Question 1: What are your…

Question 1:
What are your thoughts on the initial focus area of the Study Area of the Paris Galt Moraine?

This is good, but the study area should continue along the moraine up to and including the Caledon Hills as mentioned in the description. With many families currently leaving the city for areas surrounding the GTA, there will be immense pressure to develop over top of these valuable geological structures well outside of the area presented on the map.

Question 2:
What are the considerations in moving from a Study Area to a more defined boundary of the Paris Galt Moraine?

More defined boundaries will allow for more thoughtful planning by municipalities in the future, but natural systems do not adhere to lines on a map. Perhaps boundaries could be proposed, with adjacent marginal areas identified with limitations placed on them with respect to the type of development proposed.

Question 3:
What are your thoughts on the initial focus area of adding, expanding and further protecting Urban River Valleys?

Enshrining contiguous natural features into urban areas is critical for natural services, biodiversity, and for human health. I support this.

Question 4:
Do you have suggestions for other potential areas to grow the Greenbelt?

There are moraine structures in other areas of the province (like the hills and valleys in and around Simcoe County's Copeland Forest). A low housing inventory in the province is putting development pressure on areas that may not be contiguous with the Green Belt north of the GTA. Can there not be many Green Belts in Ontario?

Question 5:
How should we balance or prioritize any potential Greenbelt expansion with the other provincial priorities mentioned above?

Our business-as-usual approach to urban planning in Ontario favors a sprawl approach with communities designed around the car. Greenbelt expansion, coupled with smarter development practices like Transit-Oriented-Development (TOD), New Urbanism (higher density, people-focused communities), will make for more livable and more desirable neighborhoods. But these improvements will only work if we incentivize developers and municipalities to grow better, not grow bigger. Building new highways like the 413 only reinforce outdated planning and development models that are at odds with smart growth, which lock us into perpetual maintenance costs. Growth for growth's sake is not good for the economy.

Question 6:
Are there other priorities that should be considered?

Perhaps an investigation into the use of economic frameworks that assign sensible valuations to natural services like biodiversity, water filtration, storm water management, carbon sequestration could be useful? Without full-cost accounting systems, we are left with incomplete economic tools that will only perpetuate a myopic and short-termed approach to conservation and development.