Comments to ERO Proposed…

Comments to ERO
Proposed Amendments to the Greenbelt Plan
ERO number
019-6216

Frankly I think this, and many other development related proposals are absurd!

My first question is: every time we lose a smaller portion of greenbelt that was previously part of a provincially significant greenbelt, how many houses will this permit? My guess is maybe a dozen or so. From a cost / benefit perspective, making a dozen homeowners move a bit farther away from the location of their former greenbelt based proposed home, is an insignificant cost versus the benefit the greenbelt complex provides to everyone within sight of the greenbelt.

Greenbelts are not commodities. Each one is unique in that it serves the immediately surrounding landscape to provide the following benefits to that geographic location. This focus on location is clearly stated in the Greenbelt Act:

• Protects against the loss and fragmentation of the agricultural land base and supports agriculture as the predominant land use

• Gives permanent protection to the natural heritage and water resource systems that sustain ecological and human health and that form the environmental framework around which major urbanization in south-central Ontario will be organized

• Provides for a diverse range of economic and social activities associated with rural communities, agriculture, tourism, recreation, and resource uses

• Builds resilience to and mitigates climate change

The ecosystem surrounding each greenbelt, whether it be sprawl development, industrial uses or open spaces is dependent on the above noted benefits provided by each section of greenbelt. If an adjacent section of greenbelt is removed by means of development from any of these locations, the significant attributes of these adjacent lands will also change. An excellent current example is the rising coyote population in Brampton.

A reasonable amount of federal environmental legislation has or is being changed to require input from affected First Nations peoples. At least the federal government has come to the realization that these peoples' knowledge of the interconnection of everything on our land and in our environment is extremely important!

Human beings are only a part of our overall ecosystem. Every time we do something to change this ecosystem, it causes a ripple effect of changes throughout the remainder of our environment. Sometimes when we really screw something up, as with messing with wetlands, forested areas and floodplains, this ripple effect becomes a tidal wave!

Simply put, it is not scientifically possible to offset the impact of removal of one protected greenbelt by designating a similar, distant, currently undesignated parcel land. It is not the designation that matters, it is the environmental attributes and benefits of the land and how these benefit their adjacent properties that matters.

From my perspective, this proposal and proposed bill 23 are short sighted while producing long term harm. The apparent fundamental premise of the bill is simply focused on a grade schooler’s understanding of the concept of supply and demand. The government’s “pitch” to Ontarians is: “the federal government is planning on admitting vast numbers of immigrants most of whom will settle in the GTHA because this is such a vibrant, job rich area.” This will significantly increase the demand for additional (new) houses. Therefore, we need drastic, autocratic, government powers to ensure that enough new houses are built to accommodate this population.

The government’s premise for taking this position only looks at the supply side of the supply and demand argument. What it fails to take into consideration is the demand portion of the equation. The following items are totally overlooked by this bill:

1. Demographics: The baby boom. The first members of this cohort are now in their mid 70’s. Many are either downsizing of even dying. Either activity will free up the houses they spent the last years of their lives in. What do the government’s projections indicate to be the number of houses these activities will add to the market’s housing supply?

2. The prices of resale houses are based off the cost of new houses. As long as developers continue to build sprawl dependent, new single-family houses, the cost of all housing will go up. I expect there are few, if any, times over the last 20 years where the price of new housing declined by any appreciable amount. Hence the price of all housing will continue to increase (once we get through adjusting for the current pricing bubble). This aggravates, rather than alleviates, the affordable housing problem.

3. Thanks to the Ford government’s trashing of our environment, Ontarians and new Canadians may decide to locate elsewhere in Ontario or other parts of Canada. There is a growing focus on “quality of life” issues. This is becoming very prevalent in the North American workforce. Recently there have been a number of articles in our local press about people who have moved to other Ontario and international communities and how happy they are.

4. Another major demand factor is Ontario’s pathetic seniors care capabilities and strategies. Most seniors want to “grow old” in their community and in most cases their homes. Given Ontario’s pathetic seniors policies and programs, the only practical way they can do this is by employing “self-help” solutions. These include engaging live-in care givers. This will, at least temporally, address some short-term demand issues.

5. Extended families are also something that will undoubtedly reduce demand. As the cost of housing continues to increase, grown children will delay leaving their parents’ houses. As is the case in other countries, we will very likely see these children bringing their spouse to live with them in their (parent’s) house and they will, in turn,raise their children in that house. As a result, we will see a growing number of three generation families living in GTA Homes. Thus, further reducing demand.

6. We are also seeing an emergence of college housing practices being utilized in the post college community. In this situation, college friends who shared accommodations while in school continue that sharing practice in shared housing convenient to their places of employment.

7. Every bit of our greenbelt plays a critical role in the proper function of our environment. Human beings share our environment with a vast array of plant and animal life who normally inhabit undeveloped spaces. As we remove these natural areas through development, we either kill this wildlife or force it to relocate to our developed areas which they must then share with humans.

8. As set out in the Greenbelt Act, Greenbelts provide important benefits to the ecosystem. The housing developments that are being proposed to replace these wetlands provide none of these important benefits in those locations.

While there will likely be more changes to the simplistic level of demand envisaged by the Ford Government, at a minimum, these demand variations need to be thoroughly considered before anything like the legislation now being proposed becomes the law of this province.

The government recently engaged an expert panel to determine how to address York Region’s sewage requirements (demand) and got some excellent advice. The province should do the same for the housing demand / affordable housing problem with special focus on the importance of every bit of greenspace we have, no matter how small it may seem.

There are very likely a number of possible legislative enhancements that would promote multiple ownerships or tenancies. Unfortunately, the current Landlords and Tennant Act is so tenant friendly that virtually none of the baby boomers would consider renting out the now significant amount of empty-nester rooms in their houses. Given the impact of inflation and problems with potentially living longer than their resources, the additional income that would be available to these seniors would likely be very welcome.

The problem is, if the tenant doesn’t work out, how do these empty-nester homeowners evict them? Without a really good answer to that question, by way of government legislation, significant amounts of affordable, good livable space, will never be made available.

This proposed policy to allow “pay to slay” destruction of currently protected greenbelts and their endangered species inhabitants, will cause the majority of these rare and ecologically crucial areas to be lost to development. We have spent decades to preserve these environmentally crucial features. Trading these environmental gems away for further housing sprawl would be totally unconscionable!