I am a student at Central…

I am a student at Central Peel S.S. and this letter regarding my opinion over the Growth Plan amendment. We should not reduce the density per hectare, instead of focusing on expanding and taking up land that could potentially be used for agricultural uses. It would definitely have more benefits to maintain suburban or high density neighbourhoods such as, more efficient public transport, more housing or jobs per hectare and more undisrupted agricultural land. This would also benefit the communities with lower travel times, due to the condense and compact areas, which may even encourage people to walk, reducing greenhouse emissions. In my view, higher density per hectare would definitely favoured instead of spreading out housing and wasting housing space that could have been used for a higher density neighbourhood. If the Growth plan stays at 60 people per hectare, it would have to take up more land than it needs when population boosts occur.

While many may argue that open space around your homes and lower population density is a better option than the suburban style of land use we have right now. In contrast to open land, there are many services that those in spread out neighbourhoods can not reach or the services can not reach them in time. Rural or open areas are more spread apart, leaving emergency services with a farther distance to travel, which may cause any emergency to spread further or go undetected. Any crime that may happen will not be noticed, while in a suburban area, the influence of various witnesses. Educational, work, recreational and other buildings are also harder to reach, when in denser neighbourhoods, it raises land value and a better quality of living. Expanding, rather than using the land that is available to be built on, would also cut into the Greenbelt and destroy various natural elements of the province which combats the effect of carbon emissions for over more than a million cars.

My last point on why high density suburban areas should be in effect, retail and other stores can both deliver and take in supplies with a reduced cost, boosting economy. It all comes to lower costs of building, better living quality, less pollution, high public transportation efficiency and better land value. More people can reach educational, work and commercial zones, increasing number jobs and the demand for commercial, educational and work buildings. Now to something different, other countries like Germany have dense suburban areas that have compact housing but still maintain an efficient balance of public services. Germany leaves more land for agriculture than it does for housing, which has been very sustainable over the past, being able to feed and provide for the residents. That was my opinion regarding the Growth Amendment, maybe it may change your views or maybe not but in the end, we have to find a better and sustainable Growth plan.