I am defiantly against this…

I am defiantly against this proposal.

If we open up the Greenbelt today, where will it end? The Greenbelt will be chipped away at slowly, dying one small chunk at a time.

I understand Ford's proposal to add additional land to make up for the chunks removed. However, much of this land is already protected under other forms of legislation. This has less to do with protection-status and more with whether we're renaming already-protected land the Greenbelt. How much NEW land would be added to the protected area? Not enough.

It is also important to note that the regions of the Greenbelt were chosen thoughtfully. Connectivity is important. These chunks form greater habitats. Redrawing lines on a map will disrupt the natural ecology of things, displace wildlife, etc. The Greenbelt was not envisioned with future land swaps in mind. What is the point in protecting the Greenbelt in that case? Long-term, it will wind up migrating North.

I love the GTA because of its proximity to the Greenbelt. I am an avid cyclist of the Greenbelt route. I admit that it is sentimental to me, but I am not adverse to change. I simply don't believe that this is the correct solution to the affordable housing problem. Removing land from the Greenbelt to balance the forces of supply vs demand will not materially bring costs down, nor will it be a long-term solution.

Single-family homes are inefficient. Everyone wants that white-picket, American Dream home, but there is a point where we need to question how much we are willing to sacrifice for it. It is an easy decision to make when you are not the one giving something up. We need more mid-rise buildings & less sub-urban sprawl. Single-family homes increase dependence on cars & are an inefficient use of land.

You have enough land. You are not using it properly. Please take a look at zoning laws before you hack at the Greenbelt.