By Gazette Staff
February 24th, 2026
BURLINGTON, ON
In a Letter to the Editor of the Hamilton Spectator Ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan came out swinging when he said:
Lobbyists are in the driver’s seat in Burlington, and it could cost us as much as $41 million, equal to an additional 7.8 per cent tax increase or $391 for the average property.
All because of the mayor’s motion to subsidize developers.
Ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan asks: How did we get here?
How did we get here?
The mayor came to power in 2018 on a platform to stop unwanted development in downtown Burlington. The agenda saw some success on paper, but downtown developments continued to be approved by the provincial tribunal with almost no exception.
Then, something changed. Premier Doug Ford criticized Burlington for its lack of housing starts in August 2023, calling our numbers “totally unacceptable.”
He was half-right. Our lack of new housing was a function of several factors: the temporary freeze put on development in the downtown, but also market conditions.
The city became defensive. Suddenly, we were measuring every metric other than housing starts to prove we were doing our job.
A city committee was created, making recommendations directly to city council, to figure out how to improve city processes. The Pipeline to Permit committee was touted by the mayor as an innovative concept where members of council, developer representatives and the community sat around the table.
A committee that was supposed to improve processes soon began to widen its scope. As a council member with no vote on the committee, I raised alarm bells. The community voice was all but absent — no resident delegations were permitted.
The next thing we knew, the committee was debating eliminating development charges for two years through a motion from the CEO of the West-End Home Builders Association, a member of the committee representing developers in Hamilton and Burlington.
We were in the twilight zone: the main lobbyist and advocate for the local development industry sitting at the council horseshoe bringing a motion to benefit his membership at the expense of taxpayers.
We fought at council and pushed the issue to where it belongs, Committee of the Whole, where all councillors are present. The mayor took up the charge in support of the lobbyist motion, eventually calling for the complete removal of development charges for two years.
WestEnd Home Builders Association, Chief Executive Officer. Mike Collins-Williams addressing City Council. Developer Vince Molinaro listens in.
But the pressure from the development industry, with the support of the mayor, hasn’t stopped and continues to this day. A one-vote majority on the Committee of the Whole recommended to remove development charges, a subsidy of $16 million to $41 million. That money will have to be made up by you.
The battle now goes to council on March 2.
The industry is struggling, the mayor asserts. True, but other industries and our taxpayers are hurting also, and Burlington taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize developers who must turn profits to build. The mayor’s proposal amounts to a cheque written by council to developers out of Burlington bank accounts.
Development charges are not the best way to pay for new roads, community centres and fire stations. But asking Burlington taxpayers to foot the bill is unacceptable.
Instead, the provincial government, which is responsible for the provincial economy, can fund the growth through income taxes received from the expansion of our population, or the sales tax collected on new homes.
Nisan maintains Mayor came to power in 2018 on a platform to stop unwanted development in downtown Burlington.
This is what I mean when I call on the province to “make us whole” and why three council members have not budged from this position. We do not support gambling recklessly with your taxes. But if funding is allocated to Burlington, the development charges can be removed immediately.
This was also the mayor’s exact position in the fall. Now she wants to go ahead without any guarantees, which, if no funding is given, would leave taxpayers holding the bag. What changed?
The unelected lobbyists of our city are running the show right now. The mayor is standing by.
Now is the time to stop this developer subsidy from taxpayers and put the people back at the centre of our decision-making in Burlington. That’s what we’re fighting for.
Discover more from Burlington Gazette - Local News, Politics, Community
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Foremost that anyone thinks that Nisan should be mayor is laughable & says they haven’t been paying attention. Nisan has been MMW’s lapdog for 8 yrs. The ONLY reason he has turned the table is because there is an election coming up and everyone wants MMW out. In fact Kearns is making a run for mayor and Nisan is betting on that horse who also supports not playing corporate welfare to WE HBA
Here’s the list of members for WE HBA. I’d challenge anyone to look at some of the builders on this list & feel sorry for them. Not to mention companies like Effort Trust. We’re not going to subsidize banks & trust companies? I guess that goes along with the people who think giving a 50% tip should be the norm.
https://members.westendhba.ca/directory/Search/builder-developer-489359
We should in no way be subsidizing WE HBA. Who cares what Doug Ford has to say. Burlington was a decade ahead of their requirements in the PPS before that corrupt despicable guy came to power. He couldn’t get his Greenbelt scam thru so decided to compensate his buddies in other ways including foregoing development charges. Then after he passed the buck to municipalities criticizing them to what end? Bc he thought the public would feel for them? Get bent.
This city needs a new mayor and new council. I for one am not the least bit fooled by Nisan or Kearns. They have truly believe in not saddling taxpayers with this. But how many of MMW’s budgets have they ever voted against? How many extravagant purchases? How many projects we couldn’t afford? eg Bateman. None. But now an election is here and they’re suddenly Mr & Mrs Spendthrift? BAHAHAHAHA. They were totally on board with approving a $1.2 Billion master plan to turn the city into their vision, and not only that but did so without ever even doing a cost analysis. Our retired friend Joan Ford filled us in on that 3 yrs ago. So anyone who thinks either of these two will be anymore fiscally responsible than MMW? I have a bridge in Brooklyn that just came on the market. Give me a call as I’m sure we can broker a deal.
These facts from the City CFO Millar, were published before in the Gazette, February 16/26. It adds critical dimensions to the real impacts of the DCs give-away. I abstract from the Gazette reporting of what Millar said. This information is never redundant with the issue heat rising, and it is needed as people get involved.
“While the intent of the motion is to stimulate development by increasing building permits being issued for the next two years.
The City’s financial subsidy of DCs could extend for a number of years beyond the two-year exemption period.
