By Pepper Parr
February 19th, 2026
BURLINGTON, ON
David Barker, for the most part, is an informed citizen. He appeared before Council Tuesday afternoon to give his views on the eliminating Development Charges for a two year period.
Barker thought this was just plain wrong and he spent 20 minutes making his point.
Councillor Sharman, who is close to being a spokesperson for the development community, tangled with Barker on a few occasions but, realizing he wasn’t going to get anything out of Barker gave up.
Barker made his point. Read on.
They have, in effect, shown Burlington the middle finger.
I am amazed and extremely disappointed that city council is willing to give away, or effectively give away, according to sales figures, between $17 and just over $41 million of anticipated revenue by way of waiving development charges for a two-year period. The only way this loss of revenue can be absorbed is through higher property taxes. My position on this, as you might already tell, is that development charges should not, and I repeat, not, be eliminated, no matter what the time period the elimination period would be for.
I have two reasons for saying this position. The first reason being that, if Development Charges are eliminated, the cost to install services usually covered by development charges will fall upon the property taxpayer. Why should the property taxpayer bear these charges for which it gets no benefit, because it won’t be in those houses.
It’s easy for council to vote to eliminate development charges because Council does not pay the bill. Property tax payers pay the bill.
My second reason, I guess, is more to do with my upset with the developers as a whole. Commercial businesses are there to make a profit at customers expense that is understood and accepted by society If, however, a business is unable to make a profit, it more than likely would go out of business. Sure, there are instances where a governmental body may step in to bail out a failing business because of the effect a failure would have on society and the rest of the economy at large. In such cases, provincial and federal governments have funds available, giving them the ability to bail out the corporation.
Sure those funds do come from taxpayers, but the load is spread over a much larger tax-paying base. Our municipal government does not have any such resource available to it. Any elimination of development charges will fall directly and immediately upon the existing tax base. In effect, the existing tax base is subsidizing, to some extent, the purchaser of the new home that the developer will be building. Why should that be?
My feelings towards developers is not a kind one. Why is that? Well, in my view, over the last 10 years or so, developers have been raking in great profits on their developmental projects, whilst at the same time totally ignoring the wishes of Burlington residents and their council as regards to zoning and height restrictions. They have, in effect, shown Burlington the middle finger. Now they come crying and wanting our help, which will allow them to continue showing us the middle finger and ignoring our wishes and zoning by laws.
Certainly we do need develop, development, build a new, affordable homes made available to the population. Hopefully, the developments would include large numbers of affordable rental houses, but I doubt that my solution is to allow property developers a deferral, not an elimination, of development charges for which they are responsible.
I would suggest a deferral fee until such time as a development is completed, a certificate of occupancy is issued, and 75% is sold or occupied, at which time deferral fees, development fees would be payable in full.
In my opinion, our council should be saying no to eliminating Development Charges and only allowing a deferral if really needs be. Councils should be pushing back on developers, directing them towards provincial and federal governments, whose taxes and other charges are more significant. At the Committee of the While three councilors voted in favor of the elimination of development charges. Two voted against, and two Councillors, Kearns and Sharman, were absent.
My feelings towards developers is not a kind one.
I’m hoping my delegation here is not in vain, and that Councillors Kearns and Sharman will vote with Councillors Nissan and Stolte to defeat the motion.
Hopefully, you’re not only hearing my voice and the voices of financially strained constituents, but you’re listening, and you will send a matter back to staff for further consideration. Thank you for your time.
There was a lot of back and forth between Barker and Council members; they can be published at a later date.
Discover more from Burlington Gazette - Local News, Politics, Community
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The public is misinformed on this issue. The people presenting this as a “cost” to taxpayers are completely inaccurate. Housing is not being built right now, there are no development charges coming in to the city. How does this “cost” the city when nothing is being built? The city and region have increased development charges ie. “taxes” on new single family homes from $66,000 in 2020 to $110,000 in 2026, this is nearly double in 5 years! Townhouses, apartments have similar increases. This is a massive increase and now those high taxes are a part of why developers can’t profitably build new homes and have to cancel projects. These taxes are just passed on to the first time home buyer, it doesn’t impact a developer profits. Reducing taxes on development is not a “cost” it is simply fixing a mistake that was made when those taxes were nearly doubled over the past 5 years. Under the proposed exemption a developer would still have to pay $89,000 per home in development charges to the region and school board. Those entities should also be reducing their taxes to ensure that housing can get built. If nothing gets built there is nothing to tax!!! property taxes included.
