While the need for housing…

While the need for housing is important, I propose increased density minimums and to maintain current Green Belt limits.

Urban sprawl has always been unsustainable land use. If the government truly cares, or even wants to half way pretend they care about the environment, they cannot promote the continued expansion of urban and suburban communities. At least not geographically. The heart and purpose of a Green Belt is to leave the land- not to convert it even for recreational use, let alone residential. Untouched (or even land returned to local indigenous communities) has inherent worth that would be greatly diminished by residential expansion. Many apartments or condos can be built on existing brownfield land within cities and suburban areas. I might also suggest limitations on Air BNBs or other such confiscation of perfectly good housing.

I would implore you to not encroach upon the Green Belt, this land is meant to be protected. Even if, as the earlier proposal indicates, that the Green Belt is to be expanded, what is currently protected must remain so. If it’s limits can be so moveable, than the Green Belt holds no purpose or value. Than the need to preserve incredibly valuable agricultural and natural land is jeopardized. If it can be encroached upon now, it can be further harmed later.

Preexisting partially developed land can be greatly improved upon and can uplift the communities near them. Complexes and repurposing the buildings companies are partially abandoning due to work-at-home changes are a better use of space than wasteful suburbs.

I live in Newmarket. I know what it is like to grow up in and love a suburb. My dream for it and other suburbs like it is to adopt condos, to adopt green roofs and community gardens. I don’t want it to expand, to diminish what is left of the natural land around it.

The future is dense, and it is built up- not out.