Allowing development in the…

Allowing development in the Greenbelt will not solve the housing crisis and this decision will contribute to climate change, for the following reasons:

1. Trading already protected urban river valley lands for Greenbelt lands will not result in a net gain for the Greenbelt.

2. Opening up sections of the Greenbelt to development will result in speculation of other lands in the Greenbelt. This will undermine the intent of the Greenbelt to serve as an agricultural reserve and environmentally protected area. Speculating landowners will rent out their properties in the interim with no intention to invest in improved agricultural practices and stewardship of their lands. Once this precedent is set, Developers will continually apply to remove more lands from the Greenbelt for development.

3. It is assumed that the lands selected for exclusion from the Greenbelt are already owned by private developers if the intent is to build by 2025. What evidence is there that these areas have been selected for any other reason?

4. Agricultural land is at a premium in Ontario and Canada. Food Insecurity is already a Climate Change effect that is increasing exponentially, and we can see the current evidence of this by the increasing numbers of people worldwide facing food insecurity and starvation. Paving over valuable farmland in Ontario will only add to this and is an irreversible decision that will only hurt urban residents, who have no way of producing this food for themselves. As a relatively stable climate in the current world, we may also have an obligation to export food to countries experiencing food insecurity, and farmland is not a resource we should be wasting. We should be implementing more policy to protect farmlands from sprawl rather than erode the existing protections we have.

5. In order to tackle Climate Change we should be focusing on development that is located close to existing public transit and makes use of urban lands that are being used ineffectually. For example, redevelopment of Brownfields, strip malls, infill, and rehabilitation of existing housing, including the addition of income suites.

6. While the proposal states that the slated development is close to existing infrastructure, new infrastructure would still need to be built for these developments. A more effective use of money would be to develop existing urban lands, and instead of building new infrastructure, upgrade existing infrastructure as needed, which in many cases will be required to meet climate change goals.

7. Three years until construction starts leaves less than two years to conduct environmental studies and develop plans that meet approval. This is not enough time to do this without cutting corners.

8. Toronto has an inflated cost of living, and subsequently inflated housing prices. Affordable housing is what is lacking. All signs point that we are heading into a recession. History tells us that the recession is more than likely going to cause housing prices to drop, and there is less evidence to support prices will drop because of this development. The people who need affordable housing will likely be hardest hit by a recession, and unable to afford these Greenbelt homes. People who have the money may invest in these homes as income properties or as speculators, also not contributing to the housing affordability issue.

9. The proposal says that construction must start in 2025. Not that homes must be sold in 2025. If we have a recession, it would be possible for developers to hold off on selling until prices go up again. The likely outcome is half-built communities and no contribution to housing affordability.

All this policy will have accomplished is to allow developers to bypass environmental requirements without providing an overall benefit to Society. It will also erode the effectiveness of the Greenbelt as a Policy to limit sprawl and provide environmental benefits.