Two main comments with the…

Two main comments with the impacts and benefits of the proposal:
1) The proposal indicates that 15 sites have been identified for removal or redesignation from the greenbelt, totaling 7,400 acres. The proposal suggests a previous proposal to add 9,400 acres to the greenbelt (consulted on in March 2022) would essentially offset this reduction to the greenbelt. There are two major issues with this. First, it is not clear whether the earlier proposal will in fact go forward, and so there is no certainty that the removal and redesignation of 7,400 acres will in fact be offset. The proponents should revise the proposal and make a clear commitment that the 9,400 acres will for certain be added to the greenbelt. Failure to do so gives a false impression to the public about the impact of the proposal. Second, the particular features of the land to be removed/redesignated and added to the greenbelt are not known. So, the full impact of the proposal cannot be fully assessed. Further information on the specific habitat, species populations/ranges is needed to know whether the removal/redesignation of sites could contribute to critical fragmentation of habitat and/or ecological corridors and whether the added land is substitutable for this other land. A superficial glance at the location of the land to be added suggests that it is not.
2) Identified environmental impacts can be justified if the proposal will contribute to a significant and/or justifiable benefit. The proposed removal/designation of land from the greenbelt is intended to be used to construct homes. However, it is unclear who will benefit from this proposal and how those benefits will be distributed. How will the proponents ensure that the proposal will not reinforce inequality or make housing more affordable? The identified benefits of the proposal are simply not apparent.