Opinion

Development pace up to city
London Free Press  March 10 2006

The current deficit in London's urban works reserve fund underlines the need for city council to take robust leadership on the question of where the city grows -- and how quickly.

London can no longer afford development that some would say has nearly been uncontrolled. The state of the works fund is an indicator that such rapid development is out of synch with the ability of either the city or developers themselves to accommodate it.

Developers collect from the fund to pay for services such as storm water management (ponds and pipes), turning lanes into a subdivision, traffic signals and street lights. When they take out permits to build homes or apartments, they write cheques back to the fund. But the repayment is only for units they are currently building. Only when the area is completely built, which can take years, is the fund fully reimbursed.

With all the development that has taken place in recent years -- as well as the fact it has not been concentrated -- it isn't surprising that the fund is in trouble -- again. City staff say claims have almost doubled from $48 million to $95 million in two years. The fund isn't permitted to run a deficit, so developers have to wait longer for their money. The fund has already collapsed once -- in 1979, when it was bailed out by city taxpayers.

The bottom line is that failure to concentrate development, as much as possible, until an area is fully built, is costly for the municipality. Apart from the cost of basic services of new development, there's the push by new homeowners for bus service, libraries and community centres in areas that do not yet have the population concentrations to make them viable.

Some projects, such as Vito Frijia's plan in the Southdale and Colonel Talbot roads area, could accelerate the need for the proposed Southside sewage treatment plant, a $134-million project for a city already overextended in capital debt.

Former councillor Sandy Levin, a member of the committee that monitors the fund, says its biggest problem is that it doesn't require a developer to enter into specific terms of agreement with the municipality, so long as they have the zoning, a road to the edge of the property and a hookup to services. In other municipalities, developers must negotiate an "upfront agreement" that outlines what the developer pays for. Each subdivision is a separate agreement.

The push for more city control over where and when development takes place is gaining some momentum -- and surprising supporters. Deputy Mayor Tom Gosnell, a longtime supporter of development, now says: "We just can't grow in every direction at the same time."

Indeed we can't. The costs are crippling.

Levin credits chief city administrator Jeff Fielding with seeing the problem others haven't because he comes to London with "fresh eyes."

No city can thrive without development, but properly managing its rate and direction is essential.