For over 50 years, Concerned Citizens of King Township has responded to citizens’ inquiries and taken action. We inform and build public awareness about issues specific to King to foster and support actions that maintain the rural character of the Township and protect its environment. CCKT is the community’s voice for responsible planning that protects and values our natural heritage through: education, advocacy, partnerships, and community involvement.

CCKT Mission
Our mission is to protect the natural heritage features of King Township and to promote sustainability in our communities with a strong voice that engages and advocates for the community.

CCKT Vision
Our vision is a vibrant King Township that protects and values its natural heritage with an environmentally responsible vision for growth that promotes a healthy community now and for generations to come.

News

CCKT General Meeting – June 4, 2024

CCKT General Meeting – June 4, 2024

Join us at the historic Nobleton Community Hall for our first General Meeting of 2024!Date: Tuesday, June 4th Time: 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. Location: Nobleton Community Hall (upstairs), 19 Old King Road, Nobleton  Agenda: Welcome and Introduction: Bruce Craig, Chair of...

Alliance for a Livable Ontario – Webinar June 6

Alliance for a Livable Ontario – Webinar June 6

Webinar: New Data refutes Province's Sprawl Agenda Event Description The Premier repeatedly justifies his government's costly and environmentally damaging sprawl agenda by claiming this is what people want. ‍ Join us via Zoom on Thursday, June 6 at 7:00 pm and be the...

March 2024 Newsletter

March 2024 Newsletter

Warm Greetings to Everyone, In this early Spring Edition of the CCKT Newsletter you will find: Save Mary Lake Update Informative Video documentary, “Paving Over Paradise” “Our King” Official Plan Review CCKT Membership Renewal Information Expanding the CCKT Board:  An...

Facebook Feed

Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

The Monastery has been demolished at Marylake (King City). Very sad. ... See MoreSee Less

The Monastery has been demolished at Marylake (King City). Very sad.Image attachmentImage attachment+1Image attachment

8 CommentsComment on Facebook

Why did they do this?

I used to go their to pray and even 12 years ago the building was dripping water and under some restoration, not sure what happened to the restoration attempt?

Wow what a huge disappointment 😞

View more comments

Ontario turning urban planning over to developers – what can go wrong?

OPINION. Special to THE GLOBE AND MAIL - Mark Winfield - June 26, 2024

Interventions in municipal land use planning, particularly in the Greater Toronto Area, by the government of Ontario Premier Doug Ford over the past five years set in motion an enormous, unplanned experiment in what happens when the development industry is given almost everything it wants in a region subject to intense urban growth pressures.

The results of that experiment are now becoming apparent, and they are not good.

Even as Canada’s housing affordability crisis continues, the market for high-rise condominiums in Toronto, a key focus of development activity, has suffered a severe downturn. Sales of existing units are attracting little interest, and in the preconstruction market sales are down nearly 75 per cent relative to the average over the past decade. The breakdown in the market is seen as a function of its oversaturation with towers filled with small units of limited use to growing families, and reduced interest from investors, who had come to dominate condominium sales, looking to buy and then resell or rent their units, in an environment of increased interest rates.

The defining feature of the Ford government’s approach to planning urban development has been to engage in a root and branch rewriting of the rules to suit developers.

The province has justified its approach as a response to a crisis of housing affordability. The government has focused on increasing the gross supply of housing units. It accepted at face value the development industry’s assertions that the cause of the crisis was red tape in the form of planning rules and requirements for public transparency and accountability.

In reality, the housing affordability crisis has been the a product of a complex convergence of factors: an extended period of historically low interest rates; the weakening of rent controls and protections for existing affordable rental housing; and unexpectedly rapid population growth driven by increases in immigration targets and an unanticipated influx of temporary foreign workers and international students. These factors combined to drive inflationary speculation and the financialization of housing into an investment vehicle.

Handing control of the planning process to the development industry, as Ontario effectively did, exacerbated these dynamics. Left to its own devices, the development sector focused not on the types of housing that were actually needed, but on where it thought it could make the fastest profit and return on investment. In existing urban areas, that turned out to be high-rise condominium projects with ever-shrinking units, not developments oriented to toward buyers looking for permanent housing for themselves or their families, but rather investors looking to exploit low interest rates to buy and then flip or rent out their units.

The free-for-all created by the province has led to a cascade of further problems. Developers, particularly those working on urban infill or redevelopment initiatives, focus on their own individual projects. They pay little or no attention to the cumulative effects of multiple projects in terms of the needs for infrastructure of all types, the mixes of uses and housing forms, and the overall design of urban spaces in terms of functionality, livability, affordability and sustainability.

The need to address these kinds of inherent market failures in urban development were part of the reason why planning processes and rules emerged, and why local governments were given the authority to manage the development process. Absent any planning framework, infrastructure planning of all types (sewer, water, hydro, transportation, schools and parks) becomes almost impossible given the unco-ordinated nature of the development that occurs. That problem has come to be symbolized in areas such as midtown Toronto by the signs from school boards on virtually every new project announcing that there is no capacity in local schools to accommodate the children of new residents.

These problems have been reinforced by provincial constraints, again imposed at the behest of the development industry, on the ability of municipalities to apply development charges to pay for the infrastructure need to support new developments.
In the end, Ontario’s experiment with an urban development process almost entirely oriented toward the interests of private capital has ended in a predictable failure.

