How Community Consultation is Ruining Democracy

A conversation with Eric Lombardi

Meredith Martin

Mike Moffatt

, and

Sabrina Maddeaux

Apr 09, 2025

In this episode, conservative pundit Sabrina Maddeaux and economist Mike Moffatt sit down with housing advocate Eric Lombardi of More Neighbours Toronto to discuss the epic shortcomings of the community consultation processes.

Lombardi argues that they often fail to represent the diverse voices and interests of the community. He emphasizes the need for a more proactive approach to community engagement that considers the broader needs of neighborhoods rather than reacting to individual developments. The conversation also touches on the implications of property rights, the role of advocacy groups, and the responsibilities of provincial and federal governments in addressing the housing crisis. Lombardi calls for reforms that would streamline the consultation process and make it more democratic, ultimately advocating for a system that empowers citizens and promotes growth.

If you enjoy the show and want to support our work please subscribe to our YouTube channel, or you can find the pod on various audio-only platforms.

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

Podbean

Below is an AI-generated transcript of the Missing Middle podcast, which has been lightly edited.

Sabrina Maddeaux: So, Eric, last week, you tweeted something that caught our producer Meredith Martin's eye. I'm going to read it now so that our audio-only listeners can hear it. You posted an image of an invitation by the City of Toronto to a series of community consultation meetings and added the following:

Here's another example of how brutal Toronto's approach to public consultation is.
They are hosting an in-person consultation on a Friday night.
It's almost designed to ensure people who have a life don't show up.
How anyone believes this will result in representative feedback is beyond me, but we will spend hundreds of thousands, if not more, doing it.
And is it too much to ask that elected officials believe in representative democracy and make decisions on our behalf with full context of the facts and benefits?

So, Eric, can you break that down for me and what you meant by it?

Eric Lombardi: Well, so I'm just going to take a step back and talk about the fact that we have introduced community consultation processes for not just major policy changes. And in the context of this tweet, we're talking about legislation to bring forward the right to build sixplexes in Toronto.

But every time that there is a zoning change, which is required for just about every development in Toronto, there is a community consultation process in which the outcomes are nebulous and they've effectively been extended to residents nearby to a development to essentially air their grievances. And councillors uphold this model as a paragon of local democracy.

Sabrina Maddeaux: When you put it like that, it sounds more like a group therapy session than local democracy.

Eric Lombardi: That's actually a great, that is a great description for it. It really is a group therapy session for typically older homeowners who oppose the growth and change in their neighbourhoods and, you know, often are impacted, of course, by these developments.

But one of the challenges- and the city itself in its own reporting has demonstrated that the demographics who show up to these conversations lean overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly homeowners in a city that is majority minority and actually now majority renter.

And so when we have city leaders who, you know, uphold this process, they're actually not giving representation to the voices or the people who may have actually elected them in the first place. And then there's an enormous number of consequences of this behaviour on everyone else in the city who's trying to make it, [and] live their best lives and enjoy things.

And so when we're talking about the sixplex consultations, which is what this tweet is about, we see that in Scarborough, the Scarborough area consultation on sixplexes is taking place at 5.30 to 7.30 on a Friday night. Tell me how many families who are finishing up their work week, want to have dinner, maybe even just see some friends and relax for the week, or how many young people are going to take time out of their Friday night to show up to the city consultation?

And so when the feedback that's going to the city comes from people who have the time and will to show up to something like this, it's not going to actually be representative at all about what people think and feel about this issue. We have it all wrong.

Mike Moffatt: So clearly a consultation on Friday at 5.30 to 7.30 is only going to attract a very unrepresentative set of the population. And you mentioned the Toronto research that kind of shows the same thing. But I think people hear the idea of a community consultation and they go, well, it's a good thing, right? I don't want my politicians just to be in like an ivory tower somewhere dictating policy to the rest of us. You know, I think it's important that we be heard. So, you know, is there a way to reform this? Is the problem the community consultations themselves or is it just that the city is making some bad decisions by holding them at 6:00 p.m. on a Friday night?

Eric Lombardi: I think there are a couple of ways to approach how we change, how we think about how local communities and people can have input into the policy process.

So, you know, the first thing to say is I think it is wrong that we go development by development and then have a reactionary community consultation to a specific proposal on a specific site that ignores the direction that people want to see for their neighborhoods at large.

