By Jamie MacMaster
There is a smug ambivalence that strikes us country-folk when a government action targets our neighbours but leaves us alone. For example, if a local government re-jigs its Official Plan to adhere to the dictates of Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement on Land Use (PPS), and as a result of that a few square miles on the next concession is re-zoned from rural to agricultural, well, I live here, so it’s not my problem if those folks over there can no longer subdivide their rough land into building lots…pity.
If I don’t happen to live beside or on top of water that supplies a municipal system, then the do-nothing-within setbacks mandated by the Clean Water Act (CWA) are not really any of my concern, are they. Or, are they?
There is an irrefutable premise in real estate circles that any restriction placed on private property has the effect of devaluing that property. Period. I know that some might argue that idea by pointing out that communities with restrictive covenants (such as no clotheslines) are thriving, but that is actually one of those exceptions that prove the rule. Because if you look at the number of people who don’t settle in those communities, it becomes apparent that most of us would rather put up clotheslines and paint our doors the colour we want, which leads us to another related real estate principle: property value decreases as buyer appeal diminishes.
Across rural Canada there are hundreds of thousands of properties that will lose value because of the legislative restrictions imposed by laws like the CWA and the PPS. Here’s a representative example: a Glengarry family that I know farms 200 acres through which a small river flows, and that stream contributes drinking water to a municipal system. Because of the setbacks mandated by the CWA, they will not be able to farm 22 acres (11 per cent) of their land, and without getting into discussions about the viability of their operation, loss of future income or the lack of government compensation for the loss, it is quite evident that the 22 acres removed from cultivation is nowhere near as valuable as the land that can still be farmed.
Now, in Ontario, as in most provinces, we are assessed on the market value (speculated) of our properties, and if I was this Landowner (note the large L), I would have a local Realtor provide me with a Market Value Assessment that reflected the diminished market price, and then I’d be making a submission to Ontario’s Municipal Property Assessment Corporation. And my taxes would decrease at the same rate as my assessment and I’d certainly spread the good news to all my neighbours who might be similarly effected.
When you take a look at all the rural land that borders on, is intersected by, or sits on top of water sources that supply municipal systems, and think that all those landowners would probably do the same thing, when we add up all the lost municipal tax revenue, well, we’re not talking about petty cash here, are we? That brings us to the point about how this matters to all of us.
Our poor municipal politicians will have to raise everyone’s taxes to compensate – because when your neighbour’s property loses value, someone else has to pick up the tax tab to compensate for that deficit. That doesn’t improve your financial situation, or, for that matter, a councilor’s lot as far as re-election is concerned. I wonder how many of them will think about this “spin-off” the next time they get the chance to sing and dance for our provincial pipers. And while we’re on that subject, I wonder how much longer these particular pipers are going to play their same old tune.
James MacMaster is a salesperson with Rickerd Realty in North Glengarry, Ont., and a past vice-president of the Ontario Landowners, a rural property rights advocacy organization with 16,000 memberships across Ontario. Email [email protected]
