I honestly cannot think of a…

I honestly cannot think of a single benefit to proposed amendment to the Ontario Greenbelt asides from the economic benefit of those that bought land in order to develop it. I am strongly opposed to this proposal.

The argument that the land is needed to build new homes is inaccurate. As per the Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force "a shortage of land isn't the cause of the problem. Land is available, both inside the existing built-up areas and on undeveloped land outside greenbelts." (https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-housing-affordability-task-force-report-e…, page 10 for reference). Therefore the land is available elsewhere.

The notion that this will improve housing affordability has had no evidence provided by this proposal. I would like to quote the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) Responds to the Proposed Amendments to the
Greenbelt Plan (ERO 019-6216) document which strongly opposes the proposal: " there
has been no data analysis conducted that indicates the removal of Greenbelt lands will fulfill that goal, a concern echoed by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO). If an analysis has been carried
out, it must be available to the public. Furthermore, there is a lot of land that has already been
purchased and held by developers outside the protected Greenbelt area that is already zoned and
approved for housing development. In addition, there has been no legislation written that mandates
that any savings given to developers through the passing of Bill 23 will be passed onto home buyers. It is feasible that these lower costs will just be added to increased profits by the home builders and
developers, as housing demand is still at all time highs, and developers/home builders can charge high
market values for these homes, pricing well outside the limits of young, first time home buyers."
(https://ospe.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2022032-ERO-019-6216-Prop…).

The proposal states that there will actually be an increase in greenbelt land. However numerous articles have stated that the lands being added are already protected through other means. Therefore there would actually be a net decrease in total land protected. Beyond this point however, simply outlining new areas of land to protect is short sighted. Not all land is equal in terms of it's proximity to cities, species at risk, wetland/water management, soil fertility etc. We need to keep fertile land for agriculture. We cannot simply build houses (and roads for that matter) everywhere and have no land to produce food. The pandemic should have highlighted the risk of relying on importation for essentials; this includes food. That is not a sustainable plan. According to https://environmentaldefence.ca/report/ontarios-greenbelt-under-threat-… there are currently 5500 farms. Further to this, greenspace is important for health and well being of people who use the land recreationally as well as environmentally with forested areas accounting for removing 27 million cars worth of greenhouse gas pollution yearly (https://environmentaldefence.ca/report/ontarios-greenbelt-under-threat-… ). This urban sprawl would compound the issue as it would require those living there to commute creating more greenhouse gases. As far as I can see there is no comment from the government how this proposal about how this would affect waterway management and possible flood planes.

In conclusion I oppose this proposal as exploiting the greenbelt is not necessary to fix the housing problem, there is no guarantee of improving affordability and it will have a worsening impact on our environment and health. It also sets a dangerous precedent for continued erosion of our greenbelt.