I oppose this proposal. It…

I oppose this proposal. It violates the purpose of the Greenbelt which is to permanently protect the lands and waters set aside in the Greenbelt. This was intended to END land speculation on these lands and waters. As soon as pieces are chopped out, that purpose is destroyed and ALL Greenbelt lands become again subject to speculation. That speculation will inevitably lead to 'mining the soils' and other features of the Greenbelt on the expectation that more lands can be removed from the Greenbelt in the future.

The proposal claims that 50,000 houses can be built on the 7400 acres (just under 3000 hectares) being removed from the Greenbelt. That works out to less than 17 per hectare - a density that is far below what is required to support public transit - and instead one that will facilitate very low density sprawl development. The costs to service this sprawl - both initially and over the long term - are unsustainable.

The proposal element that promises added other lands and waters to the Greenbelt is highly misleading. The lands identified in most cases are already protected, and in all cases should have been added to the Greenbelt long ago.

The overall description of the proposal is noxious. It is a PR push and quite dishonest. It has nothing to say about the downsides of the proposal. It is typical of what we have come to expect from the Progressive Conservative government in Ontario who should be ashamed of their behaviour.

The proposal doesn't mention climate change - no doubt because it would have to admit that this proposal is disastrous to climate. It will eliminate large carbon sinks and is intended to create very very large carbon sources through car-dependent, low-density sprawl. It also directly harms the resilience of Ontario to the climate crisis - and will certainly result in worse flooding and higher temperatures. In short it will almost certainly result in additional deaths - and we should record the names of those who vote in favour so they can be held fully responsible for these consequences.

I object also to the option provided for submissions "on behalf of [a] client (e.g. as a lawyer or consultant)". This is odious. It allows some people more influence than others. Comments in a democracy should not be permitted by "representatives" of individuals. The individuals themselves should write their own submissions, and take full responsibility for them.

Of course, it is very obvious that the Progressive Conservative government is opposed to democracy.