The capacity of municipalities to plan for and manage development, and ensure the functionality, affordability and sustainability of urban spaces needs to be re-established. Effective protections for existing affordable housing, especially rentals, must be instituted.

Incentives for unproductive speculative behaviour in the development process need to be removed. An important step would be to impose time limits on development approvals, so that they lapse if not acted on. This would discourage purely speculative applications intended to bid up land values, with inflationary effects on the overall land market.

Ontario’s housing market has fallen into a deep pathway of dysfunction. The province needs to stop reinforcing that breakdown through its own interventions. Recognizing that the self-interest of the development industry might not be the best guide to policy would be a good place to start on a more constructive path.

[Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental and urban change at York University. He served on the ministerial advisory committee for the implementation of the former growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe region.]
... See MoreSee Less

Ontario turning urban planning over to developers – what can go wrong?OPINION.  Special to THE GLOBE AND MAIL - Mark Winfield - June 26, 2024Interventions in municipal land use planning, particularly in the Greater Toronto Area, by the government of Ontario Premier Doug Ford over the past five years set in motion an enormous, unplanned experiment in what happens when the development industry is given almost everything it wants in a region subject to intense urban growth pressures.The results of that experiment are now becoming apparent, and they are not good.Even as Canada’s housing affordability crisis continues, the market for high-rise condominiums in Toronto, a key focus of development activity, has suffered a severe downturn. Sales of existing units are attracting little interest, and in the preconstruction market sales are down nearly 75 per cent relative to the average over the past decade. The breakdown in the market is seen as a function of its oversaturation with towers filled with small units of limited use to growing families, and reduced interest from investors, who had come to dominate condominium sales, looking to buy and then resell or rent their units, in an environment of increased interest rates.The defining feature of the Ford government’s approach to planning urban development has been to engage in a root and branch rewriting of the rules to suit developers.The province has justified its approach as a response to a crisis of housing affordability. The government has focused on increasing the gross supply of housing units. It accepted at face value the development industry’s assertions that the cause of the crisis was red tape in the form of planning rules and requirements for public transparency and accountability.In reality, the housing affordability crisis has been the a product of a complex convergence of factors: an extended period of historically low interest rates; the weakening of rent controls and protections for existing affordable rental housing; and unexpectedly rapid population growth driven by increases in immigration targets and an unanticipated influx of temporary foreign workers and international students. These factors combined to drive inflationary speculation and the financialization of housing into an investment vehicle.Handing control of the planning process to the development industry, as Ontario effectively did, exacerbated these dynamics. Left to its own devices, the development sector focused not on the types of housing that were actually needed, but on where it thought it could make the fastest profit and return on investment. In existing urban areas, that turned out to be high-rise condominium projects with ever-shrinking units, not developments oriented to toward buyers looking for permanent housing for themselves or their families, but rather investors looking to exploit low interest rates to buy and then flip or rent out their units.The free-for-all created by the province has led to a cascade of further problems. Developers, particularly those working on urban infill or redevelopment initiatives, focus on their own individual projects. They pay little or no attention to the cumulative effects of multiple projects in terms of the needs for infrastructure of all types, the mixes of uses and housing forms, and the overall design of urban spaces in terms of functionality, livability, affordability and sustainability.The need to address these kinds of inherent market failures in urban development were part of the reason why planning processes and rules emerged, and why local governments were given the authority to manage the development process. Absent any planning framework, infrastructure planning of all types (sewer, water, hydro, transportation, schools and parks) becomes almost impossible given the unco-ordinated nature of the development that occurs. That problem has come to be symbolized in areas such as midtown Toronto by the signs from school boards on virtually every new project announcing that there is no capacity in local schools to accommodate the children of new residents.These problems have been reinforced by provincial constraints, again imposed at the behest of the development industry, on the ability of municipalities to apply development charges to pay for the infrastructure need to support new developments.
In the end, Ontario’s experiment with an urban development process almost entirely oriented toward the interests of private capital has ended in a predictable failure.The capacity of municipalities to plan for and manage development, and ensure the functionality, affordability and sustainability of urban spaces needs to be re-established. Effective protections for existing affordable housing, especially rentals, must be instituted.Incentives for unproductive speculative behaviour in the development process need to be removed. An important step would be to impose time limits on development approvals, so that they lapse if not acted on. This would discourage purely speculative applications intended to bid up land values, with inflationary effects on the overall land market.Ontario’s housing market has fallen into a deep pathway of dysfunction. The province needs to stop reinforcing that breakdown through its own interventions. Recognizing that the self-interest of the development industry might not be the best guide to policy would be a good place to start on a more constructive path.[Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental and urban change at York University. He served on the ministerial advisory committee for the implementation of the former growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe region.]
Load more

Are you concerned that King is losing its countryside and unique rural character?
Join Concerned Citizens of King Township NOW and help to keep King Green!

For over 50 years, the Concerned Citizens of King Township has responded to citizens’ inquiries and taken action. We inform and build public awareness about issues specific to King to foster and support actions that maintain the rural character of the Township and protect its environment. CCKT is the community’s voice for responsible planning that protects and values our natural heritage through: education, advocacy, partnerships, and community involvement.

RN