Perhaps I'll be controversial, but it might be a good thing. Here in Ottawa, projects are debated for ages, and the rural councilors simply do not want to do what's best for the urban area. Maybe this power expansion will speed up project development.
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2026
38 points (100.0% liked)
Ontario
3676 readers
73 users here now
A place to discuss all the news and events taking place in the province of Ontario, Canada.
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No porn.
- No Ads / Spamming.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
You might just be venting but:
If you are actually interested in development applications in Ottawa and why they are rejected, that info is available in the development application search on the City of Ottawa website. Look in "post application" as the status.
The story is the same across Ontario. Applications for amendments to the Official Plans so developers can build outside of places that have established infrastructure. Strong mayor powers don't magically make sewers appear where there aren't any.
The Official Plan is public and shows developers where they can build based on available infrastructure capacity. Developers who own land outside these areas make an application and changes to the planning act mean the province will likely approve these applications (at the Ontario Planning Board) and force cities to try and catch up with infrastructure. Oh, and they force cities to lower development fees so there is no money to build it either.
Something to think about when you read about the undersized infrastructure in Ottawa over the next few days.
(Also this isn't new, it's about the pushback the new powers got during consultation. It came into force May 1, 2025).
Damn shit wizard spitting facts
Maybe rural and urban areas should not be bunched together under the same umbrella since they clearly have different wants and needs?
Critical context:
The NCC or the feds own almost all of the land in that image, which overlays with the lowest property tax areas on the other map.
Kanata and Orleans are on that map too, and are pretty populous, but have no spikes nearly as tall as downtown.
I'm guessing, but am happy to be proven wrong, that infrastructure costs scale much faster with the surface area they cover than the number of people.
I'm guessing, but am happy to be proven wrong, that infrastructure costs scale much faster with the surface area they cover than the number of people
I just wanted to explain why there was a big red band for people who don't know the city.
I do think Ottawa is an interesting case. Most of the time these discussions are about urban vs suburban areas, which pay the same tax rate (as a % of assessed value). Ottawa further separates rural properties based on if they have transit service or not, and charges different transit fees based on that classification. I would probably argue that every resident and visitor benefits from reliable public transit. I know every time I have to drive in Ottawa I curse the lack of transit 🤣
The rest of this isn't a direct reply to you, but may be informative so I wanted to add it:
I think it's important that people understand how municipalities are funded.
I'm not implying Strong Towns made a mistake or they don't know this, but I noticed they have a water infrastructure map with ages of water distribution, storm water collection and sanitary collection pipes. I'll stick with Ottawa as an example here, but this is very similar through the province:
- Utility fees (not property taxes) pay for the operations and maintenance of those pipes. There are fixed fees and fees based on consumption. The exception to this are properties that do not have a utility connection. They pay storm water fees on their property tax.
- Development charges are supposed to cover costs of growth. If you look at the 2026 budget you will see how capital projects are funded (rate/tax/developers fee) starting on the page numbered 146. The projects are divided into Renewal, Regulatory or Growth. None of these were funded by property taxes.
- It does look like property taxes and development charges made up a tiny portion of (<1%) of the operating items listed in the rate supported (utility bill) part of the budget, and I didn't see an explanation of why.
- Property taxes fund non-operational departments related to water infrastructure. It is true that the city will have higher costs for these departments as the amount of infrastructure (both planned and existing) increases. If we just pick Infrastructure Services as being most directly related to water infrastructure and most easily severed, that's $15,465 (thousands) in gross expenditure in 2025 vs ~$542,000 (thousands) in gross operational expenditures for drinking water, wastewater and storm water departments and ~$306,000 (thousands) in capital spending in 2025, so < 2% of expenditures. Therefore, property taxes represent a very small part of the cost of building and maintaining water infrastructure.
I work in water infrastructure so it was fun to dig into what Ottawa does as an example, plus I know that even some of my colleges don't understand how it's funded! I won't presume to look at other infrastructure departments, but I think everyone who pays property taxes should take a look at their bills and see what is funded based on a % of the assessed value, what are set fees etc. I think of more people did that they would pay a lot more attention to how decisions are made. Personally I want to claw my eyes out when I hear a city council say water rates need to be capped 🥲
Yup. It was insane the amount of property tax I paid living in a condo, compared to how little I pay now in a rural location. My $4k for an acre of land compared to the millions paid per year for that same area of land that a condo building was on.
Exactly! To me, the amalgamation is a disaster.
Why should they want that? Rural councilors in cities are elected to look out for their constiuents' interests. You don't get to assimilate townships and tax rural voters at the same rate as urban voters, and then reduce their functional services to bottom-tier levels to fund urban interests "for the greater good" without pushback.
Mostly on board with not assimilating townships, but it's a little bit the other way around with tax revenue. It's extremely expensive to provide municipal services to suburban and rural customers. Cities, with their much better tax revenue per acre, tend to subsidize rural customers.
Consider sewer, water, electricity, roads. All that extra pipe and wire to service a whole bunch of spread-out residences is quite expensive, and the revenue obtained from those residences is small. Which is why you have all these little towns going bankrupt, because their finances don't make sense.
I am on board with towns being able to manage their own affairs, but unsustainable development without the tax base to support it is causing a LOT of trouble. They spend without taxing.
I'm not trying to suggest these numbers solve the gap (I have no idea what the gap is) but Ottawa in particular does charge different development fees depending on if the development is inside the greenbelt, and if they are serviced or not. Different dwelling types within those areas have different fees too.
Further to that, the Village of Richmond has extra charges specific to the cost of sanitary sewers and so does a specific development in Greely.
Hydro is not managed at the municipal level.
It won't, it's just going to be used by ford and his local Jr.s to get what he wants