Is a federal NIMBY Tax constitutional? What impact would a NIMBY Tax have on opposition to the 4099 Erin Mills Parkway re-development? We need help from municipal law lawyers, tax lawyers, and constitutional law lawyers, in understanding how federal government policy, Regulation, or legislation could, lawfully or unlawfully, impose a NIMBY tax on Erin Mills South. What constitutional challenges could we consider?
The federal Parliament, constitutionally, does not have jurisdiction over property and civil rights or municipal law. However, the federal Parliament has the power to spend money, and impose conditions on the use of those federal finances. The federal Parliament also has jurisdiction over Taxation and Criminal Law. By utilizing its Spending Power, Taxation, Taxation audit, or criminal law jurisdiction, the federal government might attempt to influence municipal law, which is normally an exclusively provincial domain. A future federal government could use a NIMBY Tax or a threat of a NIMBY penalty, to nudge City Councils in their decisions to approve or reject re-developments. The federal government could also, lawfully or unlawfully, negatively impact a local politician, a Residents Association, or a taxpayer, who opposes a change to zoning, using tax audits or other penalty.
If federal infrastructure money or transit money, to a municipality, is refused or reduced, the loss could force City Councillors to impose higher municipal taxes. We need help from lawyers, accountants, and retired municipal politicians in understanding the potential impact of a federal NIMBY Tax.
If a NIMBY tax is prima facie constitutional under the federal government’s constitutional spending power, taxation jurisdiction, or criminal law, does it become unconstitutional if it is utilized in a capricious or arbitrary manner to benefit a Developer or Developers, rather than the community?
Please read the article “Understanding the Nimby Tax: Implications in Britain and America” by Harry Williams (https://contrank.com/nimby-tax/) The following are a few notes from that article:
“The Nimby tax, short for “Not In My Backyard,” has emerged as a significant factor in shaping urban development policies, particularly in countries like Britain and America.
“At its core, the Nimby tax is a concept aimed at curbing … a phenomenon where individuals or communities oppose new developments, such as housing projects or infrastructure, in their vicinity. The tax operates on the principle that those opposing development should bear a financial cost for impeding progress.”
How might a NIMBY Tax affect the 4099 Erin Mills Parkway Opposition?
Consider the following possible scenario:
1. A national newspaper identifies an association of residents, a City Councillor, and a City Council as “NIMBY” because they oppose or are slow/reluctant to accept a specific re-development plan proposed by a Developer.
2. A Future government enacts a system to remove big city gatekeepers, i.e. “NIMBY” local politicians who block construction of new housing through “unnecessary” red tape.
3. A Future government empowers residents to file complaints about “NIMBYism” with the federal infrastructure department.
4. When complaints are considered “well-founded”, the Future government withholds infrastructure dollars until municipalities remove the blockage and allow homebuilding to take place.
5. The Future government ties federal infrastructure dollars (for municipalities) to the number of new homes built.
6. The Future government imposes clawbacks on municipalities who delay new home construction.
7. The Future government ties federal funding for major transit projects to cities that pre-emptively "up-zone" lands for high-density housing.
8. City Councillors therefore fear that they must raise municipal taxes to pay for lost federal funding. They are aware that increased municipal taxes will threaten their municipal re-election.
9. Individual City Councillors therefore encourage Residents Associations to take pre-emptive steps to avoid litigation with Developers and “obey in advance”, i.e. appease the national newspaper, the Future government, and the Developer.
In the above-mentioned article, Harry Williams suggests that a NIMBY Tax should create a balance:
“It serves as a potential tool to balance the interests of existing communities with the greater need for urban growth.”
“In Britain, where urban space comes at a premium, the Nimby tax has gained traction as a means to address the housing crisis. The government has contemplated imposing levies on neighborhoods resisting affordable housing projects. Local councils are considering policies that require those opposing development to contribute to a fund dedicated to affordable housing initiatives. This approach not only generates funds but also encourages a more collaborative approach to urban development.”
“In the United States, the Nimby tax concept has encountered a mixed reception. While some argue it could foster compromise between developers and local communities, others view it as an infringement on property rights. … some regions have experimented with impact fees on Nimby tax funneling the revenue into public projects that benefit the community as a whole.”
Why the Whole Community Could Benefit Through the Imposition of the NIMBY Tax
Harry Williams suggests that a NIMBY Tax could have benefits for urban development:
“The Nimby tax’s influence on urban development is profound. It challenges the status quo of uncompromising opposition to new projects by introducing a financial incentive for negotiation. By shifting the discourse from confrontation to cooperation, this tax could potentially expedite the approval and execution of projects that contribute to a city’s growth.”
“…policymakers must establish clear criteria for implementing the tax and ensure that it doesn’t discourage valid public input. Striking a balance between community concerns and the broader societal interest is essential.”
Immediate Impact on 4099 Erin Mills Parkway Re-Development Opposition
Residents of Erin Mills South need to face the reality that there are no clear criteria for implementation of a federal NIMBY Tax by a Future government.
Valid public input is currently being discouraged by Ontario Bill 185.
Broader societal interest and community concerns simply aren’t important to strike a balance, if the Future government of Canada acts in a capricious or vindictive manner, with the support of the Development industry, to impose a NIMBY Tax.
Capricious and vindictive behaviour by Heads of Government towards their opposition, now seems to be the norm in many western democracies.
We therefore need a great deal of your help in brainstorming approaches to lawfully challenging any NIMBY Tax and its application to our community, where:
1. The proposed Development does not benefit the community in any way.
2. The proposed “homes” are not fit for families and are not affordable.
3. The Queenscorp Application would destroy the existing commercial and walkable nature of 4099 Erin Mills Parkway.
4. The Application would destroy 30 thriving small businesses.
5. The Application doesn’t at all comply with Mississauga’s Official Plan or the history of Erin Mills as a Planned Community.
6. The purpose of imposing a NIMBY Tax would be to benefit a Developer, and not to benefit the community.
7. Broad community opposition to the Queenscorp application is not based on NIMBYism, but rather on the importance of Quality Planning in Our Backyards, i.e. QIMBYism.
If a federal politician visits your home and requests your vote in the coming federal election, you may decide to ask them:
Will your political party punish the City of Mississauga, by cutting off funds for transit or infrastructure, if it does not build condo towers at 4099 Erin Mills parkway?
Will your political party interfere with the municipal jurisdiction of Mississauga City Council to decide whether or not the application by Queenscorp to re-develop 4099 Erin Mills Parkway should be approved?
Do you support the imposition of a federal NIMBY Tax? If so, does your party, once it forms Government, intend to utilize which federal government jurisdiction to justify a NIMBY Tax:
a) Spending or withholding money for infrastructure or transit
b) Taxation and tax audits
c) Criminal Law and Punishment
Comments