As a representative of a…

As a representative of a significant fraction of knowledgable citizens in an upper tier municipality, the changes described do not benefit the citizens of Ontario. They benefit only the developer. Climate change is the reality we are all living. It is extreme folly and selfishness for us to continue to enact legislation that will have unknown but dangerous effects on the lives of our children, grandchildren and generations to come.

It is clear to any knowledgable person that the Ontario government is taking its direction from the federal government of the USA. Curious, though, that 350 major cities in that country are defying the recommendations from Washington and are working where they can to develop their cities sustainably.
(https://www.climatemayors.org)

Sustainable means viable, which in turn is defined as living successfully. This means all citizens, not just developers! To allocate how a specific city develops to the Province is to remove the viability of municipal governments. Is that the goal, remove all citizen/municipal input and have Queen's Park run everything? This seems to be your goal, as epitomized by the loss of local conservation knowledge (Bill 97).

Please reconsider the removal of references to sustainablity, for the sake of all of us living in this beautiful area of Canada.

These include:

- removing references to “sustainable design” from site plan control

- adding that zoning cannot be used to require sustainable elements,

- adding that mandatory green building/construction standards are not permitted, including as part of site plan control

- remove provisions that would have authorized municipalities to require green building standards

Thanks for your understanding and consideration.