After reading and reviewing…

After reading and reviewing the More Homes Built Faster proposal several times, I offer the following observations, comments, and sincere suggestions which I hope will assist the Provincial Government to be the catalyst that will enable more Ontarians to own homes and prosper in our Province.

Firstly, there needs to be a recognition that while the rapidly increasing cost of housing is a critical factor, the inability of many Ontarians to pay for housing is an equal one. As the gaps between affluent and low-income Ontarians, as well as between public sector and private sector incomes grow, affordability in fact becomes less of a problem for those who are well-off, whereas others less fortunate see the prospect for home ownership disappearing. Our housing problem needs to be analyzed within such contexts.

Secondly, the proposal in question targets agricultural and natural system areas within the Greenbelt for urban development/expansion. While descriptors such as “bold action,” “responsible growth,” and “strategic removal” might be perceived by some readers as embodying innovation and change, examining Ontario’s housing expansion history for at least the past 50 years shows that it is just more of the same. (I say this objectively; not pejoratively). For decades, the loss of farmland (typically quoted as being in the hundreds of acres per day) has continued, despite the incongruous and severe blanket restrictions imposed by the PPS on housing of any sort within rural Ontario. The Greenbelt area includes Class 1 farmland. If we continue doing the same thing, i.e., annexing Class 1 and 2 farmland and then building on it, how can we reasonably expect a different result?

Rural and small-town Ontario have very pronounced differences. While rural Ontario is being hollowed out and becoming less diverse - and in some instances, more Xenophobic - and rural municipal property taxes struggle to meet rural infrastructure (e.g., roadways, bridges) maintenance costs, building houses on some land therein that is simply unfarmable is presently prohibited. Ignoring the case-specific physiographic/natural land conditions, specifically as regards lack of suitability for food production contrasted with suitability for housing, is the antithesis of rational land use planning (RLUP). When pressed to explain this planning illogicality, Provincial representatives have made the claim that having more people in rural Ontario “presents the possibility for conflict.” It’s concerning to see this type of subjective speculation form the principal foundation for housing policy at a time when we need new, innovative, concrete approaches for affordable housing.

My final suggestion/plea is to urge MMAH to reconsider its proposal to consign tender fruit and grape areas to urban/commercial/industrial development. The 2017 Greenbelt Plan specifically mentions specialized croplands as prime agricultural areas. Tender fruit and grape land is scarce in Ontario – and Canada. The proposal document refers to the “strategic removal of lands from the Greenbelt.” It’s critical that “strategic” be qualified, i.e., is it strategic in terms of economics, agriculture, or natural environmental preservation? Long-term economics might someday converge with agricultural/food system sustainability and natural environment preservation; however, in the short-term, economic considerations are often at odds with the latter two.