The recent decisions that went against the city at the Ontario Municipal Board for the lands near Queen Street West and Dufferin Street goes to the core of what needs to be fixed in land use planning in our city.

Unfortunately, every party in this dreadful state of affairs has an interest in its continuance.

By way of background, the OMB is a provincially appointed body that can void or modify virtually any of the city's land use regulations. In the case of the lands in question, the OMB reversed the wishes of residents and city planners, and strongly sided with the developers. City planners, interest groups and members of council will tell you that such one-sidedness is typical of the OMB's pro-development bias.

On the other hand, the OMB writes in its current ruling about the "inconsistent approach" of the city's employment policy, the "problematic" demand by the city to hold part of the project until it acquires additional parkland, and concludes that "(the) board finds that the proposal � is appropriate, represents good planning and is in the overall public interest of the community."

As well, the OMB has been supported by all stripes of provincial government. Even when the current government provided new powers to the city, the OMB was left intact.

Why?

Sadly, the OMB has a job to do that council will not undertake itself. Simply put, the OMB attempts to decide - without political interference - on principles largely set by council. It follows that if the city established a consistent and transparent approval process that reviewed land use proposals, there would be little need for the OMB.

Many of the fundamentals are in place. The city already has a thoughtful official plan, and a consultative process to review land use. Problems emerge whenever a proposal fits planning principles, but not prevailing politics. Interest groups, members of council and even city staff then torture logic to show how council's rules should apply in all cases except in the situation under consideration. Keenly aware that a proposal might comply with its own rules but be unpopular, council hides behind the OMB, knowing that provincial appointees will take the heat.

As long as developers believe council's decisions will be subject to whim, they will continue their frequent use of the OMB. Faced with this standoff, provincial governments of all parties have allowed the existing system to remain.

It doesn't need to be this way.

Our city can adopt a model similar to that used in Vancouver. Their board of variance consists of council appointees who decide on land use issues that cannot be settled by negotiation between municipality and developer. Unlike Toronto's approval system, Vancouver's is outside of political influence. Those unhappy with the result can seek judicial review.

Toronto can set up such a structure. The foundations of a tested official plan, professional staff and a stable organization are in place. The only missing ingredient to push the Toronto planning appeal board to reality is political will.

Such an appeal body could bring maturity to match responsibility. For if council establishes a structure, appoints responsible citizens and then tells the provincial government that it is capable to governing on its own, council must abide by those decisions. Under Toronto's new stronger mayor structure, the municipal administration can ensure council support on controversial votes.

So what's the hesitation? Prompt implementation will prevent further embarrassing decisions from the OMB. If the council wishes to protect its neighbourhoods, its integrity and its self-esteem, it will move quickly.