Good morning, I am…

Good morning,

I am commenting in order to state my strong objection to the removal of any land from the GTA's Green Belt as proposed and described according to ERO 019-6216.

While Ontario certainly faces a shortage of quality housing for both new and long-time Ontarians, particularly affordable housing, abandoning our principles of environmental preservation is a short-sighted and selfish approach to resolving these issues.

Not only should the Green belt be protected as-is, it should be expanded in order to protect ecosystems unique to southern Ontario.

Solving our housing shortage can be accomplished in by many other means, with less detrimental environmental consequences, and arguably having positive environmental, economic, and social impact at the same time.

Ontario's enormous land area, particularly in the north, can and should leveraged to support our additional housing needs. Strong incentives for businesses and individuals to move north will disincentivize Ontarians from settling in the already overpopulated GTA. While undeveloped land in the north is environmentally valuable, we have far more of it to sacrifice to development without impacting biodiversity. Additionally, northern land makes poor agricultural territory; the opportunity cost of developing it is meaningfully less and will not impact our province's agricultural output and food production independence.

In addition to protecting valuable Green Belt and agricultural land, planned communities in northern Ontario can be designed for the 21st century -- engineered for low or no carbon output, climate/weather resilience, walkability, transit, etc.

In the event that Green Belt must be altered, we should ensure that no private business interests can profit from such an arrangement. This will ensure that decisions are made with environmental principles in mind rather than business principles.

Private landowners who hold property within the Green Belt should be compensated for their property by the provincial government in a fair, but unprofitable manner (i.e. compensated at the value of environmentally protected land, the zoning that was in place when the land was purchased, not the value based on newly implemented zoning changes). The land can then be used to develop affordable, dense, modern, walkable, multi-use neighbourhoods in accordance with the urban planning best practices rather than private business interests' preferences, which aim to maximize profit over quality of life.

Thank you.