex series of sewer development charges, trunk sewer charges and capital cost contributions levied by HRM and meant to cover the costs of all new infrastructure. Unfortunately, these charges haven't proven adequate to cover the costs of new pipes, which has also contributed to rising water rates. Halifax Water is now proposing a simplified and higher regional development charge meant to replace existing charges and cover the costs of new development.
There is no question the current system is confusing, as evidenced by council's recent decision regarding the Chain of Lakes pipe. It would seem that when council originally voted to approve the extension of municipal sewer and water services to Brunello Estates and nearby subdivisions in 2007, they were told that the developers of these subdivisions themselves would pay for the pipes directly through capital cost charges in their area.
Halifax Water is now stating that while 10% of the cost of the new Chain of Lakes pipe will be paid by existing ratepayers, 90% of the cost will be paid by developers. But not by the developers whose subdivisions actually require the pipes. By charges levied on ALL developers in HRM. And therein lies the shoddy accounting. A developer who chooses to build in an area where infrastructure already exists, or requires minimal upgrades, will pay the same amount into the fund as the developers in Timberlea who require $25 million in new pipes. This is effectively a subsidy for bad planning.
Unfortunately, Halifax Water's proposed new regional development charge won't change that. Developers will pay a single standard charge, regardless of where a development is located relative to existing infrastructure. While the higher charges will take some of the burden of paying for growth off of ratepayers, it will put that burden onto developers in general, not those that are driving up costs by demanding more infrastructure. These costs will eventually be passed on to homebuyers, driving up the cost of ALL housing in HRM.
There are lots of valuable planning lessons we should learn from the Chain of Lakes sewage pipe debacle. One of the most important is that if we are going to make growth pay for itself, we need to find a better way of accounting for it. One way would be to ensure that development charges reflect the actual cost of servicing new developments.
One of the major costs of urban sprawl in the HRM is the extension of sewer and water pipes to service new development. Not only does it cost money to build new sewer and infrastructure, it also increases the future costs to service and maintain this growing infrastructure. Water rates are often not enough to cover these ongoing costs.
Residents of the HRM are justifiably angry about recent and substantial increases to their water rates. Yet much of the debate has ignored the significant geographic growth of the water and sewer system, and the spiralling cost of maintaining ever-growing infrastructure. While HRM has a sewer and water service boundary, that boundary covers a substantial area. In addition, regional council has frequently made decisions to extend that boundary, often to provide sewer and water to specific new subdivisions.
While developers pay the cost of installing all sewer and water pipes within the subdivisions they build, these pipes then need to be connected to the larger water and wastewater systems. As a result, developers pay a complex series of sewer development charges, trunk sewer charges and capital cost contributions levied by HRM and meant to cover the costs of all new infrastructure. Unfortunately, these charges haven't proven adequate to cover the costs of new pipes, which has also contributed to rising water rates. Halifax Water is now proposing a simplified and higher regional development charge meant to replace existing charges and cover the costs of new development.
There is no question the current system is confusing, as evidenced by council's recent decision regarding the Chain of Lakes pipe. It would seem that when council originally voted to approve the extension of municipal sewer and water services to Brunello Estates and nearby subdivisions in 2007, they were told that the developers of these subdivisions themselves would pay for the pipes directly through capital cost charges in their area.
Halifax Water is now stating that while 10% of the cost of the new Chain of Lakes pipe will be paid by existing ratepayers, 90% of the cost will be paid by developers. But not by the developers whose subdivisions actually require the pipes. By charges levied on ALL developers in HRM. And therein lies the shoddy accounting. A developer who chooses to build in an area where infrastructure already exists, or requires minimal upgrades, will pay the same amount into the fund as the developers in Timberlea who require $25 million in new pipes. This is effectively a subsidy for bad planning.
Unfortunately, Halifax Water's proposed new regional development charge won't change that. Developers will pay a single standard charge, regardless of where a development is located relative to existing infrastructure. While the higher charges will take some of the burden of paying for growth off of ratepayers, it will put that burden onto developers in general, not those that are driving up costs by demanding more infrastructure. These costs will eventually be passed on to homebuyers, driving up the cost of ALL housing in HRM.
There are lots of valuable planning lessons we should learn from the Chain of Lakes sewage pipe debacle. One of the most important is that if we are going to make growth pay for itself, we need to find a better way of accounting for it. One way would be to ensure that development charges reflect the actual cost of servicing new developments.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)