And so I do think that we need to move towards a more proactive community consultation that takes the entire neighborhood into account. And so people have the time to give input to things like what are some of the things that are missing in this neighborhood? Are there not enough grocery stores? Do we not have enough doctor's offices? What are some of the amenities that people are missing? And then can be even published for that community. So if you are looking to build something in that community, you can say, ‘Hey, there seems to be demand for this type of space.’ We'll include it as a part of our project even before the ideation phase of that has come forward.

Similar is true of how people perceive things like architecture and streetscape. I think there is a more proactive approach and one that can be taken over longer periods with more opportunities and formats to provide input, not to say that you're going to improve the diversity problem of those things perfectly, but by doing it that way, you're likely going to result in more representative feedback that is broader in scope and less reactionary than what we see for the development by development process today.

The second piece is that we elect people in our democracy, which is a representative democracy, because we as individual citizens, and I'll say this is true of the majority of people, do not have the time to understand the details of every single issue that our society is faced with. And so when we look at a policy like sixplexes, the average person isn't going to understand all the different tradeoffs, benefits, etc of these things. And so that's why we're supposed to empower people that we trust, because we think that their values and their attention to the detail represent what we feel. And we want them to make decisions that are right for our city on our behalf.

And so in a lot of ways, councillors outsource thinking to community consultation rather than leading by being the proper political leaders who are actually empowered to think about these challenges that we face and deliver on our behalf.

And I actually just think that we need to reconcile with that better. Oftentimes, I believe that community consultation is used as a mechanism for delaying decision making. And I think we need our city leaders to actually be more accountable to thinking through the benefits and downsides and making a decision that is informed because most of us don't have the opportunity to be.

Sabrina Maddeaux: Yeah, Eric, I really like what you're saying about making community feedback for planning more holistic rather than necessarily on a project by project basis, because the way it's set up right now seems almost designed to make sure these developments either end up in very long delays or they fail entirely.

And that's before we even get into the issue. When you're talking about community growth, the future residents and future renters or owners of these properties often don't have any sort of say. So you're really biasing it towards a certain group who is often not pro further growth.

So with all that in mind and everything you said, is it fair to say that community consultations, as they're currently set up, are inherently anti-democratic?

Eric Lombardi: I would say that they are right, or at least that they're not resulting in outcomes that are proportionate to what the democratic will is.

Now, if you look in a city like Toronto, the vast majority of people when polled say that housing is a problem and we need to be taking action or to fix the challenge that this is creating for our current city, but also the threat it's posing to the future prosperity of people in this city. But when you show up to a community consultation, oftentimes many of the voices that are opposing a specific development are against it. Right?

And so the discrete, localized, hyper-vigilant person who's showing up to protect their interests isn't actually representative of the person at large or even, I would say, the vast majority of people who are actually impacted by that project in the first place.

Oftentimes, if you go to a development meeting for a community consultation, you will have less people at that consultation than will end up living in the building itself. So if you want to talk about disproportionate outcomes, you could have a smaller group of people that would benefit, that would live in the place that you're talking about for all those people's lives that would be so incredibly impacted by just having that opportunity of a new home. Right? And we don't seem to be willing or able to grasp those discrete things are not proportionate.

Sabrina Maddeaux: Yeah, we're listening to the loudest voices or those with the most time to organize, which are often retirees versus the young people working maybe multiple jobs to afford rent versus the broader voter base. That makes a lot of sense to me.

Eric Lombardi: One more thing I'd like to add to all this, right, is the community consultation process in many ways has been used as an opportunity for councillors to demonstrate to the sort of hyperactive citizens that, you know, they're fighting for them. And, you know, even with like things like community benefit charges, you know, hey, I'm going to get whatever I can from this developer and I'm going to use it to the benefit of the community.

And so there is a form of not direct corruption, but a form of political corruption that we've accepted here as a normal state of affairs. But if you look at countries that have low relative amounts of corruption and also positive outcomes, the way these systems [are] designed are rules based, you're allowed to do certain things in this spot.

The rules that exist are fair enough that things are actually viable from an economics perspective and that they're assessed based on these rules and policy treats all people fairly.

