As a grade 9 geography…

As a grade 9 geography student, perceiving and understanding the world of geography includes analyzing present, real-world issues as well. The recent upbringing of the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) Growth Plan allowed me to think profoundly of Ontario’s environment, community locations, and future. The plan is undeniably a great proposal benefiting both Ontario’s environment and communities, however, there are two amendments which I believe contradict its benefits.

The first amendment I believe that contradicts the GGH’s Growth Plan is proposed amendment 1.1, which states that the Plan is amended by deleting “low-density urban sprawl” and replacing it with “unmanaged growth”. Low-density urban sprawl occurs when residential housing developments consume large amounts of vacant or productive land. This type of growth can have various negative impacts on Ontario’s environment as well as residents. These impacts include air pollution resulting from automobile dependency, water pollution resulting from impervious surfaces (roads, asphalt), habitat loss, increased flood risks, and reductions in quality of life. On the other hand, unmanaged growth is not the best approach in stopping low-density urban sprawl either. Unmanaged growth is equivalent to high-density sprawl which ultimately also impacts Ontario’s environment and residents negatively. Increasing municipal costs of providing public services, congestion, pollution, longer commutes, growing human health issues, struggles with existing inequalities, inadequate services, and inclining strain in natural resources are all disadvantages of unmanaged growth. If we accurately plan development in a way which possesses the least amount of negative impacts, other than low-density urban sprawl and unmanaged growth, we can look forward to a healthier future.

The second amendment I believe that contradicts the Growth Plan is amendment 1.2, which states that the GGH’s Growth Plan is further amended by deleting “, a clean and healthy environment” as well as “social equity” and replacing it with “an approach that puts people first”. The fundamental purpose of the GGH Growth Plan is to initially situate and structure multiple communities in such a way that their location not only profits humans but Ontario’s environment as well. Before the dawn of humanity or the origin of any species, the environment was created, providing us with the necessary tools for survival. Therefore, preserving it should be our first priority. Referring to social equity, every individual has similar rights and opportunities, including the future citizens of Ontario. If we continue to use the resources the environment provides us with inappropriately, then the future generation undoubtedly won’t possess the required tools and resources needed to build a new, sustainable civilization. The future of the entire world lies in the hands of tomorrow's children and the overuse of the environment’s resources will ultimately result in the inequitable treatment of the next generation. Setting an example of a sustainable and equitable environment and way of life is the least we can do to guide our children on the path to success.

Conclusively, I believe that proposed amendments 1.1 and 1.2 contradict the beneficial purpose of the GGH’s Growth Plan regarding Ontario’s environment as well as communities. I believe that these amendments should be either withdrawn from the Plan or replaced with better options. Thank you for reading my letter and I hope you will take my proposal into consideration.