The principle behind this…

The principle behind this proposal and the implementation is wrong, and poorly thought out.

The greenbelt was put in place to protect the environmental and human health of the Greater Toronto Area. The greenbelt provides ecosystem services (clean air, clean water, etc.) worth billions to the people of Ontario and ensures a sustainable future for this region, the economic driver of Ontario. Starting to chip away at it, at all, is a slippery slope that sets the precedent that the boundaries do not matter. These proposed areas will encourage further urban sprawl, pave over farmland and greenspace, and continue with the 20th century reliance on personal automobiles. These results (e.g. emissions from automobiles, carbon sequestration lost from paving over the environment, etc.) go directly against our commitments in the Paris Agreement at COP21.

How were these sites selected? Many do not appear to be logical extensions of existing neighborhoods. There may also be significant unintended consequences, including having to pay compensation to affected residents who lived near the border of the greenbelt. Homeowners pay a premium for access to the natural environment, and privacy, if they back on to greenbelt lands. Can further rationale for the selection of these sites be provided? Can the names of the landowners of the 11 plots of land be publicly released? This would be important information to ensure that the policy process is evidence-based, fair and transparent.

It does not appear that the lands being added to the greenbelt, to offset the lands being removed, are suitable for development, anyway! You can't build houses on urban river valleys, so to say (or imply) that this is direct offset is disingenuous. It also does not make sense to develop the Paris Galt Moraine and the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The tactics related to this proposal also suggest that this proposal is not in the public interest. To release this ERO post on a Friday afternoon, during the CUPE labour issues, suggests that the government was hoping to fly under the radar. I'd also recommend a longer consultation period - removing land from the greenbelt should have a 45 or 60 day comment period to allow for more thorough research and consultation.