June 9th, 2009

An Open Letter to the Members of Ottawa City Council

from the Board of Directors of the Ottawa Chamber of
Commerce
Dear Councillors:

In the last few hours before the vote on the 2009 Amendments to
the Official Plan, the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce would like City
Councillors to take a moment and review several key issues and
questions that have arisen throughout the decision-making process
that, in particular, affect the Ottawa business community as well as
the community as a whole. It is our hope that upon review, you
and your colleagues will seek the answers to these concerns and
provide our members with your findings.

Development Charges: The Amendments to the Official Plan

include some inconsistencies with the principle of ‘growth paying
for growth’. Increases to DCs as a result of increasing construction
and infrastructure costs as well as ensuring DCs used to the fullest
extent possible as allowed by law are supportive of this principle.
However, the impact these increases may have on housing prices
and the housing market in general have not been clearly revealed
to the public. Council should, when debating these amendments,
ask for an impact statement

Growth Projections: There are also continuing concerns regarding

inaccurate growth projections; decreasing population and
employment growth and an aging demographic. The Ottawa
Chamber has worked hard in the past to discourage growth
projections that appeared to be and were eventually proven to be
overly optimistic.

Over the years, the Chamber has worked with City staff to reduce
the official growth projections for the City. Five years ago, the
Official Plan was using a 50% growth projection in population by
2031. With these amendments, the growth projection has been
reduced to 30% as was approved by Council in 2007.

This is a welcome improvement but may still be too optimistic.

Actual versus projected growth needs to be vigorously monitored
and revisited at the next review to ensure these figures are
unfolding as projected. If not, adjustments will need to be made
once again. The Chamber would ask Council to inquire as how
these projections (if inaccurate by either being too high or too low)
will impact the taxpayer. Council should also ask Staff to report
these figures annually to the Planning and Environment Committee
if it does not currently do so and have these figures published in
the Annual Development Report.
Expansion of the Urban Boundary:

It appears that the continued strong demand for single detached

homes that is driving the call for an expansion of the urban
boundary. While some statistics show demand is slowing, it remains
the single most sought after category in residential property
development. It also remains unlikely that a radical change in
regards to demand will reveal itself over the next five years as
record low mortgage rates are projected to stay that way for some
time.

At the Committee level, the committee members have endorsed the

staff recommendation for the addition of 850 hectares. This
endorsement, however, is a controversial contradiction to the City’s
guiding growth management principles and has understandably
become a political red herring. As mandated by provincial
legislation, the Official Plan 2004 included developable land that was
to last for the next twenty years of growth. And since the growth
targets have been lowered, it would stand to reason that the City
should be in a surplus position. Council needs to ask the hard
questions as to why there needs to be more land added in light of
these developments. If it is by reason of the continued demand for
single family homes and the lack of demand for more intensified
residential development, Council requires Staff to explain why this
has been allowed to continue in light of the fact that the Official
Plan demands the opposite.
Intensification Targets:

The legislated inclusion of intensification and density targets are

logical components of a prudent plan for sustainable and managed
growth. But conversely, targets that are too stringent may shackle
the City to patterns of development that are neither desirable or
planned. It would stand to reason that if the City chooses to
expand the urban boundary these targets would then be even more
difficult to attain by virtue of an increased developable landmass
outside of the Greenbelt. Accordingly, the Chamber would ask
Council to ensure the new Official Plan also includes the
appropriate measures to ensure the targets are achievable as well
as enforceable. Exemptions to targets must be employed with
caution if not to render the targets useless. The success of LRT and
the Official Transportation Plan are contingent on intensification in
those areas outside as well as inside the Greenbelt.

As such, the Chamber looks to the Council for leadership on these

issues. Looking forward tomorrow’s discussions and your response
to our concerns.

Yours truly,