I disagree with the proposal…

I disagree with the proposal (for what it is worth). This perspective is coming from a professional planner who has worked in the Ontario planning system for the past 40 years. The government is proposing wholesale changes to things based on ideological perspectives rather than well researched topic matters. Proposals are being made in a chaotic 'lets get something done' manner that undermines the overall planning system with 'small print' provisos resembling 'notwithstanding clauses', 'special exemptions', and the overall long term Provincial public interest. More available housing supply does not equate to more affordability - it is much more complicated than that. If this was the case the largest cities in the world (with lots of housing supply) would also be the most desirable places to live. From research, this is clearly not the case. Standards of quality of life, social equity, environmental protections are also important for our communities, to avoid the potential of unsustainable suburban slums/high density slums being created in and in proximity to Toronto.

Public engagement through the current government process is not meaningful as there are short term turnarounds for input with the underlying governments' 'open for business' mindset; this approach will create circumstances with potential collateral damages being made, i.e., grid lock in appeals to the new/old OMB, court challenges, planning system confusion. Overall, a one-size fits all planning amendment mindset for the Toronto-centred region will not fix things; instead more sprawl, traffic congestion, and higher overall long term economic, social and environmental impact costs will result. I disagree with exemptions being made for quality of life circumstances, i.e., park space, social amenities.

Prior to making significant changes to our planning system, consideration of the findings of the following book should be made: Pamela Blais "Perverse Cities: Hidden Subsidies, Wonky Policy, and Urban Sprawl". Thank you.