Adam doesn’t know what he is talking about and he is full of misinformation.
Development charges are very detailed, regulated, and closely calculated for accuracy, of all costs required to take the empty lots, through the “ground breaking” of weed fields, and turn it into houses, fit for people to live in. Calling these costs “taxes” is just a lie.
Is Adam really trying to tell us that the developers don’t need to pay what it costs their business to install water and sewer, electricity, utilities, and all kinds of things, and pay for them, to build something that they can call a home and sell to a willing buyer? What about roads to get there for a site visit?
He did not look close enough at the recent increases he notes for the details of what the developers themselves have noted as cost inflation of materials, labour, and needed to produce the product they sell. Not all are DCs.
Are you suggesting that the house builders are treated unfairly when they have to pay higher prices for what they need to build houses and subdivisions, they can get buyers to live in, and have a pee inside?
What Adam is trying to tell us is that housing costs a lot of money, but development charges are to blame, and developers really need a break, and that will somehow fix it.
Give us a break please.
Development charges don’t pay for costs directly related to building housing. Tom if you are so informed maybe you can site a specific example? There is a building under construction in Aldershot called Northshore. It has 300+ units in a mix of condos and towns. This project would have paid approximately $15m development charges to the city and region! This does NOT cover costs to connect the project to sewer, utilities etc. that has to be paid by the developer separately. So if you are so informed Tom I ask “where does the $15m go? Do your homework Tom don’t just make it up!
Mr Barker also has my vote as he speaks my language. He spoke clearly and decisively. The developers must pay, as they are the ones making a heck of a lot of money.
I’m happy to have someone tell me I’m missing something. Back in 2024 the Mayor signed on to the Liberal’s housing accelerator grant, $24M if I recall, to much fan fair. I guess we are tied to certain targets which we are not meeting – now its time for damage control.
This plan was criticized at the time for just adding more bureaucracy and doing little to improve the shortage, and not addressing core or root cause issues.
So here we are two years later, the federal program is not working, and now Burlington taxpayers have to pick up the tab.
It would be insult to injury, if this deferral happens, and the housing accelerator program is declared a huge success. Wouldn’t that be a kick in the you know where.
I think it is extremely important to note how the builders/developers will react if they do not have to pay the development charges. Will the full amount reduce the price of the homes? Or perhaps (and more likely) less than the amount of the development charges as the builders/development pocket some of those cost savings? The economic analysis of the burden of indirect taxes suggests very clearly that it will be the latter option. I do not support removing these development charges–a policy that is completely inequitable. Home owners who have already paid for development charges when they purchased their homes are now being asked to pay higher taxes to subsidize new home buyers who will end up only paying a portion of those development charges; all taxpayers will end up subsidizing the profits of builders/developers again through higher property taxes.
My sentiments exactly! Council needs to remember the public is getting angry and when you get the public angry…..you need to clean up your resume. This is going to be a very turbulent election year and not one seat including the mayors is a sure bet!
Thank you David for delegating on this topic. I am quite frankly stunned this is even being considered by the Mayor. The Development Charges Act was implemented in the early 1990’s with the principle being that new development should pay for the infrastructure necessary to support said new development – not the existing tax payers!
I get that we have a housing mess which is caused by rampant immigration and money printing or expansion of the money supply at the federal level. It’s not going to be solved by giving developers a free ride and placing the burden on existing tax payers. Look at the root cause, and solve that problem.
I am also tired of hearing people say their kids can afford to buy in Burlington, what an entitled statement that is. Many of us had to start out elsewhere, save, scrimp, take on multiple jobs, upgrade education, dyi renovations and so on to get where we are today.
David represents my opinion. This Council has to go.
