I would first like to…

I would first like to congratulate Mr. Doug Ford and his government for being forward thinking and having the courage and ability to do what is needed to make Ontario grow and deliver affordable housing to our communities.

I was in favour of Bill 97 which offered alternative choices to the people of Ontario.

Bill 97 allowed…for the creation of three lots in a rural area…The current policy reverts back to the legislation introduced by the Liberal government; a short-sighted piece of legislation that led us to the situation we have today. That is a short supply of housing. We can utilise the rural area and benefit everyone. For example, my land was originally zoned rural residential first density before this zoning was removed by the Liberal government under Kathleen Wynne. My rights were negated. Not allowing severances in the rural community will not allow the government to achieve the housing strategy that has been adopted. The rural area can assist in providing some lots and help the Ontario government achieve its housing targets. In fact, as an example, every farmer has some parcel of land that can’t be farmed due to the inability of machinery to enter the area and poor soil conditions. This portion can be used for development, bring families back to the farm or even better stay on the farm to continue farming. This will also have the extra benefit of increasing the housing supply for Ontario at no cost to farming.

In 1970, when development charges were not in existence. I had to pay for the water rights to run in front of my property. At that time we were told that the municipality understood the cost but stated we could have a few lots (five in fact), I agreed and paid. To date that water line is under utilised. This parcel can’t be farmed and has never been farmed. It is serviced with natural gas, water and hydro yet homes cannot be built? The former government changed our zoning from rural residential to agriculture without consultation and due process. This wasn’t fair and negated our rights as land owners in this country with no recourse. Furthermore across the street from this parcel of land are homes. I can’t understand the logic. This land is between two homes and makes it impossible to farm. This is an excellent example where we can utilise the rural area to create additional homes with no impact to the farming community.

Allowing severances on this land makes sense for my parcel of land. . It will not remove land from farming and allowing this land to be used for residential purposes will only help increase the supply of homes in Ontario.

Coupled with the services at the road this makes sense, creates infilling and completes the street with houses on each side. Furthermore, this land is outside the green belt area and is completely surrounded by homes. The point here is that each parcel of land is different and this proposed legislation will not allow me to create these lots. This parcel of land has never been farmed and will never be farmed. It makes logical sense to create these four lots and fully utilise the water main, hydro and natural gas that is available on the street. It completes the Hamlet and benefits everyone.

As I stated above, each farm situation is unique. I currently rent my farm out for cash cropping. The payment is minimal and at best only 70% is workable so I do not understand the logic that the 30% that is not workable will remove farm land from farming. Furthermore, I tried raising the farmers rent this year and he told me the quality of my land is poor and his yield is low.

Country properties that are currently not used for farming and with services can assist in providing housing for our communities. In addition, certain areas are more suitable for farming than others. Is there any harm in allowing severances on these parcels of land that are fully serviced already? That is why I am asking you to reconsider your position on rural properties and allow severances especially where there are services such as water, hydro and natural gas.

Solutions can be achieved by working together. I have lived in the country for a number of years. In those years, I and my neighbours have respected farming operations. No conflicts have arisen between farming and non farming communities. In fact, they coexist and help each other tremendously as they are a close knit community.

In conclusion, reverting back to the old legislation will not benefit Ontario nor the housing situation. Land costs for building are so high in Ontario that it is making it difficult for people to afford homes. I recently read an article that a house in Texas that costs $400,000 is worth a million in Ontario. How can this be? The answer is simple: we need more building lots. We need to work together for Ontario. Protect farm land with rich agricultural ability, yes. However, allowing infilling of land to address the desperate housing shortage by using available farmland that is not conducive to agriculture and is already fully serviced, should be allowed. We tried the current legislation being proposed in section 4.3.3 and it has led to high land costs for building and unrealistic housing prices in Ontario. We need to consider the rural community that has the services and won’t impact farming as potential areas to build new homes. In conclusion, I ask that you reconsider section 4.3.3 and adopt a policy that will allow Ontario to utilise land like my parents. This will allow for infilling, allow us to fully utilise the services and ultimately add to the housing shortage. In addition, from an emotional point of view I can take care of my elderly parents and my sister who is handicapped. This can only be achieved by allowing severances in the rural community.

Regards