Whereas the state in Toronto today is, you know, often the wealthier your neighbourhood is, the more well-connected you are, the more influence you can leverage over the council, the more you can tilt the outcomes in your favour versus a community that is often poorer or otherwise. Right?

So we've actually created this very anti-democratic and in some ways quasi-feudal system in the outcomes that we're seeing from the process in general. And so to me, it's important that we re-establish and reaffirm what property rights people do have, what property rights people don't have, and that the rules in place do not penalize growth so much that it's not viable. And so that's really what needs to change in my mind.

Mike Moffatt: Well, until we make those changes, I think it's necessary to work within the current system that we have. And your group, More Neighbours, is sending volunteers to these public consultations. So those people who aren't living in those neighbourhoods at least have some voice in the process to advocate for more housing.

Do you feel like this is making a difference?

Eric Lombardi: Yeah, so I do think that showing up to these consultations has made a really big difference. And we actually saw Paula Fletcher on council yesterday talk about how her anger around the major transit station area that's going to happen in Riverdale, which is going to get a new Ontario line station. And she was saying that the community that she represents just doesn't have the power because more voices are showing up and saying that they want development.

Now, she is accusing us of holding the bag for investors and speculators, but the fact that we now have young people often showing up to so many of these meetings and saying, “Hey, we need places where people can live, and that growth in and of itself is a form of community benefit for everyone locally and the businesses there”, has pushed back in a lot of ways against what was once a very reliably anti-development group of people who actually had the time to show up.

I do even have another example. Jennifer Keesmaat, who I think we all know, she is former Chief Planner of Toronto. She's now the CEO of Marquee Developments, [and] they're working on a project in North Toronto at Tyndale, I believe it's a college….The community there threw a ton of opposition to what is…almost a European-style walkable 6 to 12 story neighborhood that she's interested in building with 30% of all units targeted towards rent-geared-to-income or affordable housing options.

And we organized and we made sure that volunteers showed up, and she and the city were taken aback because they had prepared for this meeting in which, you know, all the neighborhood neighbors were going to come with pitchforks, and we were there questioning, “Hey, we are in a housing crisis, are we really using the land and opportunity here, which is very close to subway station, to the extent that we can to help create housing in the middle of the housing crisis?” And, you know, to her, it was a surprise and, you know, a bit of a game changer.

And if I even look at our policy submissions for More Neighbors, I think we had 78 submissions on policy to Toronto in 2024, where we are providing a perspective that I think is both fact based, but also needed in comparison to what they typically see.

And now we're starting to see the city truly accept - slower than I would like, not always as full throated in favor of doing the right thing, but progress, nonetheless, on a number of policy areas.

And so one of the things I say to people [when they ask me] what can I do to change the dial on housing in Toronto? And I often just say, like, ‘if you can find one hour a month just to show up to something, it's going to make an outsized difference, even if it doesn't seem like it would.’

Sabrina Maddeaux: Yeah, that's a great message.

And now we've talked a lot about, obviously, how people who would move into these homes would benefit. But I also want to dig down on property rights.

…Now, as someone who comes from this conservative side of the spectrum, I believe that personal freedom and choice are both very important. And I do find it ironic that if you own property, and you want to make changes to that property by, for example, adding an addition to the back, that you have to ask permission from your neighbours. And you get caught up in all this zoning stuff we've been talking about.

But, you know, this has been the case for as long as I can remember, and it doesn't seem to be changing very quickly. So why do you think so many homeowners are fine with this status quo system? And do you think that current homeowners might end up at a place where they will push back more? And why aren't they doing so right now?

Eric Lombardi: I think it's actually a mix. You know, the Occam's razor explanation to me is, most people just aren't in the process of adding additions or trying to turn their property into an apartment, or create a laneway [house]. And so they haven't been alienated by the process of having to get permission from all of their neighbours to do it.

I think your median person doesn't care all that much. What I always say to people when it comes to property rights, is, you know, if you restrict your neighbours' property rights, it also means that you have far less property rights. And I do think personally, as a fundamental value, and we need to just talk about this more as a society, that most people should have the right, on most properties, to build the next increment of housing, and it should be economically viable for people.

And it extends to even applications like, you know, very small retail applications. If you want to open a barbershop out of your living room, and put up a sign, you should really be allowed to do that. Or, you know, if you want to open a little corner store coffee shop that's open between nine to six, you should be able to do such things.

