Bill 23 (continued from page 28)
meet community needs – the right land, in the right place. A dialogue between developer and municipality to ensure a community is built – not just houses and some spaces in between. Changes precipitated by Bill 23 change this relationship, sidelining the municipality (ad by the extension, community), needs. Developers not only need to provide less land, but they are now able to determine where and what form that land should take. And it can be encumbered and privately owned.
change a play area, or add a new feature, when a community garden springs up, these are changes that mirror community. We engage widely on parks. The views of those that use parks daily, and those that may never use them, shape the parks of tomorrow. Only, for many future urban residents, they will not. The park that you rely on so much for your daily leisure, will now be managed by a private condo board or a property management company. You will have no voice, the municipality will have no voice, in how these spaces are managed, how inclusive they are, or how they are redeveloped. Infrastructure added during development, to help sell units, may not be kept up, or may even be removed, by condo corporations, or subsequent property managers. While public parks may well have their weaknesses, the public and community own these spaces, and through democratic process, can shape these spaces; as urban parks shift to the private sector, this connection and influence will be lost. The changes brought about by Bill 23 go far beyond these, but these are some of the most impactful to municipal parks. These changes have now been enacted, and so changes will require elements to be repealed through future changes to legislation and regulations that will follow to guide the legislation implementation. Supporting organisations like OPA as they voice membership concerns to government will be key, and as you experience challenges, sharing these with OPA so they can lobby on your behalf will be key. Working with your planning and finance teams to understand how these changes are impacting your area of work will be key as we continue to, as best we can, serve communities, both existing and yet to come, with parks that help support communities as they grow, change and evolve.
• Privately Owned Public Spaces – POPS, often privately maintained as well, are now to be considered as parkland dedication.
And they can have parking garages underneath, or, potentially, be on roof top tops of buildings, encumbered by the building beneath. POPS and encumbered parkland may be an essential necessity of compact urban dwelling, but these are not equitable to unencumbered publicly owned park spaces. Nor do they aid affordability. “There are only two things we can be sure of”, my dad used to say, “death and taxes”. Taxes are an essential construct of social, cohesive societal living – we all contribute toward the common elements, including the maintenance, upkeep and renewal of parks. This bares true of detached dwellings as much as it does condo owners and renters. But whereas the former will in the future pay for public parks just once, renters and condo owners will now be paying twice; through their taxes, and through their property fees as they pay to look after the public park space that is now on their own property. They will pay to maintain it, and, in 20 years time, they will be responsible for paying to enhance, renovate and update it.
Which brings me to the community aspect of parks. Parks are driven by community. When we
Page 29
Ontario Parks Association
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online