City Of Toronto Section 37 Agreement

Second, there is already a city-wide pot in which developers deposit. They are called development fees and are one of the limited ways in which Ontario municipalities can raise money.1 The creation of a system that is almost, but not entirely, opposed to development costs, could be seen as an attempt to circumvent the law. This is one of the reasons why Section 37 of benefits must be community-specific.2 The issue is that Section 37 should not serve as a bundled source of income for the city. For that, we have other sources of money – for example, property taxes. In particular for new buildings, the city has imposed construction charges for new construction projects that should be specifically generated, and these could be slightly increased if the city council wanted more money for general use. The Section 37 agreements are intended to compensate for changes made to a particular neighbourhood by the specific changes that are made to it. The pooling of these revenues for use in other parts of the city would involve a probably erroneous process and would completely chain them to the underlying logic. If no agreement can be reached between the parties, we will also assist in appealing these issues to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (formerly the Ontario Municipal Board). In essence, section 37 of the Planning Act is the one that allows what other cities call “local benefit agreements.” If the owner of a property wishes to build something that does not comply with the rules of zonarity, the owner may voluntarily consent to provide collective services in cash or amenities in exchange for the authorization.

With respect to Toronto`s greatest budget need, Section 37 of the agreements simply does not provide as much money. According to the 2014 report [PDF], Section 37 has brought in $309 million in cash since the merger. There are also important in-kind benefits, such as heritage preservation, that are difficult to quantify, but this report [PDF] has them about half the value of cash contributions. Das wurde, dass die kommunale Grunderwerbsteuer allein im letzten Jahr so viel eingef-hrt hat [PDF] als Section 37 in 18 Jahren. Not quite “the mayor`s legacy” of money. Maybe just council money. The injustice of Section 37 depends on how the law is written and how the city is designed. In the city centre, where real estate is lucrative and space is limited, there is an incentive to build higher and denser. In the suburbs, you can just build, not go up (although the Greenbelt and the growth plan make it more complicated, but that`s another story).