Because I think we, as a society, need to understand that the occasional inconvenience is a fair trade-off for both growth, but also for giving people the right to live their dreams. And the outsized benefit of giving people permission exists. And I think because we've done something this way for so long, it almost seems like what we've done is normal. But in many ways, we've eroded the freedoms that we all have. And it's one of the reasons, in my opinion, that we have seen, you know, the slowing of economic growth, that we have faced productivity stagnation, that we are seeing a collapse in entrepreneurship.

You know, I remember seeing data from Trevor Tombe that, you know, clearly showed that new business formation is at an all-time low over the last couple of years. And I can't help but connect that both to the freedoms people have to start physical businesses, but then also to the fact that so many young people who would be the generators of these businesses are tying up so much capital in housing that they've allocated all of their financial risk to a mortgage. And now they need that stable job and can’t go do that new business as well.

And so I think in general, when we think about property rights, people should care a lot more about what they have the right to do, and give their neighbours a little bit more leeway to live their dreams as well.

Mike Moffatt: So I think the three of us, I think we're all on the same page and agree that the public consultation process is broken. And I think many of our viewers and listeners would as well. So it kind of leads me to a three-part question. Part one, should we get rid of this thing? Part two, can we even get rid of this thing given how embedded it is in current systems? And the third is, with those two in mind, let's suppose we should get rid of it and we can get rid of it, what do we replace it with?

Eric Lombardi: Yeah, so I don't have a perfect answer to that question, but I can offer my opinion. I do think that when it comes to small changes that are typically handled through something like a committee of adjustment, we should just not have a committee of adjustment. We should really just allow, experts of the city, if we're looking at it: it's safe, it's reasonable, it should be approved.

I do think that some community consultation processes for extraordinarily large impact processes, I think they make sense. And for the scale of some such developments, the margins around these projects aren't going to be highly impacted by those things.

But I would prefer that we shift a lot more of what we do to the proactive sort of engagement that I mentioned before. I think there are interesting ways that we might be able to even make people who participate in the community, more positive-sum about how they think about these things.

So, when we think about things like, the community benefits charges or heck, let's say we make up a rule that says, hey, if a city councilor is opting for a more assertive or more lenient, broader code for housing in their jurisdiction, that any new tax revenue that would come from the incremental growth that they're allowing, that would not otherwise be required of them, [that] can go to a budget for the neighborhood, that can go towards neighborhood improvements that the citizens in the neighborhood can determine what the priorities are. And so that way people connect-the-dots between, hey, growth actually does benefit my community. And I also now have an opportunity, because of that growth, to direct where those improvements should be.

And so I think if we give people the opportunity earlier on to have more of an opinion about the nature of how their community grows, rather than whether it grows, we'll be aligning everyone's interests in a better way.

Sabrina Maddeaux: Now, municipalities are the ones who are responsible for the zoning system and granting of permits, but it's really the province that has most of the power should they choose to use it.

So Eric, now is your chance to pitch Premier Ford. What tangible things should he do to make building easier and more democratic?

Eric Lombardi: I think the first thing is a lot more rules and policy needs to be set provincially and then applied municipally. So, if you look at the GTA as a region, just between Toronto and Mississauga, both have their own zoning codes. I think Toronto has 24 different zones. I think Mississauga has 25 different zones. Many of the breakdowns are similar. I think there's five different residential zones in Mississauga, there's four in Toronto, but you replicate all of this policy work. All of these zone and definitions are just slightly different from one another.

We are really wasting a lot of time in having all these differences that aren't really meaningful between municipalities. And instead, if we define these things at a provincial level and apply them municipally, when we want to make policy changes, it's actually easier to affect the changes across the province.

The same is true of the approvals processes. Almost every municipality has their own formats, documents, et cetera, that need to be submitted in order to have an application move forward. There isn't really that much reason for that. Building a skyscraper in downtown Mississauga isn't dramatically different from a formatting perspective in what you're trying to submit than the same types of information that Toronto has.

So to the extent that we can standardize more of these things, the more that we can move faster at a provincial level, but also digitize so much because the enemy of standardization is complexity, and we've just allowed it to become too complex without much justification for it.

