Opening up the Greenbelt is…

Opening up the Greenbelt is not in the best interest of current and future Ontarians.

As an life long Ajax resident and environmental scientist I am vehemently against opening up the Greenbelt. The assertion that opening the Greenbelt will provide much needed opportunities for housing development is absolutely ridiculous. First of all, there is more than enough land in the GTA that is not protected by the Greenbelt which is available for development. There is absolutely no need to open up the Greenbelt to "make space for new development". Furthermore, the 50,000 homes created on this space will lead to sprawl and the proliferation of more unaffordable housing. If the Ontario government is actually committed to creating more responsibly priced housing, they should be turning to developers to build mid-rise condos on preexisting footprints - this is something that the City of Pickering already has in the works, however this government is not forcing them to change their Official Plan.

Also, why did the developers buy Greenbelt lands? These lands are protected, yet they purchased them on a bet that the government would open them up, something which Ontario's leader very publicly said he would not do. The fact that this is even up for debate shows the rampant corruption and collusion that is happening between the Ontario government and developers.

Removing protected Greenbelt lands shows Ontarians and developers that long standing, long fought for, long celebrated environmental policies can be upended in an instant. Converting these several parcels, in several municipalities, puts the whole Greenbelt at risk. What is to stop more, and more development proposals in the future from asking for the severance of more Greenbelt space. These lands are "adjacent to current development", then if these Greenbelt lands are developed, new protected Greenbelt land will be "adjacent to development". Will the government then allow these lands to be expanded into? Where does it end? Many experts fought to protect the Greenbelt. Now our current government is discounting their expert research which was done in the best interest of Ontarians and future generations. Who is this development in the best interest of? Low income families? Young people looking to buy their first homes? No. Developers and the rich.

When protected lands, whether as Natural Heritage, or Agricultural lands, are developed we, the public, all lose.

In addition, in this amendment it states that developers will be responsible for the charges, but in the "
Proposed Planning Act and Development Charges Act, 1997 Changes: Providing Greater Cost Certainty for Municipal Development-related Charges" proposed changes, it states that certain types of development will be exempt from such charges. Therefore, if any of this housing, is "affordable housing" (a "main reason" that the Ontario government is pushing development in this new act), then developers will not be obligated to pay fully for development because they will be exempt from development charges, parkland requirement and community benefit charges. Thus, if what this act amendment says is true and "It is the government’s expectation that the proponents would fully fund necessary infrastructure upfront" then that would mean that these developers are not building affordable housing. Therefore, this act amendment is doing nothing to help support the housing of those who truly need it and cannot afford it under the current system. As such, the changes to the Greenbelt will not meaningfully provide affordable housing, and thus defeats the More Homes Built Faster Act purpose - to provide housing for those who need it.

This act amendment also states "small burden on municipalities to update their official plans". Forcing a municipality to change their official plan is not a small burden. Official plans are made in consultation with municipal staff and the public. Forcing municipality to change already approved plans is extremely costly and diminishes the public's right to comment directly on the plan.

Moreover, taking greenspace away from municipalities, the public (even if its privately owned these land contribute to ecosystem services which benefit the public) and wildlife, yet preserving a chunk of land someone where else, does not meaningfully negate the negative repercussions of development in the direct geographical area (aka the affected municipalities). Making existing areas of green space smaller results in the diminished ability of ecosystems services to provide benefit to human society. Diminishing these benefits will put the burden on the tax payer to fund the public infrastructure needed to replace them.