Yes, I am a private taxpayer…

Yes, I am a private taxpayer and am concerned enough to formally comment on ERO 019-6216. This is not an easy process for the uninitiated; my concerns are in a number of areas as follows.

Due to recent severe climate-driven occurrences in Canada, permanent protection of the Greenbelt is crucial to preparing Ontario for the impacts of climate change. Unprecedented forest fires, storms and weather are on the rise and we need to be proactive. This Act appears to chisel away at green spaces for no valid purpose. I do recall a promise to keep hands off the Greenbelt – what happened to that promise?
The Greenbelt was created in 2005 not as a temporary pause but with thought for the long term by including two specific goals:
• Prevent further loss of farmland and natural heritage (this amendment is triggering the opposite)
• Restrict urban sprawl (this amendment is forcing the opposite)

The past few years have taught us how important it is for Canada and Ontario to be more self-sufficient and our farmland is a vital piece of that protection. As for the proposed “offset” - throwing back a random patch of land in an unrelated area in order to meet the requirement to not reduce the total land area does NOT meet the spirit of the original Act, nor does it make up for the holes punched in the existing designated areas. By all means – please do add to the buffering areas, but don’t cherry pick plots to pull out so development can occur.

In Hamilton, our city planning staff are NOT supportive of this Act, especially since much effort has already been expended to develop a viable plan to handle urban growth to 2051 without this change and within the current urban boundaries. The changes in this Act will actually delay existing plans to create housing. Hamilton has some very innovative non-profit groups who are working with city staff specifically with a goal for affordable housing in a proactive and positive community-based approach.

Infrastructure – does NOT exist in the greenbelt areas and foisting that expense to citizens (by shifting Development Charges from developers to taxpayers) will divert needed work on the existing and aging core infrastructure which municipalities like Hamilton are already facing. That needed development doesn’t disappear and you are saying that taxpayers will pick up the tab on that. What guarantee do we have that the removal of development fees from developers (to pass on to taxpayers) will mean a reduction in the list price of any new development?

By far the biggest concern that is not being addressed is to make the needed homes affordable. What assurances do we have from developers that any of these developments will be affordable homes? It isn’t just “more homes” Ontario needs, it is affordable homes. Affordable in these times should include being close to transit and the city core plus rental or purchase prices/condo fees which are geared to income which is what actually makes them affordable.

On a separate but related point, as I was looking into this, I see that First Nations and indigenous leaders are indicating they have NOT been consulted and see Bill 23 as a blatant violation of rights. As part of the national and provincial promises with respect to steps to Reconciliation, this is a serious miss for an enlightened government – we expect you to be there on this issue.

If the goal is truly to address the housing crisis (more homes faster), I think Queen’s Park needs to:
• Leave the Greenbelt lands as-is without undermining the original purpose, and honestly look at how municipalities are ready to work within their current boundaries.
• Work with municipalities and use provincial dollars to stimulate non-market housing initiatives which are ready to start now – they will be affordable, will add to the housing pool AND help some of our most vulnerable citizens, which should be a priority of any government.
• Do not ignore our First Nations obligations, use this as a Reconciliation opportunity to show good faith for future partnerships.