1. What are your thoughts on…

1. What are your thoughts on the proposed core elements to be included in a streamlined province-wide land use planning policy instrument?

Combining Places To Grow with the Provincial Policy Statement is a blatant sham by the Progressive Conservative (Pro Cons) government to put money in the pockets of developers at the expense of the environment, our agricultural system, and taxpayers by shifting the burden from developers to municipalities, and it will eventually erode the public purse into bankruptcy. It’s pretty obvious the Pro Cons are doing this to develop 50,000 single family houses with little interest in getting to 1.5 milion. The math just doesn’t work!

While the current system can definitely be streamlined, the Pro Cons are gutting all the functional and world-renowned systems to the point that they will become ineffective and not worth the paper they’re written on. Instead of focusing on the Greenbelt, they should be focussing on those areas inside the settlement boundaries that are already serviced rather than areas that will take ten years to get serviced. I know this is true because we can’t even find enough skilled labour to build the houses already approved let alone the infrastructure to service them. And 3,500 new apprentices per year as announced by the Labour Minister will not correct the labour shortage.

2. What land use planning policies should the government use to increase the supply of housing and support a diversity of housing types?

Intensification of existing undeveloped land within the Settlement Boundaries and around existing transit hubs. Vancouver did this quite successfully by up-zoning areas to encourage development.

3. How should the government further streamline land use planning policy to increase the supply of housing?

The government has done enough “streamlining” (aka gutting) land use planning policy to increase the supply of housing. The only other thing I can think of is to get rid of the Planning Act entirely and just carte blanche approve all development, regardless of it’s impacts on the environment. Oh, right…. they just finished doing that.

4. What policy concepts from the Provincial Policy Statement and A Place to Grow are helpful for ensuring there is a sufficient supply and mix of housing and should be included in the new policy document?

This is really not about the PPS nor A Place to Grow Act, because both are doing fine on their own. This is simply the Pro Cons spin on how to make more money in their blatant sham.
There’s nothing mentioned in the Review of A Place to Grow and Provincial Policy Statement that isn’t already being done at all levels of government. Yes, there needs to be a focus on streamlining the planning framework, but not at the expense of the policies already in place. Instead, the government should be stepping in to facilitate the process, not stifle it by taking away cost recoveries and the means to provide good planning and growth management.

What the Pro Cons are really doing is creating a smoke screen of confusion in order for them to get their buddies projects approved quickly before everyone realizes the emperor really isn’t wearing any clothes.

5. What policy concepts in the Provincial Policy Statement and A Place to Grow should be streamlined or not included in the new policy document?

Offsetting and changes to the OWES should NOT be Included in the new policy document. Further still, there should not be a new policy document. Blending the two is really just a recipe for disaster, literally. The reason why we have protections in place for the environment is because nature provides the air we breath and the water we drink. The only other thing we need is shelter, and by mixing that with the environment, we are only going to end up with compromised systems that are already stretched to the limit.