Comment
This proposal defies basic logic: The point of the Greenbelt is that it's closed for development. If it's opened for development it's by definition no longer protected. This is an obvious trojan horse.
50,000 homes barely dents the housing shortage problem. So what will be the solution to the need for the remaining 300,000 or so needed homes? More greenbelt development?
More sprawl is bad for the city and its residents. There are vast tracts of existing poorly used land. Golf courses, for instance. Or the innumerable low density big box shopping areas and their attendant sprawling parking lots.
I struggle to think of a proposal that could be more poorly considered and beneficial to one class of very influential people.
Submitted November 10, 2022 9:55 AM
Comment on
Decision on proposed amendments to the Greenbelt Area boundary regulation
ERO number
019-6217
Comment ID
65213
Commenting on behalf of
Comment status