I understand the pressure to…

I understand the pressure to build new housing. It is important. However, the allowance of continued suburban sprawl is not the answer. We need to density, infill and encourage transit within current boundaries. This is especially the case if the plan is to create affordable housing and allowing people attain home ownership. The type of development proposed will mean more of the same - big houses and sprawl within our best farm land.

Changing the boundaries of the green belt means that the boundaries really don’t mean anything, even if you are adding more acres back (that’s a separate argument as a good chunk of those acres are already protected or are really not developable). What’s to stop future changes if we open them up once? Nothing.

Also, the final issue is the fact that developers own large swathes of land in the areas proposed and have been itching for years, unsuccessfully, to turn their land gamble into development. It’s also offensive as they are significant contributors to your party (and yes, others).

As an aside, I would personally stand to gain from the opening of the boundaries as land in my family is near one of the proposed areas for development which would drive up the value of that land. I would still greatly prefer to see the boundaries stand and be solid, unquestioned protection, as opposed to always being open for discussion. I would rather protect it for future generations than gain financially.

Another important note- I have voted Conservative in the past and this proposal has completely turned me off of the thought of doing that again.

Thank you.