Why Does Toronto Need the OMB?

With recent talk of freeing Toronto from the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), especially from NDP MPP Rosario Marchese, there seems to be a lot of confusion about why an almost 200 year old city still needs it.

“Toronto is 179 years old. It’s time to treat it like an adult,” Marchese said in a statement when he announced his Private Members Bill to eliminate Toronto from the OMB’s jurisdiction. “My bill would allow the city of Toronto to assume authority over zoning bylaws, development approvals and other planning matters within its boundaries.”

So what would really happen without the OMB? Sure, Toronto residents and city councillors would have more control over what kinds of projects materialize in their communities; like what colour buildings should be, or whether developers should use land for high-rise developments, detached homes or open public parks, but there are several factors that need to be considered before that decision is made.

Newinhomes.com spoke with CEO of the Ontario Home Builder’s Association (OHBA), Joe Vaccaro, who explained that though many times the OMB has supported projects opposed by city councillors, those decisions are strictly based on supporting communities through evolutionary transitions into more complex and dynamic cities.

For starters, the OMB is an administrative tribunal composed of professionals who review appeals on the basis of what kind of development would most adequately address the needs of that particular community. In terms of meeting growing density needs or transit concerns, the OMB is much better equipped with the tools and expertise to assess matters from a perspective that considers city priorities over other, politically charged interests. While councillors are directly accountable to their constituents as public servants, OMB members are not. Faced with public backlash and concerns over electoral popularity, councillors approach these matters from an extremely biased position that often has less to do with planning and more to do with politics.

“The vote at council is a political vote and that vote does not have to be consistent with city planning,” said Vaccaro. “The purpose of the OMB is to take the politics out of this process.” In doing so, cities can open up to change, fixing traffic concerns, noise issues, public space constraints and of course, comfortable housing matters. Throwing highly contentious words like “undemocratic” around has caught much attention in the media, particularly from supporters who feel that a councillor’s decision should be final, but Vaccaro pointed out that having a body like the OMB helps resolve controversy between developers and residents while allowing councillors to keep in good standing with residents; using the OMB as a scapegoat. In this light, this system is by far, more democratic than the alternative because it prevents councillors from having to make compromising decisions that could sometimes be detrimental to their careers or to city growth.

“Residents are looking at their councillors to defend their community, but the process itself looks for professional opinions,” Vaccaro commented.

Historically, the OMB has had the foresight to proceed with developments that were haughtily contested by councillors and residents, ones that turned out to be wildly successful. One of the best examples in Toronto is the Distillery District, because, who doesn’t love the Distillery District? Well, according to Vaccaro, development plans had to go the OMB to “resolve outstanding issues with heritage and residents and now it’s a celebrated community.”

Critics of the OMB often allude to the inescapable truth that developers have access to costly lawyers, which gives them an unfair advantage over cities with limited resources and narrow budgets.

So, what happens without the OMB? “Without the OMB, appeals would go to court, it would be lengthier and more expensive. That kind of litigation would require much more resources out of the city,” said Vaccaro. Developers have the upper hand in this scenario.

So what makes more sense? Getting rid of the OMB and allowing the city’s growth to be determined by politicians and their constituents (but more commonly court cases), or continuing to allow a board of professionals to deem what is suitable for certain sites?