Commentaire
I have lived in Cambridge ON since July 2015, as a retired citizen. Prior to that I lived in Yellowknife and Ottawa from 2002 to 2015, as a federal employee engaged in the remediation of abandoned mines and other contaminated sites, and in Toronto from 1973 to 2002 as an Ontario Hydro / Hydro One employee engaged in environmental studies and sustainable development aspects of power generation and transmission.
My exposure to: Indigenous people, their traditions and respect for the land; and to average citizens and their concerns with the impacts of large power generation facilities and cross-province high-voltage transmission facilities on nearby communities and agricultural operations, made me aware of the fragility of the land, air and water that support all living beings, including humans. That is, the importance of good land use planning was made abundantly clear to me!
My more recent experience living in Cambridge has been a major disappointment. My house is near the western boundary of the City of Cambridge and to the west of us there are about 20 licensed gravel pits within a radius of 5km, with a number of others going through the licensing approval process, including expansion of one that would come to within 60m of my fence line. The formerly prime agricultural land resembles a moonscape, and dust and noise is often noticeable under westerly winds. Under these conditions my breathing is impaired. Complaints I’ve made through the Ontario spills reporting portal or directly to the operator, etc. have not had any effect in reducing these incidents. I have studied the technical documents submitted by the pit owners in support of the proposed new pits and find that the dust dispersion modelling and determination of acceptable or safe dust levels is totally inadequate - unrealistic on site dust control efficiencies are assumed, not a single dust emission rate or ambient concentration measurement is made, cumulative impacts of all the other nearby pits is not considered, etc. The whole process is questionable leading to results of uncertain accuracy. MECP does not seem to have any role in reviewing applications or overseeing potential impacts. Where is the oversight and enforcement on behalf of the average citizen?
I have reviewed the documentation provided by the government as part of this ERO 019-7739 posting as well as comments submitted to the government by two Provincial Citizens Groups in preparing my comments. I share share the observations, concerns and recommendations of one of these groups and sent a copy of my comments directly to greenbeltconsultation@ontario.ca.
I also share the other Citizens Group's view that in addition to the actions described in this ERO posting, the government needs to also reverse other disastrous changes or proposed changes to legislation, regulation and policies, including:
- “Sprawl MZOs” that have created "beacheads" for sprawl outside of existing settlement areas
- The lowering of Growth Plan density requirements, and resulting excessive boundary expansions in regions like Durham and York
- A gutting of Conservation Authorities and floodplain and wetland protections
- The dismantling of regional land use planning
- The dangerous “Highway 413” scheme
- The plan to unleash sprawl altogether by repealing the Growth Plan for the Golden Horseshoe
- The plan to replace the Provincial Policy Statement with a new Provincial Planning Statement
- The hint in a letter from the current Minister of Housing to lower-tier Mayors, who were elected without any mandate to determine settlement boundaries, that they may be granted such authority (i.e. bypassing Council), which seems aimed at suborning willing Mayors into creating political cover for Minister to break his promise to reverse settlement boundary expansions
Soumis le 30 novembre 2023 10:43 PM
Commentaire sur
Proposition visant à réintégrer des terres dans la ceinture de verdure - Loi de 2023 modifiant des lois en ce qui a trait à la ceinture de verdure
Numéro du REO
019-7739
Identifiant (ID) du commentaire
95102
Commentaire fait au nom
Statut du commentaire