Full marks to David! An excellent delegation and one that made sense on principle, with respect to the finances and with regard to the proposed outcomes. Mr Collins-Williams, representing the West End Builders Association., scored very low in all these areas. To be fair, however, he was not there to talk to the economics of the development charges nor how their temporary elimination might jump start housing – he was there to talk about saving jobs (subtle choke in the throat and glistening tears in eye). He might have been more credible were it not for the fact that tradesmen are not suffering any form of unemployment prospect (they may not work in Burlington but they are working and in high demand) and his unfortunate resemblance to the hitman played by John Travolta in “Pulp Fiction”. Really, only CEO’s in the tech industry sport plum suits and ponytails – Dude.
Yes – that was all gratuitous. If it offends you, then don’t read it.
Two serious things concern me though. First, there was hardly anyone in the room to hear David and the others. This may change somewhat if Council meetings go back to the evenings offering greater access to working people. Doubtful that it will fill the gallery even so. Also, the age of the people – associated again with the timing of the meetings – but also indicative that the citizens engaging now are not those most needed; the young professionals and families. These are the City’s future and they seem to be generally absent. It does not bode well.
Secondly, both on Tuesday and in subsequent communications, Meed Ward seems to be positioning a compromise of sorts. Wait for it; a cut-off point for eliminating the development charges. Several figures were bandied about but they were all in the range of $1.5 million. Respectfully, this will hardly benefit the availability of affordable housing. It may ensure that the new homes in Millcroft will pay development charges but these are hardly even a rounding error for that group of buyers. Let’s try to remember that the objective is affordable housing not simply housing. Let’s also try to remember just how socially conscious the whole development industry has been in Burlington. How it has sought to preserve waterfront access as a communal resource; how it has disciplined itself to ensure that heights were constrained and sight-lines to the lake were not occluded; how it has insisted that collective rather than discreet effects of wind, shadow and traffic be considered when a new development has been proposed; how it has allowed the City time to respond to its proposals rather than running immediately to the OLT. Indeed, I believe that Council should provide the development industry with exactly the consideration that the quality of its past partnership merits.
I agree with Barker, and suggest he bring up his recent call for a residents organized Council Meeting Special Agenda on just this topic.
This has been going on for a very long time – about 35 years since I jumped in when I found out that developers were the only people that were members of the DCs Committees, and there were no citizens. At that time, taxpayers paid a lot more and had no say.
Developers had their own lobbyists speaking for cheap DCs for them. This has milked uncounted many hundred of millions of DCs, and more billions of taxpayer dollars Provincial extra ordered, for infrastructure and other many related goodies with the big bucks attached..
Another related problem example. The 15 stories recently approved at 100 Plains Rd, was planner argued as justified based on the extra stories benefits in units hypothetically added based on the extra revenues more than the Official Plan approved stories and units revenue yield of 12 stories.
The planner based the approval numbers on the so-called need? and possible loss of the units potential compared to the max. Talk about stacking the deck.
Then just last week an approved 20 plus stories/200 odd units, building on Water down Rd, decided the demand was not there, and so cancelled the proposal. They already had the property value approvals and capital gains that were said to “be needed”.
So what’s up here? Do we need more that we subsidize for more millions, or are they not really needed. Nothing is actually being built.
I think that we really need to do something about this situation, and not just increase more and more the property tax bill to give it to mostly rich developers, and help support their develop-able property asset capital value.
Is this actually for MMW to keep her strong Mayor powers? To keep buddy buddy with Ford? And residents actually have no say in even maybe having a say?
Enough Already!
I listened to Mr. Barker’s delegation and it was very straightforward and easy to understand,.
Paul Sharman did what Paul Sharman always does – he tried to make Mr. Barker feel small and insignificant.
He does this by asking if he had the necessary qualifications to be able to express his opinion. I actually thought that Mr. Sharman had decided to treat delegates with respect. Something our mayor is always pushing for.
Obviously, I was wrong.
A factual comment on a not very well thought out suggestion by council. A bad idea except for housing under 300 thousand dollars per unit.
Jim Barnett
Burlington property tax payers should never be on the hook for any development charges. This is totally up to the developers to pay. Not a tax payer issue!!!
Next election I am not going to vote for my local rep or the sitting mayor. In some ways they have done a good job, but this is too much. So the number of new housing starts falls off. So what? Its like many things: slow times and busy times, its a never ending cycle. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Barker speaks for me.