Stern: SORRY? NOT SORRY

On Monday, February 9, I live-streamed Burlington’s Committee of the Whole meeting. At least four delegations urged the City Council to reduce or defer development charges for new housing.

Council was eventually persuaded to move to the next step in granting a two-year freeze. The justifications were familiar: softer housing demand, unsold condos across the GTHA, economic uncertainty, affordability concerns, and potential layoffs in the skilled trades.

I found myself asking a simple question: why was there only one councillor aggressively challenging these arguments? Ontario law requires that development charges (DCs) be paid into the development charges reserve fund. If the purchaser of a new home doesn’t pay the DCs, the city will have to use either debt or general tax revenue to contribute to the reserve fund. The mayor was asked at least twice to clarify where the money for the DC reserve fund will come from, but did not provide a specific answer. The mayor is hoping that either the province or the federal government will provide funding; no agreement or program is in place, and this is nothing more than a hope.

Mississauga is the only city to come close to eliminating DCs.

“The motion eliminates development charges, effective immediately, for one-bedroom plus den and two-bedroom units. To be eligible, developers must pull a building permit before November 13, 2026.”

Burlington’s approved motion is an across-the-board elimination of DCs, including multi-million dollar homes.

---

So Much for a Free-Market Economy

Developers have perfected the art of ideological shape-shifting.

When the market was overheated pre-COVID, they demanded deregulation, faster approvals, and less government interference. Now that the market has cooled, those same voices are calling for government relief, reduced charges, and public support.

One can admire the intellectual fluidity, but let’s call it what it is: hypocrisy. You can’t champion the free market when profits are rolling in and demand government intervention when they aren’t.

I listened carefully to the case for reducing and deferring development charges. Here’s why I oppose it—and why I’m disappointed Council didn’t raise these points.

---

A Chronic Failure to Read the Room

First, the condo slowdown didn’t arrive suddenly. It’s been building for years. Many of these units are tiny—often under 500 square feet—and overwhelmingly one-bedroom. They don’t work for families or multi-generational households. Demand didn’t disappear; it was misjudged.

Second, Ottawa signalled reduced immigration targets in 2023. Less immigration means less housing demand. The development industry either missed or ignored that signal.

Third, the reduction in the development charge is trivial. It’s roughly $11,000 on a 1-bedroom condo and $21,000 on a single-family home —a rounding error in the cost of a new home. I find it hard to believe this money will meaningfully result in more employment for tradespeople.

Fourth, the alarmism about layoffs rings hollow. Skilled trades are in chronic shortage. Talk to any renovator or contractor. Carpenters, electricians, bricklayers—these workers are mobile and in demand. Long-term unemployment is not the norm in this sector.

Fifth, a major supply shift is already underway. Baby Boomers are downsizing due to retirement, relocation, or death. Burlington has a disproportionately large 65+ population, and single-family homes—especially in south Burlington—are coming onto the market. This is exactly the housing young families want, yet it’s rarely factored into demand forecasts.

Finally, many residents warned for years that high-rise, investor-oriented condos were the wrong product. We urged developers to pivot toward housing people actually need. They didn’t listen.

I raised this with my councillor years ago and was dismissed. I’m not clairvoyant.  I was just reading the market and paying attention to the macro-economic trends unfolding around me.

---

Exhibit A: Lakeside Plaza

Lakeside Plaza was once a thriving mall. For two decades, it was deliberately neglected, reportedly for tax advantages.

Since 2015, three redevelopment proposals have been brought forward. In public meetings in 2016, 2018, and 2023, residents were clear: affordable housing, low- to mid-rise buildings, and less density.

Each proposal ignored that feedback, offering instead a wall of high-rise condos along Lakeshore Road, with units barely fit for storage, let alone living.

More details here:
https://www.burlington.ca/en/news/current-development-projects/lakeside-plaza.aspx

---

Sorry, Not Sorry

Council has now approved what is effectively a bailout. How much revenue will be lost?  Could be anywhere from $7.1 to $41.3 million.

Who fills the gap? And how much will it cost taxpayers in the future, who are already facing a 4.49% increase in their total tax bill—double the inflation rate (with Burlington’s portion of the bill increasing at a much higher 5.8%)?

I don’t feel sorry for developers. They helped create this problem. They were warned. They chose not to adapt.

If a manufacturer can’t sell cars or appliances because consumers don’t want them, they redesign, reduce prices, or retool. If small business owners hit hard times, they cut costs, delay investments, and sometimes lay off staff. That’s the reality of a free-market economy.

The real estate industry is not entitled to government-sponsored relief simply because it misread demand.

And if bailouts are on the table, where’s the relief for small businesses—or for taxpayers absorbing yet another tax hike?

The day I see repo trucks hauling off luxury BMWs from developer’s driveways is the day I’ll shed a tear. Until then—sorry, not sorry.