I do NOT support bill 23…

I do NOT support bill 23. Here is my reasoning:

It would result in the destruction of irreplaceable and ecologically sensitive, arable land. We cannot just add a few acres somewhere else and call it even. This is a resource that protects and provides - its loss would be catastrophic and felt for generations (but not equally).

It is a massive conflict of interest. The selected lands support a few wealthy land developers who bought the land (never meant to be developed) cheaply with the intention to lobby government and flip it for a massive profit.

What would we get in return?

Unaffordable, poorly constructed sprawl.

This is not a bill that has the public's interest at heart. If it was, we would be asking:

Why is there grossly limited criticism (if any at all) and responsive policy to curb commodification of houses and speculation?

What is being done to address white collar crime, mortgage fraud and money laundering?

Why are surveyors and conservationists being silenced when they tell us there is ample land outside of the green belt for development?

How are we supporting those most greatly affected by the housing crisis in terms of affordability, need and location?

Why should this bill require "strong mayor powers" and minority rule in an attempt to ensure its success if it's such a good thing for people?

I do NOT support bill 23.