Proposed amendments to the…

Proposed amendments to the greenbelt plan do not address the core tenets of the Greenbelt Plan (2017). This is particularly evident in the proposed removal of lands in the City of Pickering. These lands, including sensitive marsh habitats and conservation lands adjacent to the Rouge National Park, are too valuable in an urban environment to develop.

A principal objective of any conservation plan is to maintain and connect valuable habitats. The amendment blithely ignores this, and any other conservation principles, for the stated and overarching principle of reducing regulatory burdens to development. This is touted as a positive social benefit to maintaining the greenbelt. Still, it is a weakly veiled excuse to push out development into the greenbelt the legislation is meant to protect. If protected lands are developed, especially in Pickering, this will promote a meat grinder approach to developing further adjacent lands, based on the notion of added offsets with the redesignation of land further afield. This is not like for like, and the impacts are not zero-sum for conservation purposes. The proposal is like the belt-notch loosening of an obese patient intent on eating evermore. The act of making the proposal is the act of an enabler in the development of an unhealthy community environment.

As a biker living nearby, I have a personal interest in the enjoyment of the lands as they are, and see the valuable attributes these lands hold. When developed, these lands will be too crowded to enjoy for these purposes. Moments of calm reflection, a lack of traffic and traffic lights, respiratory highs and fitness will be lost. There is little social support for the proposals, and polling indicates 70% of the population resists any land development of the greenbelt space. The real aim of the proposal is to increase land development, and this is contradictory to the needs and aims of the greenbelt plan.

The aims of greater housing development can be met by other activities and lands. It has often been pointed out that vacant development lands remain dormant for excessive periods. Nothing prevents the legislature from introducing measures to encourage the development of these lands. Other measures, such as intensifying existing residential lands, are positive for land conservation. This proposal is not.

While the province's economic growth is cited as a reason to develop the greenbelt lands, this is also suspect. Communities around the world recognize the inherent economic value of conserving natural systems. These systems can function to promote tourism, specialty agriculture, community recreational activity, healthy air quality, life span increases, lower hospitalizations, mental health, stable property values, etc. One should not break this chain of benefits without thinking - a two-hour drive to Galt will not make my day, and my plans to stay in the community become less certain. We live in our communities, and we want to protect them.

While I doubt the economic virtue of high immigration growth for Canada, if this growth level continues, the development of new communities outside GTA and Ottawa is a more economical option to control housing costs and reduce environmental impacts. Greenfield developments in less sensitive areas with nearby infrastructure would provide a path forward. For example, we saw this in the 1970s when the Alberta government bought up 9 square miles of land away from the development trends (i.e., speculator-owned lands) to establish Mill Woods. This dramatically lowered excessive housing prices and allowed the economic development of an otherwise hard-to-service parcel. A similar opportunity exists in Ontario, between Ottawa and Montreal, to establish a large, planned urban centre close to high tech, highways, rail, and water - all located on less valuable lands.

It is time that Ontario shows real leadership in addressing housing problems, and not mortgage the future of existing residents.