After reviewing the…

After reviewing the available public consultation materials, in my opinion there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that these amendments represent a net positive to the environment or public. While technically there is an increase in area proposed to be added to the greenbelt, the swap should also consider the inherent environmental quality of the parcels.

It's been indicated that these modifications are to provide new housing. Building new housing for the sake of new housing is thinking purely in the short term, and does not benefit the public. Several areas proposed to be removed from the greenbelt to provide said housing are in the outskirts of municipalities, in areas which are underserved by transit, isolated from critical amenities and adjacent to sensitive natural environments which will be impacted by construction activities. Ten years from now, these homes will be permanently locked into car dependent locations which will never be served by transit or amenities, and will be located far from any notable employment and retail areas. This type of housing is inefficient sprawl which is known to increase municipal costs, which impacts taxes of all property owners. I find it very difficult to believe these areas are the best opportunities for housing to be built.

Also, the area being proposed to be added to the greenbelt is an area if which a significant portion is already protected through other mechanisms. This means there will be NO ACTUAL additional protection for the natural environment. Overall, this amendment to the Greenbelt Plan ignores the intent and purpose of the Greenbelt plan, and is incompatible with the Ontario Places to Grow Act, which states: "designed to promote economic growth, increase housing supply, create jobs and build communities that make life easier, healthier and more affordable for people of all ages."