Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the "A Place To Grow and Policy Statement, ERO # 019-6813. I have reviewed the information, including the attached documents found at the website: https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-6813.

My responses to the 6 questions to consider are below.

But first, In preparation for this comment, I also reviewed the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario Constitution found at: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://static.ontariopc.ca/uploads/2021/04/PC_Party_Constitution_Janua…

The Principles outlined in this document that I feel are most directly applicable for this conversation are:
2.1(b) We believe that government should serve the people and that progress requires a competitive economy, which, accepting its social responsibilities, allows every individual freedom of opportunity and initiative and the peaceful enjoyment of the fruits of his or her own labour.
2.1 (e) We believe that economic freedom, entrepreneurial spirit and the right to private property are essential to economic prosperity and political freedom.
2.1 (g) We believe that social justice entails equality of opportunity, including fair and equal treatment for all Ontarians and the provision of support to those in need.
2.1 (h) We believe in and accept our responsibilities for the preservation of Ontario's heritage and cultural diversity and the conservation and renewal of our environment for present and future generations.

Additionally, I have reviewed information on the Ontario Land Tribunal at: https://www.pas.gov.on.ca/Home/Agency/660

I am a resident of rural Ontario who was raised in one of the areas experiencing significant growth, and currently reside in another that is experiencing significant growth. Both are in southwestern Ontario. Additionally, I have lived in cities that were and are expanding into the surrounding rural areas. As a result, I feel like I have some appreciation for both perspectives. Although, I most identify with and am sensitive to the rural Ontario perspective.

Thank you, in advance, for taking my response into consideration.

1. What are your thoughts on the policies that have been included from the PPS and A Place to Grow in the proposed policy document, including the proposed approach to implementation?

While I understand the need for increased housing with population growth, I feel that this approach is simplistic and shockingly overlooks the critical barrier the Ontario government has created in an individual's ability to purchase their own property: an environment where an individual or family to the ability to save a downpayment for a house. Without this crucial first step, the Ontario government is actually acting in opposition to the principles of its own constitution, namely: the ability to enjoy the fruits of one's labour. Many well-earning professionals are restricted in their movement because they cannot afford to move. The FIRST step to supporting a Place to Grow should be to reinstate annual, legal rent increases limits to allow individuals starting out to enable them the capacity to purchase their own home in a fiscally responsible way.

It also creates hgue barriers for individuals in rural communities to enjoy the "fruits of their labours". Movement within rural communities has become difficult due to huge housing and land cost increases. Developers can buy this land, which drives up the cost of land for farmers. It is difficult for farmers to buy land and easier to sell to developers. This has forced individuals in rural communities to leave the province in search of affordable land. Is this the increased access to housing and land that this government seeks? Access to land for some by driving others from theirs.

As rural communities largely support the Conservative Party of Ontario, this shows a large unawareness and insensitivity to their challenges.

2. What are your thoughts on the proposed policy direction for large and fast-growing municipalities and other municipalities?

I feel that it downloads the responsibility for infrastructure to the fast-growing communities that have not had an income tax base to support such demands for infrastructure, thereby placing them in a difficult position to overlook the needs of the actual residents in their area and redirect the funds to support the development. This will not create the vital communities outlined in the document. Honestly, it demonstrates a significant lack of understanding of the challenges rural and semi-urban locations face.

3. What are your thoughts regarding the proposed policies to generate housing supply, including an appropriate range and mix of housing options?

This is a good idea in theory and I support it, and the statement of maintaining the "rural character" or culture of the local area is critical, but, in my experience, this has not been the case and...I know this is a bold statement....with the Ontario Government being complicit.

I have observed that often the development of land is created to suit the developer without consideration of the community. For example, I know that in my hometown community, a developer made a proposal to the county council. The council recommended changes so that it would be more sensitive to the community (i.e., spacing of houses, etc., which are actually specifically mentioned in your A Place to Grow document). However, the developer took this to the Ontario Land Tribunal who agreed to the development as the developer originally requested, not according to the requests of the local council (who this document requires to increase the infrastructure, not the government). The government seems to value the needs of those moving into the rural areas more than the people who actually live there.

This is a huge oversight and leaves rural areas at risk especially as they are experiencing rapid development (one location had a 15% population increase over one year). They need to be considered too.

Everyone who I have spoken to in these communities, both my own and those in my home town, say they don't mind people moving in, but it needs to be done sensitively to the culture and layout of the community. This, to date, has not taken place and creates an experience of distrust.

