Drew Evans’ Post

Too many investor developers overlook this when doing their initial feasibility on a project. That is, factoring in the developer contributions required when adding density to any site. As the density of a suburb or area increases, so to does the demand for public services. (Roads, libraries, parks, etc) The logic is that developers are the ones increasing the density, so they should be the ones who have to pay to upgrade the services, not the local community. The catch? Fees differ not just state by state in Australia, but by council to council. In areas we've developed in, the span is between $20,000 and $40,000. These fees can have a huge impact on your bottom line if not factored in!

#bill23 has made a significant impact for #ontariorealestate developement. Here's a short video from Darren Voros where he talks about they key changes. https://lnkd.in/gcTrUqar Here's the takeaways 1. Triplex Zoning: Bill 23 allows for up to three residential units on a single lot to encourage more housing units in urban areas. 2. Reduced Costs: The bill exempts additional units within existing houses from development charges, community benefit charges, and parkland dedications to make development cheaper. 3. Streamlined Processes: It limits third-party appeals and simplifies the site plan control process, accelerating the development timeline. 4. Densification: Municipalities must update zoning around major transit stations to support higher density, aligning with increased height and density allowances. 5. Reduced Bureaucracy: The Act reduces the role of Conservation Authorities and upper-tier municipalities in planning processes, streamlining decision-making. 6. Focus on Development: With changes like the reduction of parkland dedication requirements and simplification of financial levies, the Act encourages more rapid and less costly development. Here's some information on the the #hamiltonrealestate changes. Reimagining Neighbourhoods https://lnkd.in/gBgFf2cB Committee of Adjustments (appeals) https://lnkd.in/ga9b-9-s Development Charges https://lnkd.in/gkCNaffg

The Law of Inintended Consequences in action. From "Missing Middle Housing: Thinking Big and Building Small to Respond to Today’s Housing Crisis" by Daniel G. Parolek - "This type of pushback from communities prevents many developers, especially those who focus on delivering smaller, Missing Middle– scale projects, from even considering building in these communities because of the increased time and risk of getting a project approved.... A developer could spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars on a project and not get their entitlement. This risk is too high for small projects. The irony is that the unintended consequence of this type of pushback is that larger projects are the only ones that have the funding and the tolerance to risk making it through entitlements." Start reading this book for free: https://a.co/2mcfC8U

"To be, or not to be (a developer), that is the question!" Should Municipalities be developers themselves? Or is a hybrid solution best where the public sector is there to assist/partner with the private sector in bringing land to market to meet the demand. Both sides have roles to play. https://lnkd.in/gV_UGUV6

We are 👏🏾 Done 👏🏾 Playing 👏🏾 Nice 👏🏾 when developers are using their money, power and influence to push from all sides and negate our grassrots movement for affordable housing in the urban service area. If you like transportation options like trains, trollies, frequent buses and even pedestrian safety infrastructure then we need funding to be invested in the urban core of our community. We can achieve this by making it harder and more expensive for developers to sprawl to the furthest reaches of our county and incentivize infill projects. . Currently, developers want to mass grade (completely level) our forests down to sugar-sand because it is cheaper to destroy rural land than invest in infill projects where empty plazas already exists because the state is not forcing developers to pay their full share. Thats because developers like Scott Boyd, who made the mistake of showing up in opposition to the rural boundary, pay lobbyists to do their bidding during legislative session and behind the scenes at the local level, pressuring elected and appointed officials. This is not a DEMOCRACY if we don’t hold them accountable. They will stop at nothing to sway the charter review process which SHOULD be a citizen-driven community process to get items on the upcoming ballot. But instead, the CRC Board received emails and a memo from a law firm pressuring them to not pass a rural boundary late in the evening on Friday before the May 20th vote. That is WRONG! . WE MUST CALL THEM OUT!!! . What you can do: Email your support for the rural boundary by emailing: District1@ocfl.net District2@ocfl.net District3@ocfl.net District4@ocfl.net District5@ocfl.net District6@ocfl.net Mayor@ocfl.net Charter2024@OCCOMPT.com

We are 👏🏾 Done 👏🏾 Playing 👏🏾 Nice 👏🏾 when developers are using their money, power and influence to push from all sides and negate our grassrots movement for affordable housing in the urban service area. If you like transportation options like trains, trollies, frequent buses and even pedestrian safety infrastructure then we need funding to be invested in the urban core of our community. We can achieve this by making it harder and more expensive for developers to sprawl to the furthest reaches of our county and incentivize infill projects. . Currently, developers want to mass grade (completely level) our forests down to sugar-sand because it is cheaper to destroy rural land than invest in infill projects where empty plazas already exists because the state is not forcing developers to pay their full share. Thats because developers like Scott Boyd, who made the mistake of showing up in opposition to the rural boundary, pay lobbyists to do their bidding during legislative session and behind the scenes at the local level, pressuring elected and appointed officials. This is not a DEMOCRACY if we don’t hold them accountable. They will stop at nothing to sway the charter review process which SHOULD be a citizen-driven community process to get items on the upcoming ballot. But instead, the CRC Board received emails and a memo from a law firm pressuring them to not pass a rural boundary late in the evening on Friday before the May 20th vote. That is WRONG! . WE MUST CALL THEM OUT!!! . What you can do: Email your support for the rural boundary by emailing: District1@ocfl.net District2@ocfl.net District3@ocfl.net District4@ocfl.net District5@ocfl.net District6@ocfl.net Mayor@ocfl.net Charter2024@OCCOMPT.com

Many of you will be hoping for or relying on Section 106 contributions from developers to help fund infrastructure or community facilities. This article explains how developers are using low profitability to avoid having to pay, leaving councillors with no option but to approve schemes or face expensive appeals. Worth understanding what is happening but you may not be able to do anything about it.

New planning powers come have come into effect, giving local councils greater tools to hold rogue developers to account as part of the government’s landmark Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Minister for housing and planning, Lee Rowley, said: “Today marks another important step forward in our mission to deliver a faster and less bureaucratic planning system, making sure councils have greater powers at their disposal to take robust action against developers who do not play by the rules." Find out more here: https://lnkd.in/ePKmCfeJ

My blog post on 3 fundamental changes needed to land use planning - meant for consideration and conversation. Yes, there are advantages and disadvantages; however, my main point is fundamental change is needed (and it goes well beyond the provincially mandated changes). Just crying that development isn't affordable doesn't change anything - it isn't affordable for developers, local governments or potential purchasers, and existing taxpayers continue to fund the gaps. My online blog is: https://lnkd.in/gDCeJ_9f