Rough development-fee beast slouches toward Winnipeg

When Mayor Brian Bowman started talking about the need to ensurenew developments don't costmore money than they generate in the long term,the conversation started with terms like"growth fees"or "development charges."

Now, the city is talking about"impact fees," while opponents deride proposed"housing taxes."

Whatever they'recalled, the name doesn't matter as much as what they're supposed to do. And the objective is no longer clear.

• Premier Pallister raises red flags over Winnipeg's proposed growth fees
• Growth fees on hold in Winnipeg, but it's not clear how long
• Growth-fee plan takes too much power from politicians, Bowman and councillor say

In some cities, growth fees are usedas a planning tool and are employed as a means ofstimulatingsome forms of development and deterring others.

For example, if you charge lower fees to buildmulti-storeyapartmentsin existing neighbourhoods than you do to build, say,single-family homes at the edgeof a city, you may wind up with greater population density in the long run. This, at least in theory,resultsinlower costs in perpetuityfor building and maintaining roads, sewers andwatermains, not to mention police stations, community centres and other facilities.

Two weeks ago, however, the City of Winnipeg unveiled a proposed "impact fee" that wasn't designed by the city's planners. Instead, it was drawn up by the corporate finance department with afocus on generating revenue.

Bowman has stated repeatedly he's not interested in a cash grab. Instead, he says he wants to ensure Winnipeg has a means of doingwhat most other cities do: requirenew developments topay for themselves to ensure the entire cityis financiallysustainable in the long term.

Thatgoalis at odds with the corporate finance report on growth fees, which recommended those charges go into effect on Jan. 1. That report was written mostlyin August, before the completion of the independent study it was supposed to be based upon.

It also was not written with any appreciable input from developers, which is important considering they plan their projectsthree to four years ahead of time. For a planning tool to have an effect on actual planning, it has to be unveiled well ahead of its implementation date.

So what is really going on? Mayor Bowman and council property chairman JohnOrlikow(River heights-Fort Garry) arecalling the publication of the impact-fee report that nobody seems to likea radicalexercise in openness. Theyclaim nopoliticianhad anyinput into the document and insist it was the creation of corporate finance officials alone.

That would be unprecedented, as politicians typically have advisors andpolicy experts review administrative plans before they're made public.

Orlikowsays only now is thepolicy work being conducted on the growth-fee plan, although the policy-making process isbeing led by members of council rather than city planners.

Ironically, the creation of a growth-fee plan for Winnipegis less open and less transparent than ever. It's unclear who's in charge of the process or what that process even is, now that executive policy committee has placed the idea on hold indefinitely and other members of councilnow sayit will take many months if not years to hammer out a workable deal with developers.

So once again, what exactly is going on? Perhaps Brian Bowman is a better negotiator than anyone expected.

Considerthat afew months ago, no Winnipeg developer was eager to talk about development charges. But after facing the threat of new and disruptivefees arrivingas soon as New Year's Day, someof the most powerful people in the industry showed up in person at city hall this weekto tell the mayor they're willing to talk any time.

• Growth fees coming to Winnipeg on Jan. 1, pending council approval
• ANALYSIS:For Brian Bowman, it's growth fees or bust

It's almost as if Bowman is the crafty handymanwho presents you with a $50,000 quote to replace the insulation in your home just to get your attention. Once you'rescared out of your wits, you're more than willing to replace $10,000 worth of windows instead andeven think you walked away with one hell of a deal after that fact.

The problem with this theory is it suggests Bowman or someone elsein hisoffice is a Machiavelliangeniuswho'swilling to sacrifice oodles ofpolitical capital just for the sake of ensuring developers sit down at the table and talk.

But in politics as in logic, the simplest explanation is usually correct. What appears to be policy chaos at city hall is probably just that.

Ironically, the confusion of the past few weeks has leftdevelopers willing to engage in long-term talks.Intentionally or otherwise,an equitable deal may be achieved.

To paraphrase Forrest Gump, chaos is as chaos does.