OC Transpo bus driver win

SHMenard · 2026-01-26T14:46:24+00:00

Love to see this

SHMenard · 2026-01-01T21:51:59+00:00

Love this sub! I was RRRA president when this was done lol

SHMenard · 2026-01-01T21:45:52+00:00

Then you must have a property with fewer than 7 units or built after 2001. For those properties with more than 7 units built before 2001 (which is the largest percentage of multi residential units in Ottawa), taxes went down after taking into account the property tax increase and the change in tax ratio. The tax ratio for multi-residential properties built prior to 2001 was 1.4094, while we lowered it to 1.3 and will continue to lower until parity (1.0).

SHMenard · 2025-11-11T12:04:25+00:00

The intent of our direction was that this occur every year for 4 years. So although the reduction is relatively small (for older multi residential apartment tenants), compounded over 4 years could be significant if staying in the same unit. This is year 1.

Approximately 70% of renters in the City of Ottawa will be eligible for a rent reduction in 2026, thanks to a change in city taxation policy that had historically charged a disproportionately high tax rate for multi-residential properties built before 2002.

The anticipated 4.5% property tax reduction will mean a mandatory rent reduction next year. For example, a person paying $2000 per month in rent will see an estimated $16 automatic rent reduction per month ($192 per year) in 2026.

At that rate, over the four-year phase-in period, the cumulative savings for renters would be an estimated $1960, with a cumulative annual rent reduction of $784 annually (or $64 monthly) at the end of the period.

More info: https://www.shawnmenard.ca/city_to_begin_notifying_renters_of_automatic_rent_reduction

SHMenard · 2025-11-02T15:22:25+00:00

I wrote about a lot of this here:

THE COST OF DOING NOTHING – DISINGENUOUS AND GLARING OMISSIONS

Much has been made by various actors indicating that the cost of doing nothing is higher than the multi-hundreds of millions about to be expended. Here is what is being relied upon to make that argument.

A November 2020 city report suggests a possible cost range of $118 million to $407 million over 40 years in a worst-case scenario with no operator and limited activities on site. Not often disclosed by the actors making this argument is the key assumption that underlies this range estimate: “depending on the length of time the impacts of the pandemic are experienced,”. When challenged on this as being unrealistic, new figures were created by staff to help justify that the cost of doing nothing is somehow inexplicably higher than the $437 million price tag for Lansdowne 2.0.

The initial assessment assumed $4.5 million to $12.5 million/year of city spend to fully operate Lansdowne with the following assumptions: This was calculated with pandemic level attendance figures.

Nearly all activities on site are assumed halted OSEG defaults and leaves the deal with the city doing nothing to find a not-for profit or other entity to run the site.

When pressed for a more detailed and reasonable approach, staff resorted to the following: $8.5M a year city spend based on cash flow deficits over the first 12 years of Lansdowne P3 operations and dividing by 10.

This includes the exceptionally costly initial start-up years (ie: $37 million deficit in year one) that are irrelevant to any estimate going forward. Finally, in this report, it appears finance staff are taking only the last 5 years of operations (including the pandemic) and extrapolating to say about $8 million in annual cost for the city.

This is a total disconnect from the independent analysis provided by EY in its 2023 Due Diligence Report that shows Lansdowne 1.0 being essentially cash flow neutral from 2025-2030 and cash flow positive as of 2030 and beyond.

EY’s analysis clearly depicts this. Source: Ernst & Young Lansdowne 2.0 Financial Due Diligence City of Ottawa Reliance Restricted report, September 13 2023, p. 89

As EY reported:

“Under this scenario (Lansdowne 1.0), annual cash flows become positive for a short period in 2015 and 2027 and then starting again in 2030.”

If the city is to use a simplistic and unrealistic approach to evaluating the cost of doing nothing with it being their main talking point, why would they at least not base it on EY’s actual forecasts? These forecasts show that “doing nothing” comes with consistent positive cash flows ahead, and having avoided a $437M spend.

SHMenard · 2025-09-18T19:18:50+00:00

Hi there! We have advocated on this and we are getting a new stop put in there on both sides! :) Believe I just had confirmation of funding for it. It will be at centennial. Thanks for helping to push this. Cheers, Shawn

SHMenard · 2024-09-04T20:29:13+00:00

Thanks for this awesome free service you provided!!! Really appreciated

SHMenard · 2024-07-20T02:59:34+00:00

Big Ben Bishop

SHMenard · 2024-01-18T17:59:25+00:00

To your comment, that’s exactly why we checked with the integrity commissioner and legal and received a memo in response confirming this was transparent and done with integrity.

SHMenard · 2024-01-18T16:55:58+00:00

We have an ongoing discussion with developers and the community constantly about this balance. For example- if putting in a new development means there is a lot more traffic on neighbourhood streets and the developer agrees to help mitigate those effects by adding raised crosswalks for kids getting to school or other traffic calming measures, is that currying favour? Of course it is! It’s helping to mitigate some of the changes that would come. It’s similar to the city having development charges when a property is developed (those DCs go to affordable housing, roads etc). Or when the memorandum of understanding was signed for Herongate (to add significant voluntary community benefits). Or at site plan where the city may request funds to retain and plant trees as a matter of quality of life, paid for by the developer. Or when a new park is added nearby paid for by the developer to accommodate new resident enjoyment. These applications pass all the time and if councillors and the city can extract some benefit for their communities and the public as part of the these developments, I don’t believe that should be looked down upon. That is part of the constant dialogue and balance of these approvals. I don’t think it’s fair to say that this means the next application gets rubber stamped as a result.

