Trying to reach Ontario's…

Trying to reach Ontario's housing goals through sprawl is completely at odds with several other goals that the province has related to being otherwise affordable, well connected, environmentally conscious, economically productive and inclusive.
The greenbelt, aside from it's inherent ecological and social value, serves to reign in some of the predatory instincts of developers which seek to develop large swaths of land in the fastest and least responsible ways possible. Experts seem to agree that Ontario's housing goals can be met within those parameters, so a decision to open the Greenbelt anyways appears to be motivated by priorities. While I cannot know what those priorities are, I can speculate based upon who stands to gain the most. This seems to mainly server to enrich a small class of already-wealthy and influential developers.(1)
From the perspective of municipal revenues, suburban sprawl in an economic drain on the much more economically productive and sustainable urban core. It multiplies infrastructure which has a relatively fixed per/unit cost across a much larger area to serve the same number of people while having a much much lower tax revenue/m^3. The lower tax burden on cheap land and high infrastructure maintenance costs means that municipalities need to continue selling off more land to cover their losses. This is also know as a Ponsi Scheme. (2) I have no doubt that once part of the Greenbelt has been opened, other parts will soon follow. The solution to this is to intensify neighbourhoods which are currently a net burden into denser, more economically productive areas. Because of this, urban intensification within the existing bounds of the Greenbelt will necessarily help reach Ontario's housing goals while also working towards all of the other goals mentioned above.
While single-family units may be a desired housing type, this is often a preference built on false assumptions, short-sightedness and irresponsible city planning. Of course, the average home buyer is interested in undervalued land where other tax payers are subsidizing their investment. The cheaper /m^3 cost ignores that that they will spend more to heat their homes, drive and maintain many more vehicles and offset costs for of goods and services which have communal alternatives in an urban environment. While allowing potential homeowners the freedom to make these decisions is important, it cannot be ignored that specific policy decisions are creating the condition where single-family, car-dependent sprawl is a more reasonable choice than it has any right to be. (3)
It is critical that, as Ontario seeks to meet it's housing goals, those houses are in places which are enjoyable and sustainable to live in. The GTA would provide much more to it's citizens if it resembled urban Vancouver surrounded by boroughs that resemble Amsterdam, Vienna or Copenhagen. More suburban sprawl correlates extremely highly with lower quality of life. (4)
This proposal is a total step in the wrong direction. Furthermore, it is a decision which is being handed down to citizens and municipalities by a Ford government which promised not to do it prior to the last time it was elected. Public sentiment is strongly against this action. (5)
Pretending that it is an unpopular decision which nonetheless must be made to meet housing goals is a fallacy. Ontario can must meet it's housing goals though intensification, abolishing of R1 zoning, adjusting taxation to match the real burden of low-density areas, incentivizing transit-oriented development and maintaining as much green space as possible in the areas in between.
Strictly as a political calculation, we Ontarians tossed out the previous government after a variety of corruption scandals with much the same taste as this proposal had built it. It seems unwise to make a bold statement about "us speaking and you listening" only to turn around and do it anyways.