I am in total disagreement…

I am in total disagreement with the proposed changes to the Greenbelt. This policy would do nothing to increase affordable housing as any homes built as a result would be single family dwellings (the costliest type).
One of the stated goals is to speed up the creation of housing and this legislation ignores the fact that most if not all of this land is not serviced (a situation that will take many years to change). At the same time the government could be encouraging the utilization and rezoning of already serviced land within current city boundaries. Higher density housing is also good for the taxpayers pocketbook as it costs considerably less to provide all types of services in a smaller geographic area.
The Greenbelt was created to contain urban sprawl and protect the ecosystems within it's borders. This proposal would certainly increase urban sprawl and endanger the viability of those ecosystems. The government seeks to mollify the electorate by adding more land to the Greenbelt than what they propose to remove. This sounds good but the logic is flawed. Ecosystems that have developed over thousands of years depend on the freedom of movement of the inhabitants. Plopping down subdivisions within these ecosystems will cutoff this movement and almost certainly have detrimental effects on not only the developed land but the surrounding area.
I believe there are areas of wetlands that, if this proposal passes, will be destroyed much to the detriment of water containment and quality in a once again greater area than that proposed in the legislation.
This proposal would put more cars on the road, increasing the need for more highways and secondary roads, increasing traffic accidents, increasing road maintenance costs, increasing pollution, increasing health care costs.
Please, someone explain to me how this legislation makes any sense.