The extent of the mapping…

ERO number


Comment ID


Commenting on behalf of


Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses


 The extent of the mapping well outside what is traditionally referred to as the GTA is horrific. I fully appreciate the goals of saving natural areas, but to extend the mapping so far north is unreal. Not all of us can work for the government. People in these rural areas, with vast natural areas and resources, have property rights. The restrictive policies associated with the expanded area will severely restrict any opportunity for people and business to develop, create value, harvest resources, create jobs and just plain earn a living. The current government must turn abruptly away from the agenda of "Environmental Defence" and shift its priority from appeasing a narrow and slim minority constituency, simply for the purposes of getting re-elected. Currently a developer, like a pit and quarry operator, which has sensitive species on the subject holdings, can devise an extensive rehabilitation plan to off-set habitat loss and even recreate habitat. This new plan will severely sterilize vast areas of bedrock resources which are critical to the construction industry. How can a growth plan be devised to manage growth, and at the same time, through restrictive policies, not provide for critical aggregate resources to construct future growth? While some may wish to pave roads with environmentalists, asphalt is certainly more durable. I urge you to revisit the restrictive policies for aggregate development within the plan area. To blanket the northern area with a Natural core status which precludes development seems like a small constituency is paying the price for those in the south, who by the way, have sterilized many wetland and agricultural areas. If you are unable to set the ship right, cause the Premier's office is inflexible, at least refine the mapping to define the most critical areas, such as around lakes, rivers and provincially significant wetlands and provide some improved options for habitat compensation. As part of this, take another look at the shear number of endangered species which are driving this non-sense. For being endangered, species such as Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark seem to be everywhere! Conversely, consider listing the private human entrepreneur as endangered - they then could be incorporated into government policy and afforded some greater degree of protection from poorly devised plans such as this updated Growth Plan.

[Original Comment ID: 210084]