Sabrina Maddeaux: That's where you start cutting the red tape in the bureaucracy, and that's such a conservative-friendly message on top of everything, and something voters, I think, are very open to if you communicate it in that way, right? We're cutting the red tape. We're getting rid of the housing bureaucracy so that we can grow. I think that's really key.

Eric Lombardi: And if you're a builder, right, like, you know, if you're manufacturing any product, what you want is repetition and scale. And we've basically designed the housing system to be weaponized against any possibility of standardizing or scaling anything, and it's apparent in the results.

There are a couple of other areas that I think are worth talking about to the province as well. I know, you know, Mike, Sabrina, you're gonna agree with this, but we have to address the tax problem on new housing in Ontario. And I talk to people about this all the time.You know, why are we gonna cut taxes for developers? And the answer is, you're not.

What we need to do is treat existing homes and new homes similar from a tax treatment perspective, because if we add that tax on top to new homes, what we're inherently creating is the need to speculate on the future value of all housing, because you're buying a like-for-like product at a more expensive amount if it's new versus if it's existing. And so addressing the tax difference between new and existing housing and narrowing it is actually an anti-speculative policy measure that also tilts purchasing towards supply, which in a housing crisis is something that we actually just need.

Even things like land transfer taxes, I think need to be on the table, because I think taxes on mobility, and I think a lot of economists would tell you this as well, are generally bad for the economy.

You know, if it's expensive for you to move, you're also going to be much more upset if someone builds something in a neighborhood you don't like, and now you're feeling trapped because just the cost of moving elsewhere is more expensive. So if we give people back mobility rights, you know, people will have an alternative option if they don't like that their community is becoming more in demand and growing more, they can move somewhere that is a little bit quieter and where the demand pressure isn't so high.

And so we've created a lot of these systems and incentives in housing that the province can address actually quite quickly, and they're just not.

I know I'm on a rant, so there is just one final thing to talk about. Building code changes.

You know, we were expecting something to come out last year. It didn't. You know, major design changes around allowing and permitting single egress. You know, we have very restrictive elevator design standards in Toronto that would be prohibitive to a lot of smaller projects as well.

And so to the extent that, you know, we can modernize that code, you know, I was reading just single stair egress could reduce the cost of family size urban housing by six to 13%. Why aren't we addressing these things?

So, you know, the province basically holds, to me, the vast majority of levers that we need to be pulling right now. I can beg city council to make all of these changes, but then, you know, I have to go over to Mississauga. I have to go over to Vaughan. I have to go over to Oakville and Hamilton and, you know, 444 municipalities to all pull in the right direction and do the right thing. It doesn't make sense when the province has the lever that they can pull to make these changes and save in some ways our municipalities from the mistakes that they've made without punishing them.

Sabrina Maddeaux: Absolutely. And I think perhaps there was once an argument to be made that this could be dealt with locally, but now that the housing crisis isn't just centered in Toronto or it's close suburbs, it's province wide, this needs to be dealt with on a province wide level.

And I love that you brought up the issue of mobility. Actually, in a recent episode, I likened the inability to move from one home to another, whether that's because of rental costs or transfer taxes, like you mentioned, that's actually almost like an internal trade barrier. People don't have that economic mobility where they can move to a new job. And especially when we're dealing with the economic landscape and, you know, Trump's tariff threats, we should be encouraging people to move to where they can find good jobs. We need that more than ever.

So I think you hit it on the nail there. And one more thing I'll say from a political strategy and comms perspective is I know in the past Premier Ford has said, ‘Oh, if I make this move, I'll be shouted and yelled at.’ But you know what? He just won an overwhelming majority. He's in power for the next four years. Premier Ford, now is the time to make a change. This is such an obvious crisis with some really low hanging fruit solutions. And you can ride the coattails of your most recent win to actually make meaningful change on this file and be confident that you're not going to get blowback for that.That's really going to make a difference in the next election. So, I'd really encourage fast movement.

Eric Lombardi: There are very few made-in-Canada industries quite like the housing sector. If you're trying to mobilize labor demand, if you're trying to mobilize industrial production, steel, physical goods, people who build, housing is really, you know, one of the sectors that could actually underpin Ontario's economy in this era of American abandonment of logic and principles.