For example, under the Development Charges Act, DCs rates are locked in or frozen at the time of site plan approval, provided a building permit is issued within 18 months of the application approval.
Therefore, any site plans approved towards the end of year 2 of the DC exemption period will be locked into the exemption for another 18 months to pull permits.
Once construction is completed and occupancy achieved, the City will have to subsidize DCs, several years past the intended DC exemption period.
As a result, it is difficult to estimate the dollar amounts and timelines and the City will have to subsidize the DCs related to this exemption.”
Millar also reports that, from the Capital Plan, presented in the 2026 Capital Budget, the 10-year growth expenditure is forecasted at $126.5M, and $94.4M is currently expected to be funded from DCs.
In my opinion, if developers choose to take advantage of a Council approval, they can apply for as many builds as they want with planning applications, no money down, and could feasibly, with easy strategic planning financial analysis, and given the extended time uncertainty of the exemption period, accelerate the applications in a optimization pattern to cash in all of the $94.4M.
While I am here, I want to say that the application at 100 Plains Rd was recently reviewed to include an assessment of an OP amendment from an approved 12 stories to 15 stories.
This was after the The September 8/25 approval meeting. I received an e-mail, and read the report from planning, as a planning analysis. I am trying to find it, but no luck.
I asked the planner I got it from, but what she sent me was the 12 story approval, and she confirmed the now approved development at 100 Plains Rd E consists of a Mixed-Use building of 12-storeys in height (inclusive of the mechanical penthouse).
I was surprised that Planning was doing this kind of analysis of allowing more density and intensity than the maximum stated in the OP.
To me, given the DCs matter proposed, this kind of policy intensification proposal for 100 Plains would compound the financial effects.
It’s another problem hiding in waiting with lots of possible issues and conflicts.
I think this information is still current:
Ward 1 Kevin Galbraith Aldershot. kelvin.galbraith@burlington.ca. Tel: 905-335-7777, ext. 7587
Ward 2 Lisa Kearns -Central West lisa.kearns@burlington.ca Tel: ext. 7588
Ward 3 Rory Nisan Tyandega rory.nisan@burlington.ca Tel: ext. 7459
Ward 4 Shawna Stole shawna.stolte@burlington.ca Tel: ext. 7531
Ward 5 Paul Sharman Orchard/Millcroft paul.sharman@burlington.ca Tel: ext. 7591
Ward 6 Angelo Bentivegna angelo.bentivegna@burlington.ca Tel: ext. 759
I would be shocked if one penny of the Development Charges was not passed on to the buyers. If thats the case, the real issue is the developers are not selling units and want to be able to reduce the cost of a unit through the elimination of the DC’s. But then who is going to pay for growth. Answer, all taxpayers. So, defer the DC charge until occupancy versus upon issuance of the building permit. As well many units in condos are rentals, should these not be considered affordable housing units as many people rent because they cannot “afford” to buy.
Nisan, with your logic and sensibilities regarding the taxpayers of Burlington. Please take a run at being mayor . Time for a serious shakeup at city hall. Something about how a fish rots from the head down comes to mind.
October 2026 is not that far away. Time for a change in the mayors office. It seems “Super” powers have clouded her judgement and what the people of Burlington want and it isn’t subsidizing very wealthy developers.
This will be mayors swan song if she continues to push this agenda. I am not prepared to fork over around $500 extra a year on my tax bill to enrich the Molinaro’s or West End Development etc who I have yet to see needing a “Tag Day” to keep them afloat. Sorry, if you can’t make it on your own , then get out of the business. The way this was almost rammed through with no public consultation is a perfect reason to remove “Super” mayor powers. This is nothing but not listening to the people of Burlington.
Excellent presentation. Our lack of a local newspaper is what makes outrageous ideas like this one possible as most folks do not follow city hall any more. I have talked to several neighbours and every one is surprised and quite opposed. At election time I am going to make it a point to talk to as many of my neighours and friends as possible about their vote. I find it especially offensive to help the very builders that we opposed time and time again about building heights, parking and so on.
Thank God this councillor is speaking up for the tax payer. I have no patience for home developers who make a profit on homes that are in demand everywhere. Where is there business planning for the future that does not rely solely on the tax payer, they must be more creative.
I agree with Rory. Developer do not proceed with developments unless they make a profit. Not at our expense. Sharpen their pencils like we do.
Ford wants more housing. Find money in his budget. Put your money where your mouth is. No more buildings on the lakeshore.
Shouldn’t our mayor, Meed Ward be looking after the best financial interests of her Burlington constituents? and not those of her developer friends?
Remember this in the October 2026 Municipal Election.
The residents of Ward 1 (Galbraith), Ward 5 (Sharman) and Ward 6 (Bentivegna) need to lobby their Councillors to change their minds about supporting the mayor on her reckless decision or risk losing their jobs in the upcoming election.
Editor’s note: It would appear that Bentivegna is the critical vote here. Why Galbraith is not re-thinking his position i sa true disappointment.
I have just sent an email to Councillor Nisan voicing my support for his stance on the development charge elimination proposal as presented today in the Spectator. Every citizen needs to focus on this poor idea that not only gives a slight break on market-based prices in new condos for a buyer but in total passes on each break given buyers for the taxpayers to shoulder the lost revenue to the City for two years, which could be in the millions of dollars.
Only the provincial or the federal governments have that kind of money to fund this giveaway to developers and buyers and leave our less than adequate reserves untouched and our citizens’ wallets in their pockets without being picked.
Please write the Mayor and your Councillor expressing your outrage to this idea without some type of assurance from the province and the feds that Burlington taxpayers will not foot the bill.
Thanks for shining a light on this. All Burlington residents should be aware of what the mayor is trying to push through. If the province is so concerned then perhaps they can step up, but then again that is also the taxpayers money.