To comment, I just read up…

To comment, I just read up on Wasaga Beach. It seems part of the tourism draw is the natural untouched nature of the beach, its birds and other wildlife. Whether tourists are local or from other lands, a well-preserved environment that's open for them to access is important to them. As a result, to maintain the natural surroundings and environmental protections sounds like it will serve all those interested in the area.

Politically, that we're having this discussion about removing protections from an area in Ontario that was created for the people to share, and which folks have come to depend on as a joint recreational and ecological treasure, after Ontarians came out firmly against touching the Greenbelt for housing or otherwise, suggests the government is historically unaware, and not listening, nor are the words of contrition from its leadership to be trusted.

Is give an inch and lose a mile the real principle at work? Folks have spoken out about the danger of Bill 5 because it opens the door to loss of protected lands against the wishes of the people, and their best interest. With this proposal their worst fears are edging closer to reality. If it happens in Wasaga, which provincial park is next?

I'd heard about the piping plover being endangered by the selling of current parklands etc. only to realize that this really comes down to a pattern of behaviour, where the Ford government does not respect existing environmental protections, and stops at nothing to redraw boundaries to suit special commercial interests rather than creatively working within the limitations legally long in place, and serving the widest swath of people.

I am for redevelopment that makes Wasaga more accessible, and development that provides affordable housing for those seeking it in that area; however, environmental protections should not go by the wayside. The people of Ontario should not lose free access to the areas they can currently roam, and which make the province a natural and diverse destination. The very ecosystem that attracts people to the area should be protected.

We should be careful not to end up like Venice and Portugal<https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/sintra-overtourism…;, where locals are now protesting against excess tourism and the way it damages their way of living, and quality of life, including making everything more exclusive and expensive for the people who have long called those places home, and provided the local character others flock to.

To maintain wildlife is a circular system requiring we maintain the environment that supports animal/avian habitats. In so doing, you maintain the draw to the area: the "more to explore" aspect, as the town's motto says.

Where is the wisdom in expanding housing along flood prone land anyway? We should look into the types of housing being proposed and what is required. Perhaps it's possible to increase density where capacity exists away from protected zones. Then it should be possible to shuttle people to beachfront, if necessary. Put preservation of the natural environment first, and retain such treasures for all Ontarians to be able to freely enjoy now and in future.

Thank you!