4. What are your thoughts on the proposed policies regarding the conservation of agriculture, aggregates, and natural and cultural heritage resources?

Honestly, I believe that the plan is short-sighted, simplistic, and does not understand the issues related to the conservation of agriculture, or our resources. As well, it is quite broad which provides little protection in the future for farmland that has not been specifically designated. This is a serious problem.

Access to agriculture is more than just being respectful of sensitive crops or allowing sufficient space between development and such crops. The definition of speciality crops is very restrictive.

There are other barriers to agriculture that this document overlooks. As mentioned above, with increased costs of land due to development, then it becomes financially restrictive for farmers to buy land. When that happens, will that result in opening up the land for development? Why is the ability of farmers to enjoy the fruits of their labour secondary to developers?

By creeping into agricultural land for development, we reduce the ability to produce food within our own province. This will result in importing foods to meet the demand, and importing foods will likely result in increased food costs. This creates the potential for food insecurity for everyone.

If there ever is a drought due to climate change, different areas will keep their own food local for their own residents and will likely not export to other areas, such as the Ontario this policy is creating.

Building on rural lands, and removing the plant and agricultural land increase the risk of said climate change. It takes at least 500 years to create even 5 cm of topsoil needed for farmland. It cannot just be re-created in our lifetime. Plants oxygenate the excess CO2 linked to the greenhouse effect and climate change. Mass expansion into rural areas will compound the risk of climate change. That, coupled with the risk of food insecurity, is putting Ontarians at risk.

I STRONGLY oppose the agricultural component of this policy as it stands.

5. What are your thoughts on the proposed policies regarding planning for employment?

This policy looks at sub-urban employment but there is little related to employment in rural areas with increased development, other than diversifying employment. Employment is as important in rural areas as it is un urban ones, and many people who move to rural areas commute impacting the culture and sense of community in a rural area.

As rural area residents primarily support the Conservative Party of Ontario, this is disrespectful of their challenges and needs.

6. Are there any other barriers to, or opportunities for, accelerating development and construction (e.g., federal regulations, infrastructure planning and approvals, private/public partnerships for servicing, provincial permitting, urban design guidelines, technical standards, zoning, etc.)?

Housing development and land use:

When I look at the members of the Ontario Land Tribunal, most are from urban areas and only two part-time members come from rural Ontario and those are within a 20-minute drive of each other.

To really be respectful of this plan, the government MUST step up and have committees representing each local area where growth occurs (similar to the health system) who have actual power (not symbolic) to advise and guide growth in this area. This needs to have significant contribution and input and oversight by individuals who have historically lived in these rural environments (not individuals who have moved there within the last 5 years).

Parks/trails, etc.

What safeguards are there for creating and protecting parks? My friends who work in urban planning state that a) they propose walkable communities but this often gets overridden due to cost issues, and b) it is cost prohibitive to purchase back land in urban centres for parks.

Safeguards and representation:

For all of these principles, It simply isn't enough to say it in a document; there have to be guideline that are upheld by independent, transparent, and representative. As I've shared, the money, needs, and wants of the developers have seemed to take priority over all else. There need to absolutely be safeguards in place to uphold support the well-intentioned policies in this document, including the needs and parameters outlined by the municipality, especially related to preserving the local character.

Provincial oversight committees should have representation from the geographic areas, and subcommittees for each geographical area who can consult with real impact on the needs or issues raised to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Again, I use the Ontario Health Regions as an example of this. Again

Finances
While I applaud the policy to follow the guidance/recommendations of municipalities and councils for rural areas for land use and development, there needs to be a) accountability at the provincial level to follow this when it is the issue of a developer versus the recommendation of the council, b) there needs to be financial support without ties to help develop any infrastructure needs. By downloading the financial obligations onto the community, you are placing poorer communities at a disadvantage.

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to comment. In conclusion, I support lot of policies in this document especially related to public transportation, park use, mix-housing options, and employment. I am impressed at the clauses to support rural character and follow the guidelines of municipal councils, especially related to housing spacing etc. However, I feel that many policies related to rural areas are vague which puts rural areas at risk if there are conflicts related to development. As well, I feel that the policies related to the protection of agriculture are insufficient, short-sighted, and creates real risk for climate change and food supply. Finally, I believe that not first addressing the ability of individuals to save for a downpayment for a home through re-establishing annual, legal rent increase limits actually promotes the disparity and creates inequality in access to housing which I feel undermines a key foundational concept of this document's creation.