I'm submitting a comment to…

ERO number

019-6216

Comment ID

80045

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses

Comment

I'm submitting a comment to the Environmental Registry of Ontario for the first time ever and for what seems like the only action I can take to add my voice to opposition to this proposal. I hope that the majority of Ontarians who are opposed to this can prevent this from going forward. This proposal to swap lands within the Greenbelt is 1) unnecessary, 2) environmentally destructive, and 3) reeks of corruption.

As a matter of principle, we should be seeking only to expand the protections of the Greenbelt. As we stare down the barrel of human-induced climate change and mass extinction, we MUST prioritize conservation ALL, land but especially environmentally sensitive and hydrologically critical areas included in Greenbelt area.

The central tenet of this legislation seems to be that developing in the Greenbelt is needed to the anticipated population growth in this area over the next 20-30 years. While there may issues in providing housing for a larger population, it is estimated that there are 45,000 acres of existing land in the GTHA available for development, enough to support building housing until at least 2031 (Citation 1). Beyond that, efforts should be made to intensify existing residential areas and promote growth in other areas.

Allowing development to encroach on Greenbelt lands will only serve to promote urban sprawl, which has been widely discredited for diminishing some of the most productive agricultural lands, being highly inefficient land use, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and generating more runoff that floods downstream areas and pollutes our rivers and lakes. The type of development being promoted by this act will negatively affect all of us because of these environmental impacts.

My final point to make is that this proposed legislation, in addition to being unnecessary and environmentally destructive, is tainted by comments in public by the premier suggesting that the idea of removing land was provided to him by developers (Citation 2), the same developers later revealed to have purchased said lands at exorbitant interest rates less than a year prior to revealing this proposal. The reporting suggests that inside information was shared and allowed some developers to purchase land at a significant discount to what they will be able to sell for if this proposal is approved. This sounds like fraud and if true would be an appalling abuse of power that enriches an elite few at the expense of everyone else.

Please reconsider moving forward with this proposal. It is the wrong approach to the real problems we face.