Overall, I would suggest…

Overall, I would suggest that the proposal to redesignate 7,400 acres of Greenbelt is a very, very bad idea. Eating up farmland is certainly easier than any other option. There is no infrastructure existing, or very little, so the costs to develop are the lowest possible - very good for the developer. The problem is, once that land is under concrete it will never again produce food. Perhaps that's not important today, or even tomorrow, but there could be a day where food is in short supply because we (the global we) have mismanaged our arable land. It is my view that the more difficult course must be taken. Existing undeveloped, or underdeveloped, properties must be used to increase population densities in urban and sub-urban areas. Cities and towns must not be allowed to expand until such time as all development potential is exhausted. We need to be much smarter about how arable land is employed than we have been in the past. If the day comes that we're hungry then it's too late. I don't have a problem, however, adding 2,000 acres to the greenbelt.

Politicians and bureaucrats have repeatedly proven that they lack vision and, in many cases, are incompetent. I also understand that money talks and a lot of money talks very loudly. I encourage those making the decisions, however, to ignore the sounds of money (even when it's destined to go into their own pockets) and be visionary. We can't eat concrete or asphalt.