Different approaches to…

Different approaches to mandaring what lot level provisions are reasonable and useful to a municipality and should not be reduced to a one-size-fits-all solution. The geographies, climates, local needs, and municipal goals vary widely across a province as large and varied (in both it's ecology and population demographics/needs).

As someone who doesn't get own a home, I appreciate this government's aim to reduce building costs and spur construction. However these goals are not incongruous with variable lot-level requirements, especially when these requirements work towards managing storm water, encouraging green transportation, or improving urban shade cover (through planting local tree species). Climate action should be considered in every action this government takes because flooding, heat waves and wilder climate conditions will affect us all. Building for the now is a shortsighted selling out of our future generations who will bear the burden of our lack (or in this case reversal) of action on climate goals.

I urge this government to consider how these changes will worsen negative environmental outcomes and the knock-on effects that will have on the new housing they hope this bill will create. If our climate gets so wild and unpredictable that flooding is commonplace and insurance won't cover damages (as has already begun happening in some north american communities), what will all this hopefully cheaper housing have been worth?