News & Issues

SUNLIFE

It is interesting how a story can be spun so that fact becomes fiction and perception becomes reality. So here are the facts about Sun Life. It is not a simple story to tell, so bear with me.

Every five years municipalities must evaluate their Official Plan (OP). This document guides city planning. It sets out policies that articulate how the city will grow and reviews the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) - a line, around the urban area of the city that allows for development within the line and agricultural protection outside the line. The OP must be consistent with the Provincial Policies Statement (PPS). In short, if the city has ample land for future growth within the UGB you can't expand it.

To determine whether there is enough land within the UGB for growth, the issue was studied council advised that."Based on the empirical analysis.., and having regard for the Provincial Policy Statement, there is no need to consider the addition of new lands into the City's UGB through the 2006 Official Plan Review process. As demonstrated, the City of London has a more than adequate supply of both residential and non-residential land to meet development needs in the 15 to 20-year time horizon set out in the Official Plan and the 2005 PPS. In fact, based upon current trends and assumptions, the City currently has enough residential land to last 29 years".

It is not surprising, given the financial benefits, that as of May 2007, 39 landowners requested to have their lands included in the UGB. One of those requests came from a landowner in the south whose agent indicated Sun Life was interested in developing a warehouse on the property but had not submitted any application. The staff report advised us that, "None of the submissions for inclusion represent immediate emergent opportunities that cannot be reasonably accommodated elsewhere on lands already designated for urban use". As there was no application, hence no concrete evidence in support of expanding the UGB, the Planning Committee, at the time, voted no change. We also passed a motion that recommended the London Economic and Development Corporation (LEDC) and Senior Staff work with Sun Life to review their needs and all available land options. Staff met with Sun Life. It wasn't until June of 2008 that Sun Life submitted an official plan amendment. Shortly thereafter, the bottom fell out of the economy and on Jan. 6, 2009 the General Manager of Planning received an email for Sun Life that indicated, "Under these much changed economic circumstances; it would not be prudent to continue with this project".

Some members of council who are the political spokespersons for development landowners saw an opportunity to make some noise and were quick to denigrate others with name calling, and elementary school banter. They were really mad they didn't get their way. What is even more interesting is the same individuals claim to stand for low taxation, yet this project would have cost taxpayers a minimum of $19 Million in addition to the already $65 Million that has been spend on purchasing, zoning and servicing industrial land, not to mention the $700 Million infrastructure deficit. They didn't care about taxpayers when Vic Cote the General Manager of Finance for the city stated that, "As a stand alone investment by the city, it doesn't make sense". Cote questioned the financial models presented saying it could be used to justify any investment. The city has limited dollars and must prioritize, he said, and warehouses with few jobs, rank lower in the pecking order to plants that are labour intensive, such as London's Hanwha factory, which makes quality counters and floors. If this was Hanwha, it would be a good investment. It is not Hanwha." (LFP Nov. 5 2009)

Joe Belanger of the London Free Press wrote a great column about the Sun Life issue called, "This is why development rules exist". Belanger states, Don't listen to the sniping by several council members about an opportunity lost because of opposition from the so-called socialist cabal on council. It is simply not true. Big money, big business or both have a way of attracting the attention of some politicians, who then seem willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that proponent is appeased. At the end of the day council made all the right decisions on this issue...If anything, this experience should serve as a reminder of why there are rules in place for land development and the folly of trying to ignore, circumvent, bend or alter those rules.

Well said.