Thank-you for this…

Thank-you for this opportunity to provide input to Proposed Amendments to the Greenbelt Plan ERO number019-6216. I am writing as a private citizen.

To be clear, I am opposed to removing parcels of land from the Greenbelt.

It does not sit well with me at all that properties owned by developers are near or included in the parcels of land to be removed. Nor does it sit well that developers purchased parcels of land in the Greenbelt very shortly before this proposal was put forward.

It does not sit well with me that Premier Ford has twice said publicly that his government would not touch the Greenbelt and the Minister of Housing, Steve Clark, has said the same. It damages their credibility with me and shakes my trust in their government.

There are phrases that went through my mind when I heard of the proposal to remove parcels from the Greenbelt in support of building housing.

One phrase was "Your lack of planning is not my priority." If one of the primary tasks of a Ministry of Housing is not to keep track of population present and future and the number of housing units needed then perhaps the mandate of the Ministry needs to be changed. To suddenly rise up and say we need to take pieces of a priceless part of Ontario for mere housing suggests the need of a shake-up at the Ministry. For reasons explained later, it seems that the pieces of Greenbelt are not required to accommodate housing plans. The Ontario Housing crisis didn't just happen, it has been gathering momentum for years. If this is the level of competence in this ministry, I wonder about the twenty-odd other ministries.

The other phrase that occurred to me was "The most important step in solving a problem is to define the problem." I have seen no hard data, beyond the number of houses, that describes the problem. For example, how many homes do we expect to be freed up as a result of the aging population dying? How many homes are being used for short-term rentals, like AirBNBs? How many homes are empty?

Borrowing the conservation idea from the energy sector we could ask people who live in under-utilized houses to share them or move to smaller spaces and offer inducements to do so.

I have not seen any requirement for sizing of new houses. My parents house in the suburbs had a frontage of 40 feet which would fit three houses of the size that I currently live in. I have seen no analysis that talks about the maximum space required for different types of housing.

The size of houses matter as there are expected to be an on-going shortage of construction labour and bigger houses take longer to build. Another area that has not been adequately identified is the number of people in each construction trade with projections for supply and demand. I see that the Ontario government has made some attempt to boost the trades but I have no insight as to whether there will be enough to build the housing being projected. There will also be competition for resources from energy retrofits to reduce greenhouse gases.

I gather that there are existing and expected future shortages of construction materials.

It seems that the plan that requires parcels of Greenbelt has not been well thought out and I am not inclined to agree to such a plan when it involves the Greenbelt.

I have not seen any requirement that new housing will need to be built to any type of passive house standard. I gather that new housing legislation actually works to sideline green building codes.

The Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force, earlier this year, indicated that it was possible to build the number of houses required in Ontario without touching the Greenbelt. The housing can be built within the boundries of existing settlements. Increasing the density of existing housing areas is a far better alternative than impacting the Greenbelt.

The November, 2021 EKOS survey found that 74% of 905ers agreed that the Greenbelt is "no place" for a highway. Doubtless they would also find that it is no place for housing.

Given the parcels of the Greenbelt to be removed, the future existence of the Brue Trail is threatened.

Given the choice of housing over prime farm land, wetlands, woodlands, species at risk, water courses, species at risk there is no doubt that the Greenbelt should remain intact.

I understand that the number of homes required was an estimate and that people are now questioning the estimate.

There seems to be no plan from the government to try to influence people to move to less populated areas of the province where housing might be less expensive and in higher supply.

For the reasons outlined above, I firmly oppose removing parcels of land from the Greenbelt. The value of the Greenbelt far exceeds the benefit of meeting what seems to be a poorly thought out housing plan that has the potential to enrich developers and not benefit the majority of Ontarians.