The stated purpose of the…

The stated purpose of the proposed changes to the Planning Act and Development Charges Act are to help everyone in Ontario "find a home that is right for them" ... "housing that meets their family's needs"

The proposed changes to the Planning Act which restrict the amount and type of parkland will make this impossible. In many municipalities, such as mine, which are experiencing incredibly rapid intensification in the built-up areas, there is already a severe insufficient parkland to comfortably accommodate all the new residents -- and only half the approved units are built! People complain of the congestion, the dog poop, the inability to play informal games and sports that used to happen when there were fewer people living in the urban core. Those formerly big open spaces are now crowded with groups of families sitting around in groups -- sitting because that's all there is room to do!

The increasing trend of developers replacing greenspace around their building or ground level parkland with higher level (often rooftop) recreation space ( Privately Owned Public Space) is very worrying. It severely limits the type of outdoor activities one can do. Sitting and relaxing, yes. Playing frisbee, soccer, throwing sticks with a dog, no. With obesity growing in both children and adults, pretending a rooftop POPS can meet a family's active recreation needs is ridiculous.

You say the goal is to "create greater cost certainty of parkland costs to enable housing developments to proceed more quickly." Increasing the parkland dedication rate, instead of cutting it back, would have also created "greater cost certainty" -- and resulted in more attractive housing, better meeting people's needs.
Why are you short-changing citizens?

You should state the real goal of these proposed Planning Act changes was to "increase the return on investment for developers at the expense of citizens' health and recreation needs."

Please cancel this change.

Or, at the very least, allow municipalities to judge whether it's good planning to restrict parkland. (There could be municipalities with an abundance of pre-existing parkland. One size does NOT fit all.)