And so, you know, we really can't be a prosperous society in the long term when housing is this expensive. It is a demand driver for the rest of the economy. Let's get people building. Let's get people working. Let's give the generation, our generation, Sabrina, hope for their future, hope to start a family. Frankly, all you need to do is things aligned with conservative principles of economic freedom, low tax, low and fair tax burdens. This is really Ford's for the taking.

One final thing I'll say, you know, I helped advise [Ontario]Liberals. The Liberal platform on housing gave Ford a long leash to move in this direction, as actually did the NDPs.

So there's no opposition that's going to fight him on these changes. The only opposition is him himself and his own cabinet.

Mike Moffatt: Yeah. And I'm glad you mentioned the development charge piece, because it drives me bananas when I hear people say, you know, oh, why should my city cut development charges for builders? And to me, that's like asking, why should Trump cut taxes for Canadian potash manufacturers? But, you know, ultimately, a tax and a tariff, they're the same thing.

And we use this kind of Trumpian logic when it comes to development charges. But at the end of the day, whether we're talking about Trump's tariffs or we're talking about development charges on new homes, ultimately, it's you and I and everyone else who pays for that. It’s renters and buyers, not these big companies. So that's just a little rant on that.

You know, you mentioned the provincial policy, but I think we should look at federal policy. We've got an election coming up in less than three weeks (or will be less than three weeks when this airs.) Any thoughts on how the federal housing conversation is shaping up during this election campaign?

Eric Lombardi: You know, I will actually say that both Pierre Poilievre and Mark Carney, I think, would actually be OK, or good, on this issue. I actually think that across the federal parties, there's backroom frustration with just how mismanaged this file has become at the provincial level.

And so I think Mark Carney's recent housing announcements around Build Canada Housing, which has really taken a lot of the attention, contained a lot of really excellent ideas in it as well.

You know, you talked about MIRB, which is going to enable a lot more viable private rental construction. We saw a lot more private rental construction when we actually had that policy place up until, I believe, around the 1990s. We've also seen a very hard commitment to make, which is helping to reduce development charges at the municipal level by half.

We've seen a stronger GST play by Pierre Poilievre to say, you know, up to 1.3 million. So we can really, truly include Toronto and Vancouver in this and without as many limits as the Liberals have put on. And I kind of wish the Liberals had taken his more open approach to GST changes as well.

But, you know, my overall opinion is, you know, the Feds need to leverage whatever new found political capital that they have in this moment of national unity and willingness to say, let's build things to get Premier Doug Ford and Premier David Eby and the major mayors of the GTA and the GVA in a room and say, we are going to take action….We're going to get a deal done that lifts a bunch of these barriers [and] addresses these taxes. And we need to put our country on a much better reset when it comes to how we approach this issue.

And so, you know, More Neighbours actually just published our evaluation framework for the federal election, and the first thing is lead the conversation.

Sometimes it's not just about how much money you're willing to spend or what policy you're going to take, but that you actually deploy political capital effectively to pressure the other levels of government, who need to act faster, to do so.

And I think the Liberals have been very avoidant in doing that. I think Pierre Poilievre has been quite avoidant in talking about this issue with Ontario. And I think either way, no matter who is elected, you're not going to be successful on this issue if you don't get Ontario and B.C. to play ball.

Sabrina Maddeaux: Yeah, you're right that both federal parties have been very hesitant to throw that ball back to the provinces. And I think communicating that and selling that to the public is hugely important for what comes next.

And the thing about this unique moment, whether it is federal or provincial, is the threat that's coming from the United States. And the uncertainty is giving our leaders a lot more political capital than they may usually have. So I actually think they have bandwidth and leeway to make some decisions that might otherwise be a bit more unpopular or controversial. So now's the moment to do it and actually solve these crises.

But we'll have another episode coming up soon, actually, where we break down all of the federal housing platforms. So stay tuned for that. Thank you so much, Eric, for being here today and to our audience for watching and listening and to our producer, Meredith Martin.

Eric Lombardi: Thank you so much for having me.

Mike Moffatt: Yeah, thanks, Eric. And to our audience, if you have any thoughts or questions about development charges and how they're like Trump's tariffs, please send us an email to missingmiddlepodcast@ Gmail dot com.

Sabrina Maddeaux: And we'll see you next time.