This proposal is…

This proposal is irresponsible to biodiversity and residents: Why:

• It is wrong that the amount of land for parkland designation is going to be cut in half and limiting the % of land that can be dedicated for parkland. It is wrong to freeze parkland dedication rates.

• It is wrong for developers to identify land, including encumbered land (e.g., land with underground transit tunnels or other infrastructure) and privately owned public spaces that would count towards any municipal parkland dedication requirements if defined criteria, as set out in a future regulation, were met. Of course everything will be biased to their advantage as you have eliminated the people, conservation authority and region to input their extensive knowledge and help plan for the best parkland areas for the future. Developers do not have the knowledge the background to make these decisions for our communities. As our urban areas become more dense we need more parkland not less. Allowing private lands to count as parkland doesn’t make sense.

• It is ridiculous that you are allowing the maximum land to be conveyed for park or other public recreational purposes to not exceed 2 per cent for development or redevelopment for commercial or industrial purposes and 5 per cent for all other development. Public need more areas for recreational purposes and parks should be designated and designed to save and support nature and cannot have a size placed on it by developers.

•Requiring municipalities to spend 60% of parkland reserve funds at the end of every year doesn’t allow them to save up to purchase land or to create destination parks. Municipalities should be left to determine what is best for their community in regard to parkland reserve funds. Requiring municipalities to spend 60% of development charges reserve funds at the start of every year doesn’t allow them to save up what is needed for major infrastructure builds or refurbishments. Municipalities should be left to determine what is best for their community in regard to development charges reserve funds..

• Growth should pay for growth. Reducing development charges deprives municipalities of the funds they needs to provide infrastructure, services and amenities to residents. There are only two ways to make up for this loss: cuts to services or tax hikes on existing residents. Some municipalities are saying this change will result in double digit tax increases. This is a bad idea and it cannot be justified by saying that it will reduce costs to new home buyers as there is nothing in the legislation that requires the developers to pass on their DC charge reductions to buyers.