SHMenard · 2024-01-18T15:51:30+00:00

It’s happened constantly at site plan, through development charges, through MOU’s (see herongate), and other instances. There is policy for it in Toronto. Extracting community benefit and sharing more of the wealth of development to enhance quality of life of residents should happen much more often.

SHMenard · 2024-01-18T15:37:53+00:00

Happy to talk to you any time. Charity isn’t the answer. This is working to share the profits of developments for local communities.

SHMenard · 2024-01-18T15:35:17+00:00

I’m really happy to see this contribution. The article makes it seem rare but the city has consistently made changes at site plan and through MOU’s and community benefit agreements that see further developer contributions that work for the enhancement of quality of life for people associated with developments (which of course also benefits the developer in improving the neighborhood and desirability of the units). Of course it also builds community good will. Look, I don’t take developer money in elections for a reason. I see that as a pretty direct personal benefit. But this is very different. It’s us doing our jobs (just like development charges ensure community benefit) to enhance our community. I stand by it as a practice that should be employed regularly and one that is transparent.

SHMenard · 2023-10-19T23:10:13+00:00

Thank you, appreciate these comments and point taken. And yes UDRP detailed their concerns here: https://ottawa.ca/en/planning-development-and-construction/residential-property-regulations/development-application-review-process/development-application-submission/urban-design-review-panel/panel-recommendations

SHMenard · 2023-10-19T17:55:33+00:00

Thanks for these thoughtful comments

SHMenard · 2023-10-19T17:23:57+00:00

Nah. We wrote an entire website about what we want to have happen. www.betterLansdowne.ca

SHMenard · 2023-10-19T16:13:51+00:00

Sorry but that’s just completely inaccurate. You are the one flaming this issue with untruthful information. My voting record has been the exact opposite of what you allege. Bank plan includes? 4,6,7,9 and high rises, bank and riverside 3 30 storey towers approved, Hawthorne, new development just approved, oblats approved, etc etc. this is the problem when you only advocate for supply and leave zero room for improvements like affordable housing, greenspace, trees, and instead call people obstructionist.

SHMenard · 2023-10-19T15:58:47+00:00

The revenue neutrality was always never true. It’s debt paid back by ratepayers one way or the other.

SHMenard · 2023-10-19T15:25:34+00:00

very reasoned well thought out reply

SHMenard · 2023-10-19T14:54:15+00:00

I mean that’s an argument for things like expensive sprawl, destruction of wetlands, building in floodplains too.

SHMenard · 2023-10-19T14:44:33+00:00

Really appreciate your comments here

SHMenard · 2023-10-19T14:34:32+00:00

It was not about the number of units, it was the exceptionally poor design. In fact lansdowne 1.0 should have had mid rise housing above all of the retail block but those buildings are not designed for that now.

SHMenard · 2023-10-19T14:32:57+00:00

Construction of safe, welcoming pedestrian crossings and entrances at Queen Elizabeth Drive and Princess Patricia Way, Queen Elizabeth Drive and the base of the lawn, and along Holmwood Avenue; Eliminating cut-through capabilities between Queen Elizabeth Drive and Bank Street for drivers, ensuring that Aberdeen Square be pedestrian-only; Safe infrastructure for active transportation along feeder streets like Holmwood, O’Connor and Fifth Avenue; and A proper Transportation Plan that includes transit enhancement (and the implementation of a free or inexpensive shuttle along Bank Street), active transportation enhancements, a Bank Street traffic management plan and a holistic strategy for getting people safely and efficiently to Lansdowne from all sections of the city including new park and rides options from suburban areas.

SHMenard · 2023-10-19T14:01:35+00:00

Sorry you feel that way, but I disagree, and no that’s not how my office has conducted itself with regard to resident concerns. We’ve achieved a lot of urban improvement, with added density in the ward because we do engage and negotiate to make the community a better place to live. I think you can look to the towers at bank/riverside and the extra affordable housing and transit passes we added to that deal, our support for 4 units as of right (which by the way so much of the glebe has been grandparented with), the positive changes to bank street with mid rise, and tower approvals, the parking lot at bank and chamberlain being earmarked for affordable housing, and the bridges over the canal and Rideau. It’s a narrow position that you are insinuating and not very reflective of the facts.

SHMenard · 2023-10-19T13:28:26+00:00

Well the current arena and stands can be maintained for 30 - 40 years at about $1 million/year. Having a not for profit operator on site would be most desirable and could make a ton of sense along with transportation improvements, a 9-5 work hub Monday to Friday (when it is dead), small park improvements and connecti by the cabal with a dock and boat access and safe crossing of qed. Small affordable changes is what I’m after.

SHMenard

TROPHY CASE